FRANCIS
1 Briefly describe the nature of TPG’s advertising which ACCC considered to be defective [3 marks]
9 If you were employed in the marketing section of an internet service provider or a fitness centre which was about to launch an advertising campaign promoting an attractive “plan” for membership in which there were several “parts” (costs and benefits) to be taken into account by potential customers, what advice would you give about the form of the advertising, based on your understanding of the High Court’s ruling in ACCC v TPG? [3 marks]
MARIA
2 What statutory provisions did ACCC allege that TPG’s advertising contravened [2 marks]
9 If you were employed in the marketing section of an internet service provider or a fitness centre which was about to launch an advertising campaign promoting an attractive “plan” for membership in which there were several “parts” (costs and benefits) to be taken into account by potential customers, what advice would you give about the form of the advertising, based on your understanding of the High Court’s ruling in ACCC v TPG? [3 marks]
ROGERIO - 11500955
3 What were the findings (conclusions) of the primary judge about the following aspects of the advertising [3 marks total] bundling the set up fee single price
8 Is an intention to mislead essential for advertising to be misleading? [1 mark]
ANSWER
3 – The primary judge on his Honour concluded that the advertisement’s dominant message was unclear and bound to lead an ordinary consumer to a mistaken assumption that the entire cost of the service is $29.99 per month only. Furthermore, to correct the misleading impression of the advertisement the bundling condition information should be clear [18][19][20][21][23].
In relation to the setup fee, was accepted that broadband contracts under 24 months commonly charge extra fees for installation. Nevertheless, the advertisement had to provide clear information regarding additional cost for installation fee, what was not provided in the initial advertisements. However, the primary judge found that during the revised campaign TPG made clear in all advertisements, except the revised radio advertisement, that a setup fee was needed and consequently consumers would be aware of it [26][27].
The single price of $509.89 was not provided in the initial television, newspaper and internet advertisements and any complaint was made by ACCC regarding the revised advertisements [28].

8 – No. A misleading advertisement can be made with honest intention. The reason for it is because the effect of the conduct is more important than its purpose.

MICHELLE
4 What were the differences between the approach of the Full Court and the approach of the primary judge in evaluating whether the TPG advertising was misleading? [2 marks]
6 The Full Court, in coming to its conclusions, applied as a precedent the ratio in a case called Parkdale Custom Built Furniture v Puxu (“Puxu”). The High Court said that the Full Court wrongly applied the precedent in Puxu. Explain in what ways the High Court thought the advertising in Puxu was different from the TPG advertising and so should not have been used by the Full Court as a precedent. [2 marks]
JHOANNA
5 The High Court concluded that the approach taken by the Full Court was not correct. For what reason or reasons did the High Court come to this conclusion? [2 marks]
7 What did the High Court say about the assumed level of knowledge in TPG’s target audience? [2 marks]