Showing posts with label ACCC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ACCC. Show all posts

Tuesday, 8 October 2024

In the matter of AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION & CONSUMER COMMISSION v COLES SUPERMARKETS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD and AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION & CONSUMER COMMISSION v WOOLWORTHS GROUP LIMITED


By 2022-2023 Coles Supermarkets Pty Ltd and Woolworths Group Limited collectively accounted for approximately 67% of national supermarket retail sales and over 57% of national take-home food and grocery sales.


According to the ACCC Supermarket Inquiry 2024-25 Interim Report (August 2024) the two groups have achieved this by increasing their number of stores, expanding their geographic coverage and increasing the number of supermarkets in existing coverage areas. They have also expanded their businesses into broader “ecosystems”, supplying an increasing range of products and services in related or adjacent markets. So that in rural and regional Australia either Coles or Woolworths supermarkets are sometimes the only source supermarket shopping.


COLES


On 27 August 2024 the company secretary released to the market the 2024 Full Year Results Presentation for Coles Group Limited


This presentation revealed that Coles 2023-24 reported group earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) totalled $2,057 million, with underlying EBIT at $2,175 million, and the group's total sales revenue came in at $43.57 billion.


Across its supermarket and liquor outlets online & e-commerce sales, growth reached +30.1% and +9.2% respectively. With Exclusive to Coles brand sales grew by 6.6%.


Highlighting the fact that it was "Delivering value":


✓ ‘Great Value, Hands Down’ campaigns, every day low prices, weekly specials and promotions

Launched >1,100 Exclusive to Coles and 244 Exclusive Liquor Brand products

National roll out of instant $10 off at checkout for Flybuys members


So proud was the Cole's Group of its Great Value, Hands Down’ campaigns that it even supplied a graphic:



The Coles Group net profit after tax in 2023-34 was $1.11 billion.


WOOLWORTHS


A day later on 28 August 2024 the Woolworths Group released to the market itsF24 Full Year Profit and Dividend Announcement.


In a more restrained presentation (no colourful graphics) it informed the market that the Woolworths Group 2023-24 reported group earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) totalled $3,223 million, with an EBITA at $6,001 million ($4,821 million being assigned to Woolworths Food Retail), and the group's total sales revenue came in at $68.9 billion ($50.2 billion being Woolworths Food Retail sales revenue) .


In the 2023-24 financial year Woolworths Group sales were reported as growing by 3%, which included strong digital and e-commerce growth. While Food Retail sales growth came in at 3.4%.


The Woolworths Group reported in its presentation that:


"...inflation in our Food businesses and BIG W moderated significantly as we lowered prices and passed on lower cost prices to customers. Average prices in Woolworths Food Retail in Q3 and Q4 were down 0.2% and 0.6% respectively on the prior year",


and further into the document pointed out that:


"average prices in Q4 decreasing by 0.6% compared to the prior year".


The Woolworths Group net profit after tax in 2023-34 was $1.08 billion.


Both supermarket giants professed general satisfaction with their respective financial situations - despite the est. $1.6 billion in write downs affecting Woolworths bottom line - and to ordinary Australian households still experiencing cost-of-living headwinds these supermarkets appeared to be doing very well.


In Australia cost-of-living stress has been an ongoing issue for the last twenty months - when first the Russian invasion of Ukraine was followed by successive Australian Reserve Bank interests rate rises, along with domestic adverse weather events, which affected supply, transport and costs for a wide range of goods & services.


So when this made the news, it confirmed what many had begun to suspect.


AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION & CONSUMER COMMISSION v COLES SUPERMARKETS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 004 189 708) and AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION & CONSUMER COMMISSION v WOOLWORTHS GROUP LIMITED (ACN 000 014 675) currently before the Federal Court of Australia - Victoria Registry - filed 23 September 2024.


Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC), media release, 23 September 2024:


ACCC takes Woolworths and Coles to court over alleged misleading ‘Prices Dropped’ and ‘Down Down’ claims



The ACCC has commenced separate proceedings in the Federal Court against Woolworths Group Limited (Woolworths) (ASX: WOW) and Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd (Coles) (a subsidiary of Coles Group Limited - ASX: COL) for allegedly breaching the Australian Consumer Law by misleading consumers through discount pricing claims on hundreds of common supermarket products.


The ACCC’s allegations relate to products sold by each of Woolworths and Coles at regular long-term prices which remained the same, excluding short-term specials, for at least six months and in many cases for at least a year.


The products were then subject to price rises of at least 15 per cent for brief periods, before being placed in Woolworths’ ‘Prices Dropped’ promotion and Coles’ ‘Down Down’ promotion, at prices lower than during the price spike but higher than, or the same as, the regular price that applied before the price spike.


