Cartel (enduring priority)

jurisdiction

Federal Court Melbourne

Misuse of market power (2019 priority)

jurisdiction

Federal Court Melbourne

Cartel (enduring priority)

jurisdiction

Federal Court Sydney

Non-compliance and other proceedings

Inciting the obstruction of a Commonwealth official in the performance of their functions

Jurisdiction

NSW Local Court

Cartel (enduring priority)

outcome

ACCC appeal dismissed

Cartel (enduring priority)

outcome

Convicted of criminal cartel conduct and ordered to pay a fine of $34.5 million

Anti-competitive conduct (enduring priority)

outcome

ACCC case dismissed

Cartel (enduring priority)

jurisdiction

Downing Centre Local Court Sydney

Cartel (enduring priority)

jurisdiction

ACT Magistrates Court

Cartel (enduring priority)

jurisdiction

Downing Centre Local Court Sydney

Cartel (enduring priority)

jurisdiction

Magistrates’ Court of Victoria

Cartel (enduring priority)

jurisdiction

Downing Centre Local Court Sydney

Anti-competitive conduct (enduring priority)

jurisdiction

Federal Court Sydney

Cartel (enduring priority)

jurisdiction

Federal Court Sydney

Cartel (enduring priority)

jurisdiction

Melbourne Magistrates’ Court

Anti-competitive conduct (acquisition)

jurisdiction

High Court of Australia

Misleading or deceptive conduct, false or misleading representations

Broadband services (2018 priority)

jurisdiction

Federal Court Melbourne

Misleading or deceptive conduct, false or misleading representations

Digital platforms, algorithms and consumer data (2018 priority)

jurisdiction

Federal Court Sydney

Misleading or deceptive conduct

Digital platforms, algorithms and consumer data (2018 priority)

jurisdiction

Federal Court Sydney

False or misleading representations, unconscionable conduct

New car retailing (2017 priority)

jurisdiction

Federal Court Melbourne

False or misleading representations

Priority factor—conduct of significant public interest or concern

jurisdiction

Federal Court Melbourne

Misleading or deceptive conduct, false or misleading representations

Priority factor—national conduct by large trader

jurisdiction

Federal Court Sydney

False or misleading representations

Consumer guarantees involving large or national traders (2018 priority)

jurisdiction

Federal Court Melbourne

Unsolicited consumer agreements Broadband services (2018 priority)

jurisdiction

Federal Court Melbourne

Misleading or deceptive conduct

Priority factor—conduct of significant public interest or concern

jurisdiction

Full Court of the Federal Court

Misleading or deceptive conduct

Priority factor—conduct of significant public interest or concern

jurisdiction

Full Court of the Federal Court Melbourne

Unfair contract terms

Vulnerable and disadvantaged consumers (enduring priority)

outcome

Standard contract terms in three standard form consumer contracts are void after being declared unfair contract terms (UCTs). Court ordered Ashley & Martin to refund money paid by consumers as a result of these UCTs.

False or misleading representations

Vulnerable and disadvantaged consumers (enduring priority)

outcome

Penalties of $6 million

Bupa also ordered, by consent, to compensate all affected current and past residents within 12 months.

False or misleading representations, systematic unconscionable conduct

Vulnerable and disadvantaged consumers (enduring priority)

outcome

Penalties of $26.5 million and repayment of $56 million to the Commonwealth

Excess surcharging (2017 priority)

outcome

Penalties of $350 000

False or misleading representations, unconscionable conduct, failure to act in good faith

Industry codes (2015 priority)

outcome

Penalties of $4.2 million, including penalties of $1.045 million against director Ms Sanam Ali and $656 0000 against franchising manager Mr Charles Cameron.

Ms Ali and Mr Cameron were ordered to pay $1 million as partial redress to affected franchisees.

Ms Ali was disqualified from managing corporations in Australia for five years and Mr Cameron for four years.

