14 results, showing 1 to 14
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Goodyear Tyres has co-operated with the ACCC and has withdrawn all material containing the representations.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.
On 3 June 2008, the ACCC accepted a variation to the undertakings given by Toll Holdings Limited (‘Toll’) to the ACCC on 11 March 2006 (‘the Toll undertakings’).
This variation constitutes the seventh variation to the Toll undertakings and relates to Toll’s acquisition of a controlling interest in BALtrans Holdings Limited (‘BALtrans’).
The variation:
exempts Toll from specified obligations in respect of directors of BALtrans or a BALtrans Subsidiary who are not Australian residents; and
imposes additional obligations upon Toll with regard to declarations of independence made by those directors.
The ACCC has accepted court enforceable undertakings from Brimcove Pty Ltd trading as Etherington (Etherington) for breaches of the Horticulture Code of Conduct (Code), a mandatory industry code under the Trade Practices Act 1974.
Etherington:
traded as a merchant without having Code compliant Horticultural Produce Agreements in place with the growers it has traded with; and
traded as a merchant 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).
Ehterington has acknowledged it has contravened the Code and section 51AD of the Act.
Hoover Floorcare Asia Pacific Pty Ltd (Hoover) is a national importer and distributor of Hoover vacuum cleaner products which it supplies to retailers throughout Australia.
Between 2004 and 2007, Hoover made alleged misrepresentations in various mediums about two of its products, by claiming;
the Powerforce H5003 Vacuum cleaner had “2200 watts maximum cleaning power” when the Powerforce was only able to achieve 2,000 watts; and
the Hoover Handivac JVC 2026 hand held vacuum cleaner had a power output of 12 volts or 9 volts when the Handivac contains a 6 volt battery.
Hoover has acknowledged that the represented power outputs were not able to be obtained, and that it has engaged in conduct that was potentially misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive, in contravention of section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA).
The ACCC has accepted undertakings from Hoover pursuant to section 87B of the TPA to address the conduct.
Hoover has undertaken that it will:
only make a representation about the power output of its vacuum cleaners where that representation is correct and can be verified;
include extra attachments if needed to achieve the represented power output or indicate prominently that they are not included;
discontinue distributing publishing material that misrepresents the power output of the two products;
request that retailers display a notice in their stores regarding the conduct;
cause to publish an information notice, once, regarding the conduct in the Weekend Australian newspaper and on the Hoover website; and
establish a compliance program to assist Hoover in preventing future breaches of the TPA.
Godfreys Franchise Systems Pty Ltd (Godfreys) is a franchisor and a retailer of vacuum cleaner and cleaning products with franchised stores throughout Australia and New Zealand.
In 2007, Godfreys promoted a Nilfisk A100 vacuum cleaner (Nilfisk vacuum cleaner) which was new to the Australian market and a model exclusively sold by Godfreys.