Commonwealth logo and the ACCC logo
spacer

ACCC cracks down on fine print advertising

"The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is cracking down on advertisements that use fine print to qualify the message", ACCC Chairman, Professor Allan Fels, warned today.

"For example, this week beginning tonight Target is required to broadcast advertisements on 88 television stations and many major newspapers throughout Australia explaining to consumers how its advertisements breached the Trade Practices Act by using fine print which misled consumers."

"This is the first time the Federal Court has ordered a business to broadcast corrective advertisements on television for a breach of the misleading and deceptive conduct provisions of the Trade Practices Act" said Professor Fels. "Previously the ACCC has obtained corrective television advertisements in a product safety matter involving Hungry Jack's*.

"The Commission is concerned about the misleading nature of fine print in advertising in catalogues, print media, point of sale material and television", said Professor Fels. "Consumers can easily be misled by big bold promises that don't adequately reveal important qualifications. In such cases, consumers will be unfairly enticed into the shop, potentially not getting what they expected or costing them money and time.

"The obligation on Target to broadcast a national television corrective advertisement on television and publish notices in newspapers across metropolitan, regional and rural Australia follows a Perth Federal Court order." In his order Justice Malcolm Lee declared a number of Target newspaper and television advertisements, which appeared nationally last year, were false, misleading and deceptive. The orders were made with Target's consent following ACCC court action. Target has also chosen to apologise to consumers for the campaign.

The ACCC is currently taking similar action against Medibank Private Limited, Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited, and Quality Bakers Australia Limited (Buttercup). The ACCC has also obtained court orders against Goldy Motors Pty Ltd and has resolved matters administratively involving American Express and Pocket Money Ltd**.

"In taking action the Commission seeks accurate advertisements, so that they provide consumers with useful and reliable information and therefore enhance competition. "Advertisements that use fine print to qualify the message, will be subject to greater scrutiny and action by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission," ACCC Chairman Professor Allan Fels announced today.

"If consumers come across advertisements, which they regard as seriously misleading or likely to mislead by use of qualifying statements or fine print, they can lodge complaints with the ACCC by calling 1300 302 502 between 8.30am - 6.00pm (Eastern Standard Time)", Professor Fels said.

Target's advertising stated in large print that substantial percentage price reductions applied to a broad category of goods. But the advertisements also used small print to exclude several items from the discount. Target now accepts that the use of fine print exclusions failed to correct the overall impression and failed to adequately inform consumers that restrictions applied.

For example, Target advertised 25 to 40 per cent off "every stitch of clothing" but, in small print, excluded underwear, socks, hosiery and other items it classified as accessories. In similar style television advertisements, Target also advertised 15 to 40 per cent off housewares and again used small print to exclude manchester (eg: towels, sheets, pillow cases) from the sale. Related newspaper advertisements failed to include any reference to the exclusion applying to manchester goods.

At the time, Target had in place a 'raincheck' policy***. This policy promised to notify in advertisements when rainchecks were not available on specific items. Contrary to this policy Target's television advertisements failed to advise consumers that rainchecks were not available for the discount sales.

Justice Lee also:

  • issued injunctions restraining Target from advertising in the same way for four years (Target is at risk of contempt of court should it breach the injunction)
  • ordered Target to review its trade practices compliance program

  • ordered Target to pay ACCC costs of $65,000

Professor Fels noted that Target, in its newspaper notices, will unreservedly withdraw its allegations, made in a media release of 6 September 2000, that the ACCC had adopted a 'sue now talk later' approach in commencing its legal proceedings against Target and any suggestion that the legal proceedings were inappropriate. The ACCC first warned Target about 6 weeks before taking legal action about its concerns in this matter.

Legal proceedings were finally instituted on 5 September 2000 when the discussions could not achieve a substantive resolution. Professor Fels acknowledged that since the Federal Court case against Target was launched last year, Coles Myer has cooperated in addressing ACCC concerns about use of fine print and qualifications in advertising by other companies in the Coles Myer Group.

It will also work with the ACCC to ensure that there is a broad improvement in the standard of advertising dealing with fine print and qualifying statements for the ultimate benefit of consumers. "Through its 'Advertising and Selling' Guidelines for industry, the Commission has warned for many years of the need to exercise great care in advertising if businesses use qualifying statements or fine print", said Professor Allan Fels.

"The Guidelines were prepared in consultation with Federation of Australian Broadcasters (FARB), Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA), Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations (FACTS), Australian Publishers Bureau (APB).

"Despite widespread promotion of the guidelines through the advertising industry, the level of attention to these important matters is not adequate. Sometimes advertisers are tempted to use fine print to avoid giving a qualified main message. This is unfair to competitors who advertise lawfully, costing them business.

"If a business needs to qualify its advertisements it must make sure that the qualifying statements are clear and prominent so that consumers know what the real offer is. This is especially important on television where an advertisement may only run for 15 seconds. In that time consumers simply don't have time to focus on the detail of offers especially where the qualifying statements are screened briefly and appear in fine print.

Also, the 'voice-over' should clearly state any qualifications."

