Publications by Type
or nowThe Latest In Advertising
WHAT THESE UPDATES COVER | Prepared by Martin Algie
Issue 18 - January 2009
- Advertising "free" stuff catches another
- Coke sued over VitaminWater
- Merino wool blankets not "Australian Made"
- Proud's "Was/Now" pricing in its "Summer of Love" catalogue vindicated
- Massive fine for Zamel's "Was/Now" promotion
- Suit Seller's never ending sale found misleading
- Claims of being the "World's Most Experienced" a problem?
- The ACCC looking for two-price advertising in the bed industry
- Promoting a machine as being in "excellent condition" mere puffery
- Two-price advertising hits again
- What you must do to justify two-price advertising
- ACCC applies for compensation on behalf of consumers
- Clarus Telecom taken to task for its telemarketers
- Biodegradability claims misleading
On 12 November, the Australian Parliament passed the Trade Practices Amendment (Clarity in Pricing) Bill 2008. This will affect the use of component pricing in advertising, such as "$20 a month for 12 months" or "$1,000 plus delivery and GST".
Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, advertisers may continue to use component pricing, but only if they also include in their advertisements (and other promotions) the Single Price for the product.
That Single Price is the total amount a customer would pay to the seller to obtain the product.
- The Single Price must include the price for all components that are quantifiable. A component price is quantifiable if it can be calculated.
- If there are some components the price for which can not be quantified, the Single Price need not include that component, but the advertisement must make it clear that the customer will have to pay the Single Price and the cost of this component (otherwise the advertisement would be misleading and deceptive).
- A component is not unquantifiable if it simply varies from place to place or transaction to transaction. In these cases, the advertiser must include in the Single Price the minimum cost of that component and promote the Single Price using language such as "from $1,500.00".
- The Single Price does not need to include - and should not include - the price of any optional product features or additional goods or services the consumer may choose, but must include all amounts a costumer must pay in order to obtain the goods or services. For example, if customer must pay be credit card, the compulsory surcharge must be included in the Single Price.
- Where the customer must pay delivery, delivery charges may be included in the Single Price, but need not be. If they are not included in the Single Price, the delivery charge must be featured in the advertisement separately.
- If the cost of delivery varies, the advertiser must feature the minimum amount payable for delivery. To avoid being misleading and deceptive though, the advertisement must clearly state that this is the minimum, stating something like "delivery from $35 in metro areas".
- Stating the minimum delivery charge or the minimum price of the product (where the Single Price includes the cost of components that cannot be quantified) does not prevent the seller negotiating a lower price with the customer. Negotiating a lower price will not breach the TPA.
The Single Price must be featured as prominently as any component is featured in the advertisement or promotion.
These changes do not apply to purely business to business transactions.
Issue 15 - September 2008- Are green claims becoming too difficult?
- Calamari packaging featuring calamari misleading
- Promotional competitions misleading if hidden costs are not adequately disclosed
- Admitting misleading conduct may be the best policy
- You can be prosecuted for mixing up your products
- Claiming a product is "free" may be misleading even where you charge nothing for it!
- False strike-through price advertising catches Zamel's
- Can you advertise a brand new product as "half price"?
- What story can you use to justify a sale?
- Responsibility for outsourced telemarketers
- Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix DVD pricing campaign misleading
- Urban Rhythm Furniture hit by two-price labelling issues
- More unsubstantiated environmental claims
- Can you rely on "Conditions Apply" disclaimers?
- Cynical two price advertising is hit by the ACCC
- ACCC and Consumer Affairs co-operation
- Rug ad misleading - how surprising!
- 100% Juice means ALL JUICE
- Exercise caution when using supplier-provided promotional material
- Are you suggesting your product is natural?
- Sponsored links on the internet can be misleading
- ACCC appeal Proud decision on "Was/Now" pricing
- Arnott's fined for picturing fruit on product packaging
- Green marketing under attack
- "Conditions Apply" ineffective
- Important developments in "Was/Now" pricing
- Fruit bars contain insufficient fruit
- Near enough on price claims is not good enough
- Promoting "unlimited" calls creates ACCC problems
- "Free" and "$0" claims again wrong
- Repeated puffery may get you into trouble
- Crazy John's prosecuted for offering "free" phones
- Saab "Grrrrrreen" claims questioned
- The ACCC's push on environmental claims continues
- A false rationale for pricing increasing may be misleading
- Promoting compliance with Australian Standards should not be taken lightly
- Netti Atom fined $110,000 for price advertising
- False country of origin claim avoids prosecution
- "Was/Now" offer to be highlighted in upcoming case
- Green claims lack detail
- End of the cancer cure story
- Blitz on green advertising
- iSelect hits an ACCC wall
- Audi in trouble for promoting the RRP on its SUV
- Truth in political advertising
- Arnott's prosecuted over product contents claims
- Web advertising crackdown
- When storewide discounts are illegal
- Watch your headings in catalogues
- Relying on a manufacturer's claims can put resellers at risk
- Is it safe to rely on your long-term supplier for your advertising material?
- B33hive changes its advertising on Lowball reverse auction SMS product
- Incorrectly labelling product "organic" spells end to family business
- The claim - everywhere you need it - means absolutely everywhere
- Claims of product weight misleading by exception
- Disclaimers may be effective in some cases
- Another word on puffery - guidelines to live by
- Criminal prosecution for misleading cancer cures
- ACCC prosecutes telemarketing operation
- When not advertising price may be illegal
- "We exchange but sorry no refunds" is illegal
- Craft the advertisement for the media it is to appear in
- When are you safe with exaggeration in advertising?
- Jeweller's "was/now" pricing result
- Unfair price comparison with competitors
- Products imported in bulk and repackaged for sale are not "Made in Australia"
- United Airlines must use all-inclusive price advertising
- Relying on Unproven Science can be misleading
- Standard real estate hype not misleading
- "Was/Now" advertising still the hot ticket for the ACCC
- What does an ad imply, and what can you be held liable for?
- Reconstituting reconstituted juice in Australia does not make it "Australian Made"
- Failing to disclose critical aspects of a product misleading
- Promoting an improvement may be misleading, even if it exists!
- Referencing research in advertisements - the claims must match the research
- Using materials provided by a supplier in advertising
