On 14 December 2005 the ACCC consented to QNF withdrawing an undertaking given to the ACCC on 1 March 2001.
On 29 November 2005 QNF had requested consent to withdraw the undertaking on the bases that:
there was no sunset clause in the original undertaking
it had been more than four years since the undertaking came into effect
in that time QNF had fulfilled the terms of the undertaking and had not engaged in conduct contrary to the Trade Practices Act.
Super Cheap Auto Pty Ltd
s. 65C. Mandatory product safety standards
On 15 December 2005 the ACCC accepted a variation to an undertaking given by Super Cheap Auto Pty Ltd on 16 February 2005. The variation relates to the annual batch testing by Super Cheap Auto Pty Ltd of their trolley jacks, as agreed to in their undertaking dated 16 February 2005. The variation enables Super Cheap Auto Pty Ltd to use the services of a non-NATA (National Association of Testing Authorities) accredited agency, provided that the test is still performed in accordance with the standard.
Dannon Pty Ltd
ss. 52, 53(a), 55. Misleading or deceptive conduct, misrepresentations about standard, quality, value, grade, or composition of goods
On 15 December 2005 Dannon Pty Ltd gave an undertaking to the ACCC for the Ceres fruit juice range that:
it will not in the future create an overall impression that a juice product contains 100 per cent of a particular juice when that is not the case
nor will it represent a fruit juice to be a 100 per cent product when vitamin C has been added
it will publish corrective notices and implement a trade practices compliance program.
The ACCC was concerned that illustrations and representations on the packaging of many of the Ceres range of juices created the overall impression that the products contained 100 per cent of one kind of fruit juice, when they actually contained a number of different juices. Similarly, the ACCC was concerned that the products were labelled as '100% fruit juice' when the addition of vitamin C meant this was not the case.
GardenWay Nurseries (QLD) Pty Ltd
ss. 52, 53(e). Misleading or deceptive conduct, false or misleading representation about the price of goods
On 21 December 2005 GardenWay Nurseries provided court enforceable undertakings to the ACCC that it will:
engage in comparison price advertising in future only if the price compared to, for a product, is the price at which that product was available for a reasonable period and when reasonable quantities of the product have been recently sold to customers
advertise that the price of its products is a ‘liquidation price’ only when the product is being sold in a genuine liquidation at a genuine liquidation price
advertise that its products are ‘new’ only when the product advertised is a genuinely new product line that has not been stocked and offered for sale by GardenWay for a reasonable period of time previously
publish a notice on its website for a period of eight weeks, explaining the ACCC’s concerns to customers and outlining that the directors of GardenWay will undertake education and training in relation to Part V of the Trade Practices Act.
GardenWay Nurseries (Qld) Pty Ltd advertised its products in newspapers and on its website, throughout 2004 and into early 2005, by making price comparisons between a ‘sale’ or ‘liquidation’ price for its products and a ‘previous’ or ‘original’ price for the products.
The ACCC was concerned that GardenWay engaged in comparison price advertising for products that had not been sold by it at the ‘previous’ or ‘original’ price recently, or for a reasonable period previously or in reasonable quantities to justify making the price comparisons to the public.
The ACCC was also concerned that GardenWay made claims that the advertised price for its products was a ‘liquidation price only’ when it had not previously sold the product at any other price, and that GardenWay advertised that some of its products were ‘new’ when the products were not new because they had been stocked for a considerable period previously.
The Hoyts Corporation Ltd, The Greater Union Organisation Pty Ltd
s. 87B(2). Withdrawal of an 87B undertaking
On 22 December 2005 an undertaking offered by The Greater Union Organisation Pty Ltd (Greater Union) and The Hoyts Corporation Pty Limited (Hoyts) for the joint operation of cinema complexes in the Brisbane CBD at the Regent and Myer Centres was withdrawn. On 7 December 2005 the ACCC announced its view of transactions between Greater Union and Hoyts providing for the unwinding of certain joint operations including the operations at the Myer and Regent complexes. As a result of Hoyts' exit from these complexes, the undertaking addressing competition issues identified by the ACCC in 2001 is no longer necessary.
Repco Limited
ss. 52, 56. Misleading or deceptive conduct, bait advertising
On 22 December 2005 Repco Limited gave the ACCC an s. 87B undertaking that included:
maintaining and continuing to implement a trade practices compliance program for three years and reviewing that program and reporting to the ACCC every 18 months on those reviews
placing a public disclosure notice in store acknowledging insufficient stock was held by it during the sale and apologising for any inconvenience to persons who responded to Repco's advertisements who were unable to buy the advertised stock
publishing an article in the Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association magazine focusing on the lessons learnt by Repco as a result of the concerns raised by the ACCC
providing alternative stock or a $100 Repco gift voucher to those consumers who made written complaints to either the ACCC or to Repco before the undertaking and who have not otherwise received compensation from Repco.
In September 2005 Repco Limited advertised a '$1 Million Sizzling Sound Sellout' by circulating 3.9 million catalogues to consumers' letterboxes.
The sale was advertised as starting on 8 September 2005 and concluding on 25 September 2005. Five of the products advertised in the catalogue were advertised at a discount between 66% and 92% off their original pre-sale price. Four of these items were advertised on the front page of the catalogue.
Over one-third of Repco's 290 stores Australia-wide did not have any of the five products available for sale during any part of the sale period. Of those stores that did hold stock, most did not have any stock available to customers after the first day of the sale.
TriMas Corporation Pty Ltd
s. 65C. Product safety standards and unsafe goods
On 11 January 2006 TriMas Corporation Pty Ltd offered an undertaking to the ACCC to establish and implement a trade practices compliance program.
TriMas also withdrew from sale tarp straps that did not contain the mandatory warning label as required by the Trade Practices (Consumer Product Safety Standards) Amendment Regulations 2004 (No. 1) dated 1 December 2000, and which had been supplied through its division, Cequent.
