EPHARMACY GROUP PTY LIMITED (Epharmacy)
In November 2015 Epharmacy, the owner of the websites for Chemist Warehouse, My Chemist, and Epharmacy paid penalties totaling $32,400 following the issue of three infringement notices by the ACCC.
The ACCC issued the infringement notices to Epharmacy because it had reasonable grounds to believe that Epharmacy made false or misleading representations that consumers would save money off the recommended retail price (RRP) for certain Healthy Care branded products purchased through the Chemist Warehouse, My Chemist or Epharmacy websites when this was not the case.
The Healthy Care range of natural health products is a private label brand that is supplied exclusively to pharmacies trading under the Chemist Warehouse, My Chemist and Epharmacy banners, forming part of the My Chemist Group.
The ACCC considered that by displaying statements on its website next to images of certain Healthy Care products including, ‘Don’t Pay RRP $39.99’ and ‘Save $18.00’ that Epharmacy represented to consumers that by purchasing these products from the My Chemist, Epharmacy or Chemist Warehouse websites they would save the specified amount off the RRP. The products had never been offered for sale at the RRP by those or any other retailers. Epharmacy removed the alleged misrepresentations after becoming aware of the ACCC’s concerns.
ARNOTT’S BISCUITS LTD (Arnott’s)
In November 2015 Arnott’s paid penalties totalling $51,000 following the issue of five infringement notices by the ACCC relating to representations made by Arnott’s about its Shapes Light & Crispy product. The ACCC issued the infringement notices to Arnott’s because it had reasonable grounds to believe that Arnott’s made a false or misleading representation about the composition of Shapes Light & Crispy in breach of the ACL.
Arnott’s represented on the packs of four varieties of Shapes Light & Crispy and a multipack between October 2014 and July 2015 that Shapes Light & Crispy contained “75 percent less saturated fat” than Arnott’s’ original Shapes biscuits. However the product contained approximately 60 percent less saturated fat than original Shapes, and in making the ‘75 percent less saturated fat’ representation, Arnott’s was actually comparing its Shapes Light & Crispy product to potato chips cooked in 100 percent palm oil. This was included in a fine print disclaimer at the bottom of the packs. However, even if potato chips had been an appropriate comparison for the saturated fat content of Shapes Light & Crispy, the ACCC notes that since only around 20 percent of potato chips sold in Australia are cooked in palm oil, the representation may still have been misleading.
Arnott’s has provided a court enforceable undertaking to the ACCC that it will not engage in similar conduct for a period of three years. Details are provided on page 33. Arnott’s will also publish a corrective notice on its website and in the nationally published Foodmagazine.
KAILIS BROS PTY LTD (Kailis Bros)
In December 2015 Kailis Bros paid a penalty of $10,800, following the issue of an infringement notice by the ACCC. The ACCC issued the infringement notice because it had reasonable grounds to believe that Kailis Bros had engaged in conduct likely to mislead the public about the manufacturing process used to produce its frozen ‘Just Caught Prawn Meat’ in contravention of the ACL.
The packaging of the Kailis Bros’ Prawns contained:
a prominent image of the Australian flag as the backdrop on the front and back of the packet
a map of Australia in the bottom right hand corner on the front of the packet with the words ‘Australian Caught Raw Prawns’ printed in a circle around the map, and
the words ‘Australian Caught - Raw - Deveined - Tail Off - Prawn Meat’ on the packet.
The ACCC considered that this represented to consumers that the prawns were caught, processed and packaged in Australia, when this was not the case. The prawns were packed and processed in Thailand. This was included in fine print on the back of the packaging. The prawns were primarily supplied nationally through Woolworths supermarkets.
OPTUS INTERNET PTY LTD (Optus Internet)
In December 2015 Optus Internet paid penalties totalling $51,000 following the issue of five infringement notices by the ACCC.
The ACCC issued the infringement notices because it had reasonable grounds to believe that Optus Internet had made false or misleading representations in relation to the data transfer rates (or ‘speeds’) offered on its existing cable broadband plans.
Between January 2015 and August 2015 Optus used the term ‘NBN-like speeds’ in advertising both its cable broadband service and particular cable broadband plans. The representations were made on websites, billboards and shopping centre posters, as well as in catalogues and flyers.
The ACCC was concerned that Optus’ use of the term ‘NBN-like speeds’ represented that the advertised cable broadband plans provided speeds comparable to the speeds available on the National Broadband Network (NBN) plans, when that was not the case for the plans Optus advertised.
The cable broadband plans advertised by Optus only offered download/upload speeds of 30/2 megabits per second (Mbps) for the advertised price. A wider range of broadband plans are available on the NBN, including plans that offer faster download/upload speeds of 50/20 and 100/40 Mbps. For an additional price not disclosed in the relevant advertisements, consumers could acquire from Optus a faster cable broadband plan that offered download/upload speeds of 100/2 Mbps. However, the upload speeds available on this plan were not equivalent to the faster upload speeds available on NBN plans.
ATHENA SOLUTIONS PTY LTD trading as Froothie Australia (Froothie)
In December 2015 Froothie paid a penalty of $10,800 following the issue of an infringement notice by the ACCC. Froothie supplies Optimum branded domestic and commercial kitchen appliances such as blenders and juicers on the Froothie website.
The ACCC issued the infringement notice because it had reasonable grounds to believe that Froothie made a false or misleading representation that consumers would obtain a saving if they purchased the Optimum 9400 blender, when this was not the case.
Froothie was unable to show that the Optimum 9400 blender had been offered for sale or sold at the strike through price of $691.00 prior to the representation being made on the website. The ACCC believed that Froothie had falsely represented that a consumer who purchased the Optimum 9400 blender would obtain a discount of $112.00, being the difference between the strike through price and the “Promo Price”. In fact the Optimum 9400 blender had not been offered for sale at the strike through price on the Froothie website for a reasonable period, if at all, prior to that representation being made.
| 
