consumer protection: September 2007 Archives

Although the paperwork has yet to be filed, 2Clix has told various media outlets that they are abandoning their injurious falsehood lawsuit against the owner of Whirlpool.  2Clix's solicitors have told Whirlpool they have been instructed to discontinue the action.  EFA press release here.

Some of the media coverage of this latest development has been less than accurate and less than fair to Whirlpool.  2Clix, in apparent fit of pique, leaked news of their intent to discontinue the action to several media outlets, before they even confirmed it to Whirlpool.

Initial coverage by one media outlet in particular said that the action had been discontinued (which it had not, and still has not), and implied that Whirlpool was acting dishonestly by not announcing this development (despite the fact 2Clix and their solicitors had ignored Whirlpool's attempts to confirm it) while they allegedly continued to accept donations from the public (despite the fact that Whirlpool had never solicited donations, had actively discouraged people from donating until they knew what their legal bills were likely to be, and most importantly, they removed the donation links off their website when they got an unconfirmed email indicating that 2Clix might discontinue).

Whirlpool published a response to this media speculation.

I don't know what 2Clix's motivation was for this course of action, but it seems consistent with a puerile attempt to smear Whirlpool in the press, which was at least partially successful.

The ACCC are bringing proceedings against Telstra, alleging contraventions of ss 52 and 53 of the TPA in Telstra's promotion of their "NextG" network.  Specifically, it is alleged that Telstra have engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by representing that the NextG network "covers the entire country" and "has coverage everywhere you need it".  The ACCC are seeking interim injunctions against the advertising.

Telstra, true to form, have accused the ACCC of conspiring against them, saying that:

The ACCC is clearly hand in glove with the Government in doing everything it possibly can to undermine the interests of Telstra shareholders.

and that

This is anti-consumer, anti-investment, petty, regulatory garbage when Telstra is building a world's best mobile network with speeds as fast as any equivalent network in the world.

If Telstra dig the hole they're in any deeper, they'll be swimming in magma.

This just gets weirder and weirder...  After reporting three days ago that Telstra were suing Senator Coonan for the second time, Telstra has accused Coonan of having "misled members of the public to believe they are unable to acquire services from Telstra and that they can only acquire those services from Telstra's competitors."  Telstra have reportedly asked the ACCC to investigate.  Good luck establishing that Coonan's statements were made "in trade or commerce."

The judgment of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in ACCC v Dataline.net.au Pty Ltd will be handed down this afternoon in the Federal Court in Brisbane, at 2:15pm, in courtroom 2 on level 7.

This is an appeal from the judgment of Kiefel J in ACCC v Dataline.net.au Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1427.  I'll post an update on the judgment later tonight.

[UPDATE: The appeal was dismissed.  Greenwood J gave no reasons in court, and I'm still waiting for the judgment to appear on Austlii.]

[Further update: As of 5pm Friday, the judgment is not yet on Austlii.  It seems unlikely that it will appear before Monday, so commentary on the judgment itself will be delayed.  If I'm feeling particularly inspired over the weekend, I may post something about the ACCC's statement of claim, and the judgment at first instance.]

How is the Public Notices section of a newspaper like an End User Licence Agreement?

1. Nobody reads them
2. They're full of legalese
3. Sometimes they descend into mumbo-jumbo
4. Occasionally they're amusing
5. They can both be associated with someone getting royally scammed.

Today, while stuck on public transport and bored out of my skull, I read through the public notices section of an abandoned copy of the Brisbane Courier Mail.  On page 63, there was a notice which I reproduce verbatim below, with the exception of the phone number:

COPYRIGHT: All rights reserved re common-law copyright of tradename / trademark, MARGARET ALTHEA MORRIS, as well as any and all derivatives and variations in the spelling of said tradename / trademark - Common Law Copyright 1975-3000 by Margaret-Althea :Morris.  For terms and conditions of use, call [phone number redacted] and ask for: Margaret-Althea :Morris.

Rrrrrrrrrrrright.