Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
REA Group Limited v Fairfax Media Limited [2017] FCA 91 File number: VID 144 of 2016
Judge: MURPHY J
Date of judgment: 13 February 2017
Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW – misleading or deceptive conduct – whether advertising claims in advertisements conveyed false or misleading representations or constituted misleading or deceptive conduct – the knowledge to be imputed to the target audience – whether the alleged representations were conveyed – whether the claims were mere puffery which did not convey a definite representation upon which the target audience would rely – whether qualifying information in a footnote was sufficiently prominent to ameliorate a false primary message
Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)
Cases cited: .au Domain Administration Ltd v Domain Names Australia Pty Ltd (2004) 207 ALR 521; [2004] FCA 424 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd (2014) 317 ALR 73; [2014] FCA 634 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Dukemaster Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 682 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1177 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v SMS Global Pty Ltd [2011] ATPR 42-364; [2011] FCA 855 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Telstra Corporation Ltd (2004) 208 ALR 459; [2004] FCA 987 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Telstra Corporation Limited (2007) 244 ALR 470; [2007] FCA 1904 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1254 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 640; [2013] HCA 54 Byers v Dorotea Pty Ltd (1986) 69 ALR 715; (1987) ATPR 40-760 Campomar Sociedad Limitada v Nike International Ltd (2000) 202 CLR 45; [2000] HCA 12 Collier Constructions Pty Ltd v Foskett Pty Ltd (1990) 19 IPR 44 Country Road Clothing Pty Ltd v Najee Nominees Pty Ltd (1991) 20 IPR 419; [1991] FCA 119 Duracell Australia Pty Ltd v Union Carbide Australia Ltd (1988) ATPR 40-918 Eveready Australia Pty Ltd v Gillette Australia Pty Ltd (No 4) [1999] FCA 1824 Finucane v New South Wales Egg Corporation (1988) 80 ALR 486 Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2013) 249 CLR 435; [2013] HCA 1 Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia Ltd v Switzerland Australia Health Fund Pty Ltd (1987) 78 ALR 483; [1987] FCA 395 Hoover (Australia) Pty Ltd v Email Ltd (1991) 104 ALR 369; [1991] FCA 646 Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 191; [1982] HCA 44 Singtel Optus Pty Ltd v Telstra Corp Ltd [2004] FCA 859 Stuart Alexander & Co (Interstate) Pty Ltd v Blenders Pty Ltd (1981) 37 ALR 161; [1981] FCA 169 Taco Co of Australia Inc v Taco Bell Pty Ltd (1982) 42 ALR 177; [1982] FCA 170 Telstra Corporation Ltd v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd (2014) 316 ALR 590; [2014] FCA 568 Tobacco Institute of Australia Ltd v Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Inc (1992) 38 FCR 1; [1992] FCA 962 Unilever Australia Ltd v Goodman Fielder Consumer Foods Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1305
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