Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2020] FCAFC 130 Appeal from: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 1677
File number: VID 1212 of 2019
Judges: WIGNEY, O'BRYAN AND JACKSON JJ
Date of judgment: 30 July 2020
Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW – prohibitions against misleading or deceptive conduct and false or misleading representations – prepaid telecommunications services – whether statements made on website and brochure conveyed misleading representation concerning refund of prepayment – applicable legal principles – whether it is necessary to show that a "not insignificant number" of persons must be misled or deceived – appeal dismissed
Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Schedule 2 (Australian Consumer Law) ss 18, 29(1)(b), 29(1)(g), 29(1)(i)
Cases cited: .au Domain Administration v Domain Names Australia Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 424; 207 ALR 521 10th Cantanae Pty Ltd v Shoshana Pty Ltd (1987) 79 ALR 299 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 634; 317 ALR 73 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Dukemaster Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 682 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Get Qualified Australia Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No 2) [2017] FCA 709 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 640 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Valve Corp (No 3) [2016] FCA 196; 337 ALR 647 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v National Exchange Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 955; 202 ALR 24 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Westpac Banking Corporation (No 2)(2018) 266 FCR 147 Bodum v DKSH Australia Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 98; 280 ALR 639 Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 592 Campbell v Backoffice Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 238 CLR 304 Campomar Sociedad, Limitada v Nike International Limited (2000) 202 CLR 45 Comite Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne v Powell [2015] FCA 1110; 330 ALR 67 Flexopack SA Plastics Industry v Flexopack Australia Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 235; 118 IPR 239 Global One Mobile Entertainment Pty Ltd v ACCC [2012] FCAFC 134 Global Sportsman Pty Ltd v Mirror Newspapers Pty Ltd (1984) 2 FCR 82 Google Inc v ACCC (2013) 249 CLR 435 Hansen Beverage Company v Bickfords (Australia) Pty Ltd (2008) 171 FCR 579 Hornsby Building Information Centre Pty Ltd v Sydney Building Information Centre Ltd (1978) 140 CLR 216 National Exchange Pty Ltd v Australian Securities and Investment Commission [2004] FCAFC 90; 49 ACSR 369 Noone (Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria) v Operation Smile (Australia) Inc (2012) 38 VR 569 Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 191 Taco Co of Australia Inc v Taco Bell Pty Ltd (1982) 42 ALR 177 Valve Corp v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2017) 258 FCR 190 Weitmann v Katies Ltd (1977) 29 FLR 336 World Series Cricket v Parish (1977) 16 ALR 181
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate