1448 results, showing 261 to 280
The ACCC has accepted a section 87B Undertaking from Angela Delgiacco in respect of false or misleading representations made to consumers during the sale of an Indigenous artwork.
Angela Delgiacco admits that she contravened sections 18 and 29(I)(a) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 by, in relation to the painting titled 'Women's Hairstring Ceremony' (the Artwork), attributing:
a title to the Artwork which was commonly attributed to paintings by Makinti Napanangka rather than a title given to the Artwork by Makinti Napanangka; and
a date to the Artwork without knowledge of when the Artwork was painted.
Nissan Motor Co (Australia) Pty Ltd is a seller and distributor of motor vehicles and spare parts, and uses television and print advertising to promote its vehicles in Australia.
In response to an ACCC investigation into the publication of an advertisement for the Nissan DUALIS vehicle, Nissan admitted that it:
- engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive or was likely to mislead or deceive in contravention of section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL); and
On 22 November 2012, the ACCC announced it had accepted undertakings from Nestlé S.A, Nestlé Australia Pty Ltd and Duke Holdco Pty Ltd (together, Nestlé) (Nestlé Undertaking) and Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd (Pfizer Undertaking) in relation to Nestlé S.A’s proposed acquisition of Pfizer Nutrition (the Proposed Acquisition).
On 22 November 2012, the ACCC announced it had accepted undertakings from Nestlé S.A, Nestlé Australia Pty Ltd and Duke Holdco Pty Ltd (together, Nestlé) (Nestlé Undertaking) and Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd (Pfizer Undertaking) in relation to Nestlé S.A’s proposed acquisition of Pfizer Nutrition (the Proposed Acquisition).
Chemical Formulators Pty Ltd ("Chemform") is a manufacturer and supplier of commercial cleaning products in Australia.
In response to an ACCC investigation, Chemform admitted that it was likely to have engaged in Resale Price Maintenance in contravention of section 48 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 by:
entering into agreements with distributors, a term of which prevented distributors from discounting the price of Chemform products below the price specified by Chemform;
providing distributors with price lists containing 'reseller' prices for Chemform products, which when read in conjunction with a term of the agreements with distributors was a statement of a price that was likely to be understood by distributors as the price below which Chemform products were not to be sold;
inducing or attempting to induce a distributor not to sell Chemform products below the price specified by Chemform; and
withholding supply from a distributor who was likely to sell Chemform products at a price less than the price specified by Chemform.
To address the ACCC's concerns, Chemform provided the ACCC with a court-enforceable undertaking that it will:
not engage in resale price maintenance conduct in the future;
revise its distributor agreement to ensure that it does not contain a clause preventing distributors from discounting the price of Chemform products below the price specified by Chemform;
send a copy of the revised distributor agreement to distributors and advise them that they are free to set the minimum price at which they sell Chemform products; and
implement a Competition and Consumer Law Compliance Program.
The ACCC has accepted a section 87B undertaking from CNT Corp Pty Ltd (CNT Corp) following an investigation relating to breaches of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) contained in Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
Valiant Enterprises Pty Ltd is a distributor of baby products based in Melbourne, with a distribution network across Australia of between 100-150 retail stores, including online retailers.
The ACCC has consented to the withdrawal of the section 87B undertaking from Australia Post, accepted by the ACCC on 8 April 1998.
The ACCC has accepted a section 87B Undertaking from G & R Wills Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 097 284 083 in respect of the supply of baby walkers, and the offer to supply of two models of strollers, which did not comply with the relevant mandatory product safety standards as outlined below.
The HAB-0017 Baby Walker
G & R Wills supplied 1,307 model HAB-0017 Baby Walkers to 93 remote Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory
The Baby Walkers did not have a braking mechanism to prevent them falling down stairs and did not have the required warning labels, and would therefore fail to meet the relevant product safety standard, specifically:
the Baby Walkers did not have a braking mechanism to prevent them from moving if one or more of the wheels came off a horizontal plane; and
the Baby Walkers did not have the required warning labels.
The strollers
G & R Wills supplied or offered to supply the Cellular Baby Stroller and the Fashion Children’s Trolley Stroller (the Strollers) to remote Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory
The Strollers did not display the mandatory general warning label and the Strollers’ harnesses displayed an incorrect warning label.
G & R Wills Holdings Pty Ltd admitted that the above conduct contravened sections 106(1) and (2) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
The ACCC was particularly concerned about this conduct as G & R Wills continued to supply the Baby Walkers after the date on which they were first made aware of potential non compliance with the safety standards.