Following many years of marketing campaigns by Woolworths and Coles, Australian consumers have come to understand that the ‘Prices Dropped’ and ‘Down Down’ promotions relate to a sustained reduction in the regular prices of supermarket products. However, in the case of these products, we allege the new ‘Prices Dropped’ and ‘Down Down’ promotional prices were actually higher than, or the same as, the previous regular price,” ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said.


We allege that each of Woolworths and Coles breached the Australian Consumer Law by making misleading claims about discounts, when the discounts were, in fact, illusory.”


We also allege that in many cases both Woolworths and Coles had already planned to later place the products on a ‘Prices Dropped’ or ‘Down Down’ promotion before the price spike, and implemented the temporary price spike for the purpose of establishing a higher ‘was’ price,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.


The ACCC alleges the conduct involved 266 products for Woolworths at different times across 20 months, and 245 products for Coles at different times across 15 months. The representations were made on pricing tickets displayed to consumers in-store on supermarket shelves and online, usually with a ‘was’ price displayed showing what the price was during the short-term price spike and the date of that price.


The ACCC identified this conduct through consumer contacts to the ACCC and social media monitoring, and then conducted an in-depth investigation using its compulsory powers.


Many consumers rely on discounts to help their grocery budgets stretch further, particularly during this time of cost of living pressures. It is critical that Australian consumers are able to rely on the accuracy of pricing and discount claims,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.


We allege these misleading claims about illusory discounts diminished the ability of consumers to make informed choices about what products to buy, and where.”


The ACCC estimates that Woolworths and Coles sold tens of millions of the affected products and derived significant revenue from those sales.


The ACCC is seeking declarations, penalties, costs and other orders. The ACCC is also seeking community service orders that Woolworths and Coles must each fund a registered charity to deliver meals to Australians in need, in addition to their pre-existing charitable meal delivery programs.


Alleged conduct

The ACCC alleges that the supermarkets offered certain products at a regular price for at least 180 days. They then increased the price of the product by at least 15 per cent for a relatively short period of time, and subsequently placed it onto their ‘Prices Dropped’ or ‘Down Down’ program.


The ACCC alleges the display of the Prices Dropped and Down Down tickets was misleading, as the price of the products was in fact higher than or the same as the regular price at which the supermarket had previously offered the products for sale.


Alleged conduct by Woolworths

The ACCC alleges that Woolworths made false or misleading representations to consumers about the prices of 266 products during the period between September 2021 and May 2023.


Products affected include Arnott’s Tim Tams biscuits, Dolmio sauces, Doritos salsa, Energizer batteries, Friskies cat food, Kellogg’s cereal, President butter, Listerine mouthwash, Moccona coffee capsules, Mother energy drinks, Mr Chen’s noodles, Nicorette patches, Ocean Blue smoked salmon, Oreo cookies, Palmolive dishwashing liquid, Raid insect spray, Sprite soft drink, Stayfree pads, Twisties, Uncle Tobys muesli bars, and Vicks VapoDrops.


Example - Oreo Family Pack Original 370g






[A graph showing the pricing movement of Oreos Family Pack Original cookies from January 2021 to May 2023]


From at least 1 January 2021 until 27 November 2022, Woolworths offered the Oreo Family Pack Original 370g product for sale at a regular price of $3.50 on a pre-existing ‘Prices Dropped’ promotion for at least 696 days.


On 28 November 2022, the price was increased to $5.00 for a period of 22 days. On 20 December 2022, the product was placed on a ‘Prices Dropped’ promotion with the tickets showing a ‘Prices Dropped’ price of $4.50 and a ‘was’ price of $5.00. The ‘Prices Dropped’ price of $4.50 was in fact 29 per cent higher than the product’s previous regular price of $3.50.


In this example, the ACCC alleges Woolworths had planned the temporary price spike to establish a new higher ‘was’ price for the subsequent ‘promotion’. Woolworths had decided (after a request from the supplier for a price increase) on or around 18 November 2022 to take the product off ‘Prices Dropped’, increase the price, and then put the product back on to ‘Prices Dropped’ three weeks later.


Alleged conduct by Coles

The ACCC alleges that Coles made false or misleading representations to consumers about the prices of 245 products during the period between February 2022 and May 2023.


Products include Arnott’s Shapes biscuits, Band-Aids, Bega cheese, Cadbury chocolates, Coca Cola soft drink, Colgate toothpaste, Danone yoghurt, Dettol multi-purpose wipes, Fab laundry liquid, Karicare formula, Kellogg’s snack bars, Kleenex tissues, Libra tampons, Lurpak butter, Maggi two-minute noodles, Nature’s Gift dog food, Nescafe instant coffee, Palmolive shampoo, Rexona deodorant, Sakata rice crackers, Sanitarium Weet-Bix cereal, Strepsils lozenges, Sunrice rice, Tena pads, Viva paper towels, Whiskas cat food, and Zafarelli pasta.


