ACCC sues ANZ for price fixing
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission announced in a media release that they have instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against ANZ bank over alleged price fixing.
As I understand the case, Mortgage Refund is a mortgage broker, and attracted business by offering to pass on to their clients (i.e. the "refund") some of the commission that was payable to Mortgage Refund from the banks or other lenders. ANZ allegedly threatened to refuse to deal with Mortgage Refund unless they agreed to restrict the amount they passed onto the consumer to $500 or less.
If true, I this conduct would probably contravene s 45 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. ANZ and Mortgage Refund almost certainly compete with each other in the market for home lending services, and the ACCC presumably alleges the existence of a contract, agreement or understanding with the purpose or likely effect of fixing, controlling or maintaining of a discount, allowance or rebate, for services to be supplied by one of the parties. Section 45A would therefore mean that it was deemed to have the purpose, or likely effect, of substantially lessening competition in a market, for the purposes of s 45.
A news.com.au article on the matter says the action will be heard in Brisbane; yet another case I'll be watching with interest.
As I understand the case, Mortgage Refund is a mortgage broker, and attracted business by offering to pass on to their clients (i.e. the "refund") some of the commission that was payable to Mortgage Refund from the banks or other lenders. ANZ allegedly threatened to refuse to deal with Mortgage Refund unless they agreed to restrict the amount they passed onto the consumer to $500 or less.
If true, I this conduct would probably contravene s 45 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. ANZ and Mortgage Refund almost certainly compete with each other in the market for home lending services, and the ACCC presumably alleges the existence of a contract, agreement or understanding with the purpose or likely effect of fixing, controlling or maintaining of a discount, allowance or rebate, for services to be supplied by one of the parties. Section 45A would therefore mean that it was deemed to have the purpose, or likely effect, of substantially lessening competition in a market, for the purposes of s 45.
A news.com.au article on the matter says the action will be heard in Brisbane; yet another case I'll be watching with interest.
Leave a comment