False or misleading representations

Consumer issues in the health and medical sector (2016 priority)

outcome

Penalties of $4.5 million ($1.5 million against GSK and $3 million against Novartis)

False or misleading representations

Priority factor—conduct of significant public interest or concern

outcome

ACCC appeal dismissed

False or misleading representations

Priority factor—conduct of significant public interest or concern

outcome

Penalties of $160 000

Unfair contract terms Industry codes (2017 priority)

outcome

Penalties of $240 000 and declaration that certain terms in standard form contracts are UCTs and therefore void

False or misleading representations

Priority factor—conduct of significant public interest or concern

outcome

Penalties of $6.4 million

False or misleading representations, unconscionable conduct

Vulnerable and disadvantaged consumers (enduring priority)

outcome

Penalties of $500 000

False or misleading representations

Priority factor—conduct of significant public interest or concern

outcome

Penalties of $3.5 million

Misleading or deceptive conduct

Priority factor—conduct of significant public interest or concern

outcome

Penalties of $14 million

False or misleading representations, failure to act in good faith

Industry codes (2015 priority)

outcome

Confirmed franchisor obligations, but reduced penalties from $2.6 million to $2 million

False or misleading representations, unconscionable conduct, unsolicited consumer agreements

Vulnerable and disadvantaged consumers (enduring priority)

outcome

Penalties of $4.165 million

Misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct

Vulnerable and disadvantaged consumers (enduring priority)

jurisdiction

Federal Court Sydney

Misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct

Priority factor—conduct that results in substantial consumer or small business detriment

jurisdiction

Federal Court Sydney

Misleading or deceptive conduct

Energy services (2018 priority)

jurisdiction

Federal Court Melbourne

False or misleading representations, unconscionable conduct

Consumer guarantees (2016 priority)

jurisdiction

Federal Court Melbourne

Misleading or deceptive conduct

Franchising Code (2018 priority)

jurisdiction

Federal Court Melbourne

Misleading or deceptive conduct

Priority factor—conduct demonstrating a blatant disregard for the law

jurisdiction

Federal Court Melbourne

Misleading or deceptive conduct, false or misleading representations, unconscionable conduct

Vulnerable and disadvantaged consumers (enduring priority)

jurisdiction

Federal Court Melbourne

False or misleading representations, unconscionable conduct

Vulnerable and disadvantaged consumers (enduring priority)

jurisdiction

Federal Court Sydney

Unconscionable conduct

Vulnerable and disadvantaged consumers (enduring priority)

jurisdiction

Federal Court Sydney

Misleading or deceptive conduct

Priority factor—conduct of significant public interest or concern

The Federal Court handed down judgment imposing penalties of $700 000 against Quantum and $50 000 against sole director Cheryl Howe, and ordering that she be banned from managing a corporation for three years, after finding that Quantum made false or misleading representations.

The ACCC has since filed an appeal against an aspect of the Federal Court’s judgment, being the decision that Quantum did not engage in unconscionable conduct.

Misleading or deceptive conduct

Priority factor—where action is likely to have an educative or deterrent effect

jurisdiction

Federal Court Perth

Misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct, unfair contract terms

Priority factor—conduct of significant public interest or concern

jurisdiction

Federal Court Perth

False or misleading representations

Priority factor—conduct resulting in substantial consumer or small business detriment

The Federal Court previously handed down judgment on liability, finding that Trivago engaged in almost

all of the conduct alleged. On 4 May 2020 Trivago appealed the liability judgment. The appeal is being heard in 2020–21.

Misleading or deceptive conduct, false or misleading representations

Priority factor—conduct resulting in substantial consumer or small business detriment

jurisdiction

Federal Court Sydney

False or misleading representations

Truth in advertising (2015 priority)

The Federal Court previously ordered a pecuniary penalty of $125 million against Volkswagen AG. On 11 February 2020, Volkswagen AG appealed the penalty judgment. The appeal will be heard in 2020–21.

False or misleading claims about the NBN broadband speeds their customers could typically achieve during busy evening hours.

jurisdiction

Federal Court Melbourne

jurisdiction

Federal Court Adelaide

Obligations to submit accurate generator availability information to the market operator under the National Electricity Rules

jurisdiction

Federal Court Adelaide

Obligation of regulated entities to submit information and data about their performance and activities in the retail energy market to the AER in accordance with the National Energy Retail Law

jurisdiction

Federal Court Melbourne

Obligations to maintain and implement a customer hardship policy and offer and apply payment plans under the National Energy Retail Law and the National Energy Retail Rules

jurisdiction

Federal Court Melbourne

Obligation to register premises as requiring life support equipment and related obligations under the National Energy Retail Rules

jurisdiction

Federal Court Melbourne