81 results, showing 1 to 20
On the 14 December 2011 the ACCC has accepted a variation to section 87B undertaking from Mr John Apostolidis, Director, Yarrabee Investments Pty Ltd, previously accepted on 19 November 2009 (Undertaking).
As a result of significant changes in the operations of its business and other relevant factors, Yarrabee Investments seek the following variation to the Undertaking:
The deletion of clause 14; and
The deletion of Annexure B.
A copy of those documents can be viewed on the ACCC's website.
This undertaking has been withdrawn and replaced by the 5 November 2015 undertaking given by SeaLink Travel Group Limited, Transit Systems Pty Ltd and Big Red Cat Pty Ltdhttp://registers.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1190674.
The ACCC has accepted a section 87B undertaking from Lenan Corporation Pty Ltd ACN 054 854 027, in respect of misleading or deceptive conduct in representations made to consumers that its 'Organix Ever Straight Brazilian Keratin Therapy' range of products did not contain any formaldehyde, sodium or sulphates when that was not the case.
Lenan admits that in making the representations the conduct is likely to have contravened the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA) by:
- engaging in conduct that was misleading or deceptive in contravention of section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), contained in Schedule 2 to the CCA; and
- making false or misleading representations concerning the composition of a product in contravention of section 29(1)(a) of the ACL.
On 9 November 2011, the ACCC consented to a variation to the section 87B Undertaking given by Invocare Limited (Invocare) and Bledisloe Group Holdings Pty Ltd (Bledisloe) on 8 June 2011.
The ACCC has accepted a Section 87B Undertaking from True Value Solar Pty Ltd (TVS) following an investigation relating to breaches of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), comprising Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
The ACCC has accepted a section 87B undertaking from Citymove Pty Ltd (Citymove) following an investigation relating to breaches of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and the Australian Consumer Law, comprising Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
Citymove admits that it contravened section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and sections 18, 29(1)(e) and 29(1)(f) of the Australian Consumer Law by causing the construction of a website at www.movingreview.com.au and:
making representations on that website which purported to be testimonials prepared by genuine consumers when they were not; and
making a representation that the testimonials appearing on that website were prepared by genuine consumers when they were not.
The ACCC was particularly concerned about this conduct because testimonials are powerful representations which may inflate consumers' confidence regarding a particular product or service and influence their purchases and choices.
To address the ACCC's concerns, Citymove Pty Ltd has provided the ACCC with a court-enforceable undertaking which requires Citymove to:
refrain from making false or misleading representations that purport to be testimonials and false or misleading representations concerning testimonials by any person; and
establish and implement a trade practice compliance program, which includes director training and a complaints handling system.
Citymove has also paid one infringement notice penalty to the ACCC in the amount of $6,600.
The ACCC has accepted an undertaking from Advanced Lifestyle International Retail Pty Ltd (ALI) in respect of false or misleading representations it made to consumers during in-home sales presentations.
Between at least 15 January 2010 and 14 October 2010 ALI and its salespeople made various representations to consumers during in-home sales presentations for its massage wands, cushions, chairs and beds.
ALI acknowledges that these representations were false, misleading or deceptive for the following reasons:
when approaching consumers by telephone or in shopping centres ALI obtained invitations to consumers homes by telling them that ALI was offering a 'free therapy treatment' or a 'free massage', when the true purpose of ALI visiting a consumer's home was for salespeople to try and sell ALI products;
by representing that ALI or ALI's products were approved, sponsored or affiliated with the 'Government', when this is not true;
by representing that the price of an ALI product was less than the price that consumers ultimately had to pay for the product; and
by representing that consumers did not have the right to cancel their contract for the purchase of an ALI product within a 10-day cooling-off period, when this was not true.
No results found
No results found