Dulux to pay $400,000 for misleading cooling paint claims

The Federal Court has ordered DuluxGroup (Australia) Pty Ltd (Dulux) to pay penalties totalling $400,000 for making false or misleading representations about the temperature reducing characteristics of two paint products, in proceedings brought by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

From June 2009 until September 2012, Dulux promoted its heat-reflective roof paint, InfraCOOL, as a paint that could reduce the interior temperature of the living zones of a house by up to 10 degrees.

ACCC reviewing sharing economy policies as part of international sweep

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is assessing the review policies of sharing economy platforms as part of an international initiative targeting online reviews and endorsements.

This review is part of the International Consumer Protection and Enforcement Network (ICPEN)’s annual internet sweep, involving over 50 consumer protection agencies around the world. This year the focus of the sweep is ‘Online Reviews and Endorsements’ and the ACCC will be focusing on the way in which reviews operate in the sharing economy.

Charles Tyrwhitt pays penalty for an alleged false or misleading ‘was/now’ pricing representation

London-based clothing manufacturer and retailer Charles Tyrwhitt LLP (Charles Tyrwhitt) has paid a $10,800 penalty after being issued with an infringement notice by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, following an investigation into the company’s ‘was/now’ pricing practices.

Charles Tyrwhitt advertises men’s and women’s shirts and other business clothing and accessories extensively to Australian consumers online and in catalogue and printed newspaper/magazine inserts distributed within Australia.

Chemmart agrees to improve its promotion of “myDNA” tests

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has accepted an administrative undertaking on behalf of Chemmart in relation to representations regarding the effectiveness of a myDNA genetic test in identifying an individual’s response to certain drugs.

The ACCC was concerned that statements in Chemmart’s catalogues, television infomercials, in-store brochures and other promotional materials about the myDNA test risked conveying a false or misleading impression regarding the usefulness of the genetic test, and the consumers for whom it may be appropriate.

ACCC takes action against the Joystick company for alleged misleading e-cigarette “no toxic chemicals” claims

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has commenced proceedings in the Federal Court against The Joystick Company Pty Ltd (Joystick), an online e-cigarette retailer, for alleged false or misleading representations that its products did not contain any toxins or formaldehyde, were “independent from” chemicals found in conventional cigarettes, and had been approved by the ACCC.

Unilever and Smith's pay penalties for misleading healthy food representations

Unilever Australia Limited (Unilever) and The Smith’s Snackfood Company Pty Ltd (Smith’s) have each paid a penalty of $10,800 following the issue of infringement notices by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for misleading healthy food representations.

The ACCC had reasonable grounds to believe both companies made false or misleading representation on the packaging of popular products they supply that the products had been approved or were suitable as healthy options for school canteens.