Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Optus Mobile Pty Limited [2019] FCA 106 File number: VID 1346 of 2018
Judge: MURPHY J
Date of judgment: 12 February 2019
Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW – false and misleading representation in contravention of s 12DB(1)(b) of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001 (Cth) – where respondent did not adequately inform customers that they were automatically opted in to direct billing for third party content – where some customers unintentionally purchased third party content without knowledge or consent – where Optus applied charges to customer accounts despite awareness of this issue – principles relevant to appropriate penalty – appropriateness of agreed declaration and order for $10 million pecuniary penalty Legislation: Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) Cases cited: Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2017) 254 FCR 68; [2017] FCAFC 113 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd (2015) 327 ALR 540; [2015] FCA 330 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1405 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Leahy Petroleum (No 2) (2005) 215 ALR 281; [2005] FCA 254 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd (2005) ATPR 42-070; [2005] FCA 683 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Optus Internet Pty Limited [2018] FCA 777 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd (2016) 340 ALR 25; [2016] FCAFC 181 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1177 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v SMS Global Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 855 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Telstra Corp Ltd (2018) ATPR 42-593; [2018] FCA 571 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 640; [2013] HCA 54 Commonwealth v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate (2015) 258 CLR 482; [2015] HCA 46 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Cahill (2010) 269 ALR 1; [2010] FCAFC 39 J McPhee & Son (Aust) Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2000] FCA 365 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (1996) 71 FCR 285 R v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256; [2016] HCA 48 Singtel Optus Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2012) 287 ALR 249; [2012] FCAFC 20 Telstra Corporation Limited v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd [2014] VSC 35 Trade Practices Commission v CSR Ltd (1991) ATPR 41-076
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