In March 2001 the ACCC received a complaint that existing cinema operators had entered into arrangements or understandings to oppose market entry and/or expansion by other cinema operators.
It was alleged that Greater Union Organisation Ltd and Village Roadshow Ltd entered into arrangements or understandings to take joint action to prevent competition in the cinema exhibition market in contravention of the Act.
Following discussions between Greater Union and the ACCC, and without admitting that any of its conduct constituted a contravention of the Act, Greater Union agreed to give undertakings which are intended to reduce the risk of collaboration with other cinema exhibitors to jointly oppose entry into and/or expansion within cinema exhibition markets.
As part of the undertakings, Greater Union has agreed to keep the ACCC informed of significant developments in the industry which may be of interest to the ACCC.
The ACCC has agreed to accept these undertakings as part of the conclusion to its inquiries.
Village Roadshow Limited
s. 45. Alleged anti-competitive agreements
In March 2001 the ACCC received a complaint that existing cinema operators had entered into arrangements or understandings to oppose market entry and/or expansion by other cinema operators.
It was alleged that Greater Union Organisation Ltd and Village Roadshow Ltd entered into arrangements or understandings to take joint action to prevent competition in the cinema exhibition market in contravention of the Act.
Following discussions between Village and the ACCC, and without admitting that any of its conduct constituted a contravention of the Act, Village agreed to give undertakings which are intended to reduce the risk of collaboration with other cinema exhibitors to jointly oppose entry into and/or expansion within cinema exhibition markets.
Two directors have each agreed to give undertakings on their own behalf to bolster the undertakings given by Village.
As part of the undertakings, Village has agreed to keep the ACCC informed of significant developments in the industry which may be of interest to the ACCC.
The ACCC has agreed to accept these undertakings as part of the conclusion to its inquiries.
Bristile Operations Pty Ltd
s. 45(2). Alleged price fixing
On 27 June 2003 the ACCC instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against Bristile alleging price fixing arrangement in relation to bricks.
On 31 May 2004 the court found by consent that Bristile had contravened section 45(2) of the Trade Practices Act by making an arrangement—or arriving at an understanding—in about October or November 2001 with Midland Brick Company Pty Ltd that contained a provision that Bristile and Midland fix, control or maintain prices for clay brick products supplied by Bristile and Midland to trade and major builders.
On 9 June 2004 Bristile entered into undertakings to develop and implement an internal trade practices compliance program which is to remain in force for three years.
Optus Mobile Pty Ltd
ss. 52, 56(1) and 56(2). Alleged misleading and deceptive conduct, bait advertising
In May 2003 Optus Mobile advertised a Nokia 7250 camera phone on a $55 per month plan in a national advertising campaign which included using television, newspapers, in-store promotion, the internet and store brochures. Optus Mobile advertised the offer was available for all of May 2003. The ACCC's investigation showed that Optus Mobile did not have sufficient stock to meet customer demand for the 7250 handset during the entire promotion.
Optus has given court enforceable undertakings that it will:
refund those customers who paid more for the phone in the month after the promotion ended
re-offer the handset for the same price on a cheaper monthly plan for an additional month
implement a 'raincheck' policy for all post paid Optus Mobile promotions in the future
run a corrective advertising campaign on television, in newspapers, in store and on the Optus website
refrain from advertising handsets when there are reasonable grounds for believing it will not be able to meet reasonable demand
create a Handset Supply Panel to review its handset supply processes
strengthen its trade practices compliance program.
Tyco Australia Pty Ltd, trading as ADT Security
ss. 52 and 58. Alleged misleading and deceptive conduct and accepting payment without intending to supply
In a letter dated 28 May 2003 the ACCC informed ADT that it was concerned the security firm had made false or misleading representations to customers in contravention of section 54 of the Trade Practices Act by allegedly receiving payment from customers for the provision of an annual maintenance service, but not supplying this purchased service.
In response to the ACCC initial inquiry, ADT conducted a detailed review and reconciliation of its residential customer contracts and processes for the provision of maintenance services in New South Wales, ACT, Queensland and Victoria. This review disclosed a number of issues which affected the integrity of the ADT customer database and consequently the delivery of maintenance services.
On 23 June 2004 ADT entered into undertakings with the ACCC to:
contact and provide compensation to affected customers
continue its existing trade practices compliance program for a further five years and have it audited annually for the next three years
implement an Australian Standard 4269-1995 compliant complaints handling system.