Example Strepsils Throat Lozenges Honey & Lemon 16 pack 




[A graph showing the pricing movement of Strepsils Throat Lozenges Honey & Lemon 16 pack from January 2021 to May 2023]


From at least 1 January 2021 until 11 October 2022, Coles offered the Strepsils Throat Lozenges Honey & Lemon 16 pack product for sale at a regular price of $5.50 (on a pre-existing ‘Down Down’ promotion) for at least 649 days, including one seven-day short-term special.


On 12 October 2022, the price was then increased to $7.00 for a period of 28 days. On 9 November 2022, the product was placed on a ‘Down Down’ promotion with the tickets showing a ‘Down Down’ price of $6.00 and a ‘was’ price of $7.00. The ‘Down Down’ price of $6.00 was in fact 9 per cent higher than the product’s previous regular price of $5.50.


In this example, the ACCC alleges Coles had planned the temporary price spike to establish a new higher ‘was’ price for the subsequent ‘promotion’. Coles had decided (after a request from the supplier for a price increase) on or around 7 October 2022 to take the product off ‘Down Down’, increase the price, and then put the product back on to ‘Down Down’ four weeks later.


ACCC Supermarkets inquiry

The ACCC was directed by the Treasurer in January 2024 to conduct an inquiry into the Australian supermarket sector, pricing practices and the relationship between wholesale, farmgate and retail prices.


The ACCC’s investigation into the conduct which is the subject of these proceedings pre-dates this inquiry. The inquiry will not consider the issues in dispute in these proceedings.


Note to editors

The ACCC does not regulate supermarket prices.


The ACCC has taken proceedings in respect of alleged breaches of the Australian Consumer Law, which provides that businesses must not make false or misleading statements about prices.


Separate proceedings are brought against Woolworths and Coles, and the ACCC is not making any allegation of any collusion or anti-competitive conduct by Woolworths and Coles as part of these proceedings.


The ACCC is not alleging any contravention of the ACL by any of Woolworths’ and Coles’ suppliers in these proceedings.


The maximum penalty for each breach of the Australian Consumer Law increased on 10 November 2022, part way through the period of the alleged conduct. For contraventions from 10 November 2022, the maximum penalty is the greater of:


  • $50,000,000
  • if the Court can determine the value of the 'reasonably attributable' benefit obtained, three times that value, or


Any penalty that might apply to this conduct is a matter for the Court to determine and would depend on the Court’s findings. The ACCC will not comment on what penalties the Court may impose.


Background

Woolworths runs the largest supermarket chain in Australia, with about 1,140 Woolworths supermarket stores across the country.


The ‘Prices Dropped’ Program is promoted by Woolworths as a shelf price reduction program designed to offer Woolworths’ customers consistently low prices over a prolonged period. The objective of the Prices Dropped Program was to lower the standard shelf price of a product from its previous standard (or regular) shelf price.


Example of a Prices Dropped ticket


Coles is the second-largest supermarket chain in Australia, operating more than 840 stores nationally.


Coles introduced the ‘Down Down’ Program in June 2010 and marketed it as a promotional campaign designed to reduce the regular shelf price of commonly purchased products — thereby offering customers predictable and reliable value on the items they purchased the most and reducing the cost of their shopping basket.


Example of a Down Down ticket


Separate to these proceedings, in December 2023, following a complaint by CHOICE and an investigation by the ACCC, Coles announced refunds for thousands of customers after it raised the price on 20 products that it had promised would remain ‘locked’ for a certain period of time as part of Coles’ ‘Dropped and Locked’ promotion.


Concise statements


ACCC v Coles - Concise Statement ( PDF 662.68 KB )


ACCCv Woolworths - Concise Statement ( PDF 727.3 KB )


These documents contain the ACCC’s initiating court documents in relation to these matters. We will not be uploading further documents in the event these initial documents are subsequently amended.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~


The Guardian, 23 September 2024, excerpt:

Coles sought to strike an appropriate balance between managing the impact of cost price increases on retail prices and offering value to customers through the recommencement of promotional activity as soon as possible after the establishment of the new non-promotional price.”

Woolworths said it would “carefully review the claims”.

Our customers are telling us they want us to work even harder to deliver meaningful value to them and it’s important they can trust the value they see when shopping our stores,” Woolworths said.



