258 results, showing 121 to 140
Lincraft Australia Pty Ltd (Lincraft) offered for sale children's bath robes which did not comply with the Children's Nightwear Standard (the standard).
The bath robes were supplied to Lincraft by Cotton Dreams Pty Ltd (Cotton Dreams).
Tests carried out by the Australian Wool Testing Authority indicated that the bath robes did not meet the surface burning requirements or qualify for any one of the four fire hazard categories applicable under the Standard.
Consequently the bath robes should not have been sold.
Further, the bath robes also failed to meet the labelling requirements in respect of numerical sizing and labelling requirements for the placement of the fire hazard warning label.
Lincraft acknowledged that by supplying the bath robes which failed the standard it had engaged in conduct likely to be in contravention of the Act.
When contacted by the ACCC Lincraft and Cotton Dreams undertook corrective action by withdrawing the bath robes from sale, conducting a voluntary recall of the bath robes and placing recall notices in daily newspapers in each state and territory where the bath robes were sold.
Additionally, Lincraft has provided court enforceable undertakings to the ACCC that it will refrain from supplying children's nightwear products that do not comply with the Standard and provide a report to the ACCC detailing the number of bath robes it destroyed and the number of bath robes returned by it to Cotton Dreams for destruction.
Lincraft will also commission an external review of its existing Trade Practices Compliance Program and report to the ACCC the findings of the report and implement a trade practices compliance program which reflects any reasonable and appropriate recommendation made in the report.
Cotton Dreams Pty Ltd (Cottons Dreams) imported, distributed and supplied children's bath robes to Lincraft Australia Pty Ltd (Lincraft) and through its own clearance store in Sydney which did not comply with the Children's Nightwear Standard (the standard).
Tests carried out by the Australian Wool Testing Authority indicated that the bath robes did not meet the surface burning requirements or qualify for any one of the four fire hazard categories applicable under the Standard.
Consequently the bath robes should not have been sold.
Further, the bath robes also failed to meet the labelling requirements in respect of numerical sizing and labelling requirement for the placement of the fire hazard warning label.
Cotton Dreams acknowledged that by supplying the bath robes which failed the standard it had engaged in conduct likely to be in contravention of the Act.
When contacted by the ACCC Cotton Dreams and Lincraft undertook corrective action by withdrawing the bath robes from sale, conducting a voluntary recall of the bath robes and placing recall notices in daily newspapers in each state and territory where the bath robes were sold.
Additionally, Cotton Dreams has provided court enforceable undertakings to the ACCC that
it will refrain from supplying children's nightwear products that do not comply with the Standard
it will destroy all of the bath robes and provide the ACCC with a Certificate of Destruction and;
it will establish and implement a Trade Practices Compliance Program.
Goodyear Tyres Pty Ltd (Goodyear Tyres) is an importer, manufacturer and distributor of tyres.
During 2007 and 2008, Goodyear Tyres made a number of representations regarding the environmental benefits of its new Eagle LS2000 range of tyres, to the effect that:
the Eagle LS2000 is a revolutionary environmentally-friendly tyre;
the Eagle LS2000 is designed for minimal environmental impact;
the production process for the Eagle LS2000 results in reduced carbon dioxide emissions;
the Eagle LS2000 aims to have a major environmental impact by reducing carbon dioxide emissions during its production process; and
Goodyear’s BioTRED technology, as used in the Eagle LS2000, increases the life of the Eagle LS2000, improves fuel economy and reduces the impact on the environment.
The ACCC was concerned that by making the representations, Goodyear Tyres was misleading consumers about the environmental benefits of the Eagle LS2000 tyre in breach of sections 52 and 53(c) of the Trade Practices Act 1974.
Goodyear Tyres has acknowledged the environmental benefits claimed could not be substantiated.
Goodyear Tyres has co-operated with the ACCC and has withdrawn all material containing the representations. The ACCC has accepted a court enforceable undertaking from Goodyear Tyres that it will:
refrain from making the representations in relation to the Eagle LS2000 tyre;
at its own expense, cause a corrective notice to be published in a major metropolitan newspaper in each capital city, on its Australian website, and in each Goodyear Autocare Centre;
provide a partial refund to customers who purchased the Eagle LS2000 tyre between 1 February 2007 and 31 March 2008 and who relied on the unsubstantiated representations; and
implement a Trade Practice Compliance Program.