To address the ACCC's concerns G & R Wills Holdings Pty Ltd provided the ACCC with a court-enforceable undertaking which also requires G & R Wills Holdings Pty Ltd to undergo trade practices law compliance training.
The ACCC has accepted a section 87B undertaking from Equipserve Solutions Pty Ltd (Equipserve) in respect of a representation made to its customers in July 2012 which attributed the entire amount of an increase in the price of R404A refrigerant gas to the carbon price when that was not the case.
Equipserve acknowledged the ACCC concerns regarding the representation and admits in making the representation Equipserve contravened the false and misleading conduct provision of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), contained in Schedule 2 to the Act, namely sections 18 and 29(1)(i).
To address the ACCC's concerns Quipserve has provided the ACCC with a court-enforceable undertaking which requires it to:
not engage in similar conduct in future;
issue corrective notices to customers on its website; and
implement a trade practices compliance program
The ACCC has accepted a section 87B from Retail Food Group Limited, owner of Brumby’s Bakeries Pty Ltd (Brumby’s), in respect of the following statement made by the Brumby’s managing director on 8 June 2012 in a newsletter distributed to approximately 250 Brumby’s franchisees:
“...
On 27 June 2012 the ACCC accepted variations to the section 87B undertaking given by Video Ezy Australasia Pty Ltd to the ACCC on 18 September 2007 (undertaking).
Broadly, the variations extend the timeframe over which the next audit report and compliance review report in respect of Video Ezy's compliance with the undertaking are required to be provided.
On 11 December 2012 the ACCC accepted a variation to section 878 from Mr Thomas William Minett, Director, TWM lmports Pty Ltd, previously accepted on 26 May 2012.
The variation corrected factual and typographical errors in the original undertaking.
The ACCC has accepted a section 87B undertaking from TWM Imports Pty Ltd (TWM) following an investigation relating to breaches of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL, in Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
On 9 April 2012, the ACCC accepted a court enforceable undertaking pursuant to section 87B of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (the Act) (the Undertaking) from FOXTEL Management Pty Limited (FOXTEL) in relation to its proposed acquisition of AUSTAR United Communications Limited (AUSTAR) (the Proposed Acquisition).
The ACCC considered that in the absence of the Undertaking, the Proposed Acquisition would have the effect or be likely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition in the national market for the retail supply of subscription television services and a number of regional markets for the supply of fixed broadband and fixed telephony products.
The ACCC has accepted undertakings under section 87B from Noonkanbah Enterprise Management Company Pty Ltd (NEMCO), the operator of the Yungngora Community Store at Noonkanbah station in the Kimberley region of Western Australia. The ACCC had concerns that NEMCO engaged in false and misleading conduct in contravention of sections 18, 29(1)(a) and 29(1)(i) of the Australian Consumer Law (contained in Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010), by:
selling some products well beyond "best before" dates; and
displaying shelf prices that were lower than the actual purchase prices.
The ACCC has accepted a section 87B undertaking from Telstra Corporation Limited and NBN Co Limited (the parties) in relation to proposed variations pursuant to the substantial adverse events clause in the commercial arrangements between the parties (the Definitive Agreements).
The ACCC has accepted a section 87B Undertaking from Edwards Essences Pty Ltd ACN 137 624 241 in respect of resale price maintenance conduct contravening section 48 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
In response to an ACCC investigation, Edwards acknowledged that it had made known to a distributor that it should not sell goods supplied to it by Edwards at a price less than the recommended retail price specified by Edwards.
Paul Maloney Fashion Agency Pty Ltd is a sales agent that represents designers of fashion handbags, among other goods. In April 2011 Paul Maloney Fashion Agency attempted to induce an on-line reseller not to sell handbags below the recommended retail prices specified by the handbag designer.
Paul Maloney Fashion Agency has acknowledged that its conduct in:
- making it known to a client that it may not advertise for sale or sell goods for a price less than a price specified by Paul Maloney, or the designer of the goods;
- attempting to induce a client not to advertise for sale or sell goods for a price less than a price specified by Paul Maloney, or the designer of the goods;
-using a statement of price that is likely to be understood by a client to be a statement of a specified price below which goods are not to be advertised or sold, and
- making it known to agents and suppliers of other designers of fashion goods that resellers are offering for sale goods from those designers at prices less than recommended retail price and advising those agents and suppliers to induce, or attempt to induce, resellers not to advertise or to sell goods from those designers at a price less than the specified price;
was likely to contravene section 48 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (the CCA).
Paul Maloney Fashion Agency has provided the ACCC with an undertaking under section 87B of the CCA that it will not engage in the conduct; write to its clients to alert them to the undertaking and to implement a CCA compliance program.
No results found
No results found