Media inquiries

  • Ms Lin Enright, Media, (02) 6243 1108 or 0414 613 520

Release # MR 157/01
Issued: 9th July 2001

Background

*This case was in 1996 when the Commission took legal action against Hungry Jack's Pty Ltd dealing with a promotion accompanied by a nation wide advertising campaign of selling sunglasses from Hungry Jack's restaurants.

The sunglasses were not suitable for driving but did not carry any label to that effect as required by the relevant Australian Standard. Justice Carr of the Federal Court found that at the heart of that matter was a question of Public Safety and that television advertising was a far more effective means of targeting customers of Hungry Jack's than any other media.

The court ordered in that case that the corrective television advertisements should focus on the warning that the sunglasses are not suitable for driving. Refer ACCC v Hungry Jack's Pty Ltd [1996] ATPR 41-538

**Details of action taken recently by the ACCC in various matters involving fine print and qualification issues.

Current Matters

Medibank Private Limited

On 26 October 2000, the Commission instituted proceedings against Medibank Private alleging false, misleading and deceptive advertising of its health insurance products in relation to 2 advertising campaigns. One of these involves fine print issues, with an offer to consumers who switched from another fund that 'any waiting periods [are] waived' and 'get 30 days' free if you change to Medibank Private'.

However, it is alleged the advertisements failed to adequately disclose that only some waiting periods would be waived. This was only indicated in very small print at the bottom of the ads. It is further alleged that the advertisements failed to adequately disclose that conditions applied to the offer of 30 days' free health insurance. Again a mention that 'conditions apply' appeared in fine print at the bottom of the ads.

The Federal Court has considered initial submissions in this matter but a date has yet to be set for determination of the substantive issues.

Medical Benefit Funds of Australia Limited (MBF)

In another case, instituted in February 2001, against Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited, the Commission is alleging, amongst other things, that MBF's print and television advertisements contained pregnancy related images in an endeavour to entice consumers to transfer and/or join MBF private health insurance.

Both advertisements contained fine print disclaimers that the 12 month waiting period for pregnancy related services for medical and hospital expenses incurred thereafter would not be waived. It is alleged that in both instances the disclaimers about waiting periods were inadequate and unlikely to come to the attention of consumers.

The ACCC alleges MBF's conduct was a breach of the Trade Practices Act. John Bevins Pty Ltd, the advertising agency involved in formulating MBF's campaign, has been joined in this action. The ACCC alleges the agency was knowingly concerned in the contraventions. Medical Benefit Fund and John Bevins are defending the case, which is currently undergoing interlocutory processes in the Federal Court, Sydney.

Quality Bakers Australia Limited (Buttercup Bread)

In May 2001 the ACCC instituted proceedings against Quality Bakers Australia Limited (Buttercup) in relation to its promotion 'Help Buttercup to Help Our Babies'. Buttercup's advertisements stated that 30 cents would be donated to the Canberra Hospital 'for each additional Buttercup product* purchased' between certain dates.

However the fine print qualification stated that the donation would apply only to products sold over and above the average sales for a defined period. Following ACCC intervention Buttercup honoured its promotion by giving a donation to the Canberra Hospital, but the matter remains before the Court for final resolution.

Recently Completed Matters

Goldy Motors

In December 2000 the Commission was successful in its proceedings against Goldy Motors, a Perth car dealership, in relation to misleading newspaper advertisements for new vehicles. The matter involved a number of issues, but included the use of a very small qualifier, 'T.A.P.' ('to approved purchasers'), which appeared in the advertisement below the statement 'No Finance Application Refused!'.

The Federal Court ordered that Goldy Motors publish corrective advertising, compensate affected consumers, and not engage in similar conduct in future.

American Express

In November 2000 American Express agreed to write to 1,285 affected customers (and any subsequently affected customers) clarifying its offer of a no annual fee credit card, following ACCC action on an offer for the American Express Blue Card. The offer, mailed to 281,500 customers, stated that 'no annual fee' would be applicable, however conditions in the fine print stated that the fee could in fact be charged by American Express.

As part of the agreement with the ACCC, American Express also implemented an audit of its trade practices compliance program to help ensure future compliance.

Pocket Money Limited (PML)

The Commission accepted court-enforceable undertakings from PML in September 2000, following an investigation relating to fine print issues in advertisements for PML's telephone cards. The advertisements listed telephone call rates as a per minute charge, and offered $5 worth of free calls, but important conditions which qualified the offer were either omitted or relegated to the fine print.

These included an additional per minute surcharge applicable to the calls, a call connection fee, and conditions requiring callers to purchase a minimum amount of calls to qualify for the free offer.

*** A 'raincheck' is a promise to supply consumers with goods that are currently out of stock. As soon as new stock arrives, the raincheck ensures that the consumer can buy the original goods (or a comparable product) at the originally advertised price even if the promotion has finished.


Contact us | Site map | Definition of terms | New on site | Help | Privacy | Disclaimer & copyright | Accessibility | Website feedback | Other languages

© Commonwealth of Australia 2012