Gotalk Ltd, owner of Gotalk Communications Pty Ltd, an Australian telecommunications carrier, admits that telemarketers operating on its behalf were likely to have engaged in conduct between 2004 and November 2007 which, in the view of the ACCC, misled and harassed consumers.
Gotalk has undertaken to compensate any consumers who transferred their services to it as a result of the conduct and suffered loss as a result of that transfer.
It will write to all of its current customers who were obtained through telemarketing, and advertise in a number of newspapers to reach former customers. It will also display a copy of the advertisement on its website, www.gotalk.com.au.
As part of Gotalk’s normal terms and conditions, customers obtained through telemarketing are able to terminate their contracts without penalty.
Examples of the misrepresentations that were made to consumers include:
they were being contacted on behalf of their current telecommunications carrier;
Gotalk Communications was an owner, subsidiary, agent or reseller of their current carrier;
they were required to change their carrier to Gotalk Communications;
incorrect statements as to the price and/or effect of the terms and conditions of Gotalk Communications' services; and
changing to Gotalk Communications would not compromise any benefit for bundling multiple services with one carrier.
The telemarketers also contacted some consumers with great frequency, despite the consumers making it known that they did not wish to acquire the services nor receive further calls from Gotalk Communications, and continued to contact some consumers until they agreed to change their carrier to Gotalk Communications.
Gotalk admits that, if proven, these incidents would constitute contraventions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 for which it would be liable.
Gotalk has terminated its contracts with the telemarketing companies involved in the conduct, and has undertaken to monitor carefully the behaviour of any telemarketers it uses in future.
It will implement a compliance program which will include training in TPA matters for all staff involved in customer contact, protection for whistleblowers, and a complaints handling program that meets the Australian Standard.
It will keep complete recordings of all calls that result in a transfer to Gotalk, and record an equal number of conversations per month which do not result in a transfer. Gotalk staff will audit a significant number of randomly selected calls and report their findings to Gotalk’s General Counsel.
All relevant documents will be made available to the ACCC on request.
As part of the settlement of proceedings NSD 314 of 2009 ACCC v Cardcall Pty Limited gotalk Limited provided a Variation to the s87B Undertaking given by it on 18 June 2008.
Undertaking to be extended by 12 months, Cardcall to undertaking live monitoring of calls to its call centre number 1300 663 570 number.
Cardcall to provide a report each month to the Chief Executive of gotalk on conduct of call centre operators in terms of compliance with Part V of the Act, accuracy and clarity of product information provided to consumers and action taken on complaints received.
Advertising templates to be reviewed by legal practitioner and any material changes proposed to receive advice on compliance of advertising material with the TPA.
Training of staff involved in preparation of Cardcall advertising material to impart specific awareness of the TPA and the orders made by the Federal Court on 22 May 2009.
On 10 June 2008, the ACCC accepted the undertaking of Kamthon Wangudom, a director of Toll Holdings Ltd ('Toll') and/or its related bodies corporate.
Under the undertaking, Kamthon Wangudom agrees to sell down any interest he has in Asciano Limited and thereafter maintain his independence from Asciano.
In addition, Kamthon Wangudom must immediately resign from all positions within Toll, and take no further part in the company if he ceases to meet the requisite standards of independence.
The undertaking is associated with the fifth variation, accepted by the ACCC on 18 April 2007, to the undertaking given by Toll to the ACCC on 11 March 2006.
The fifth variation relates to Toll's restructure of its group businesses by way of scheme of arrangement to create a new listed entity and trust, Asciano.
The ACCC's decision to consent to the fifth variation is given effect through the following documents:
a variation to Toll's undertakings
a new undertaking from Asciano Ltd, and
new undertakings from the directors of Toll and Asciano.
A copy of those documents can be viewed on the ACCC's website.
On 10 June 2008, the ACCC accepted the undertaking of Iain Kinnear, a director of Toll Holdings Ltd ('Toll') and/or its related bodies corporate.
Under the undertaking, Iain Kinnear agrees to sell down any interest he has in Asciano Limited and thereafter maintain his independence from Asciano.
In addition, Iain Kinnear must immediately resign from all positions within Toll, and take no further part in the company if he ceases to meet the requisite standards of independence.
The undertaking is associated with the fifth variation, accepted by the ACCC on 18 April 2007, to the undertaking given by Toll to the ACCC on 11 March 2006.
The fifth variation relates to Toll's restructure of its group businesses by way of scheme of arrangement to create a new listed entity and trust, Asciano.
The ACCC's decision to consent to the fifth variation is given effect through the following documents:
a variation to Toll's undertakings;
a new undertaking from Asciano Ltd; and
new undertakings from the directors of Toll and Asciano.
A copy of those documents can be viewed on the ACCC's website.
On 10 June 2008, the ACCC accepted the undertaking of Vincent Heng Wee Phang, a director of Toll Holdings Ltd ('Toll') and/or its related bodies corporate.
Under the undertaking, Vincent Heng Wee Phang agrees to sell down any interest he has in Asciano Limited and thereafter maintain his independence from Asciano.
In addition, Vincent Heng Wee Phang must immediately resign from all positions within Toll, and take no further part in the company if he ceases to meet the requisite standards of independence.
The undertaking is associated with the fifth variation, accepted by the ACCC on 18 April 2007, to the undertaking given by Toll to the ACCC on 11 March 2006.
The fifth variation relates to Toll's restructure of its group businesses by way of scheme of arrangement to create a new listed entity and trust, Asciano.
The ACCC's decision to consent to the fifth variation is given effect through the following documents:
a variation to Toll's undertakings;
a new undertaking from Asciano Ltd; and
new undertakings from the directors of Toll and Asciano.
A copy of those documents can be viewed on the ACCC's website.
The ACCC has accepted court enforceable undertakings from Scamonte Ventures Pty Ltd trading as Scalzi Produce WA (Scalzi Produce) for breaches of the Horticulture Code of Conduct (Code), a mandatory industry code under the Trade Practices Act 1974.
Scalzi Produce:
traded as an agent without having Code compliant Horticultural Produce Agreements in place with the growers it has traded with; and
traded as an agent without preparing, publishing or making publicly available a document that complied with the Code which sets out the general terms and conditions under which they would trade with growers of horticultural produce (terms of trade).
Scalzi Produce has acknowledged it has contravened the Code and section 51AD of the Act.
On 3 June 2008, the ACCC accepted the undertaking of Toll Holdings Ltd (‘Toll’).
Under the undertaking, Toll agrees that Mr Nolan Fernandez will be employed by Toll IPEC as a major account manager and will not, during the term of the Toll undertakings (originally accepted on 11 March 2006), be transferred or promoted to any other position within Toll IPEC, Toll or its related bodies corporate without the ACCC's prior written approval.
The undertaking relates to the ACCC’s approval of Toll’s employment of Mr Fernandez, pursuant to clause 2.9(f) of the undertaking given by Toll to the ACCC on 11 March 2006, as varied on 18 April 2007.
Toll’s undertaking dated 11 March 2006 and the variation to that undertaking which was accepted by the ACCC on 18 April 2007, being the fifth variation to that undertaking, can be viewed on the ACCC’s website.
On 3 June 2008, the ACCC accepted the undertaking of Mr Nolan Fernandez.
Under the undertaking, Mr Fernandez agrees that he will not deploy in favour of Toll IPEC, Toll or its related bodies corporate any confidential information obtained by Mr Fernandez during the course of his employment with Pacific National Limited.
The undertaking relates to the ACCC’s approval of Toll’s employment of Mr Fernandez, pursuant to clause 2.9(f) of the undertaking given by Toll to the ACCC on 11 March 2006, as varied on 18 April 2007.
Toll’s undertaking dated 11 March 2006 and the variation to that undertaking which was accepted by the ACCC on 18 April 2007, being the fifth variation to that undertaking, can be viewed on the ACCC’s website.