Wednesday, 26 July 2023

ACCC warns scammers targeting Australia’s largest loyalty reward programs

 

Scammers are more than just annoying people who persistently phone at inconvenient times or send begging emails from exotic locations. These days the ploys they use are often more sophisticated and mean their victims can lose money from bank accounts or find themselves with an unexpected debt within minutes of one click of a link or press of a button.


This is the most recent warning of scammer activity.....


The Guardian, 25 July 2023:


The ACCC has issued an urgent warning to customers of some of Australia’s largest loyalty reward programs, including Qantas frequent flyer, after detecting a new scam that targets valuable points.


The National Anti-Scam Centre has received 209 reports to Scamwatch in the past four months, of the scam targeting Qantas frequent flyer, Telstra and Coles loyalty programs customers.


It comes as new research from Choice shows the majority of Australians think banks should reimburse scam victims, as the consumer association joins calls for financial institutions to provide some form of compensation.


Australians lost a record amount of more than $3.1bn to scams in 2022, up from the $2bn lost in 2021, according to ACCC figures.


New data from Commbank released on Tuesday showed Australians are becoming more cautious of answering the phone because of the increase, with three in four (76%) people only picking up if they recognise the number.


With the new scam, consumers receive a text message or email stating their loyalty points are expiring. It includes a link to a fake website, which prompts customers to log in. Customers may also be prompted to provide credit card details to use loyalty points.


Scammers then steal customers’ points, their login details and personal information to use on other platforms and commit identity fraud.


Scammers then steal customers’ points, their login details and personal information to use on other platforms and commit identity fraud.


The vast majority of reports to Scamwatch received so far are in relation to Qantas frequent flyer, Telstra and Coles loyalty programs, but Australians should be aware that any loyalty program could be targeted, ACCC deputy chair Catriona Lowe said.


The National Anti-Scam Centre has contacted the companies that have been impersonated by scammers and is working with web host providers to have the fake websites taken down, to minimise harm to the community,” Lowe said.


We are very concerned that Australians experiencing cost-of-living pressures may be more susceptible to these scams. Scammers are deliberately panicking consumers by claiming their points are expiring soon. We urge people to immediately delete or ignore any message regarding a loyalty program that contains a link.”.....


Three golden rules when answering the phone, reading an email or scrolling a text message, according to the Australian Government National Anti-Scam Centre:


STOP – Don’t give money or personal information to anyone if unsure

Scammers will offer to help you or ask you to verify who you are. They will pretend to be from organisations you know and trust like, Services Australia, police, a bank, government or a fraud service.


THINK – Ask yourself could the message or call be fake?

Never click a link in a message. Only contact businesses or government using contact information from their official website or through their secure apps. If you’re not sure say no, hang up or delete.


PROTECT – Act quickly if something feels wrong.

Contact your bank if you notice some unusual activity or if a scammer gets your money or information. Seek help from IDCARE and report to ReportCyber and Scamwatch.


Monday, 21 December 2020

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission takes Facebook Inc to Federal Court over allegedly misleading and deceptive conduct, December 2020

 

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, media release, 16 December 2020:


ACCC alleges Facebook misled consumers when promoting app to 'protect' users' data


The ACCC has instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against Facebook, Inc. and two of its subsidiaries for false, misleading or deceptive conduct when promoting Facebook’s Onavo Protect mobile app to Australian consumers.


Onavo Protect was a free downloadable software application providing a virtual private network (VPN) service.


The ACCC alleges that, between 1 February 2016 to October 2017, Facebook and its subsidiaries Facebook Israel Ltd and Onavo, Inc. misled Australian consumers by representing that the Onavo Protect app would keep users’ personal activity data private, protected and secret, and that the data would not be used for any purpose other than providing Onavo Protect’s products.


In fact, the ACCC alleges, Onavo Protect collected, aggregated and used significant amounts of users’ personal activity data for Facebook’s commercial benefit. This included details about Onavo Protect users’ internet and app activity, such as records of every app they accessed and the number of seconds each day they spent using those apps.


This data was used to support Facebook’s market research activities, including identifying potential future acquisition targets.


Through Onavo Protect, Facebook was collecting and using the very detailed and valuable personal activity data of thousands of Australian consumers for its own commercial purposes, which we believe is completely contrary to the promise of protection, secrecy and privacy that was central to Facebook’s promotion of this app,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.


Consumers often use VPN services because they care about their online privacy, and that is what this Facebook product claimed to offer. In fact, Onavo Protect channelled significant volumes of their personal activity data straight back to Facebook.”


We believe that the conduct deprived Australian consumers of the opportunity to make an informed choice about the collection and use of their personal activity data by Facebook and Onavo,” Mr Sims said.


The Onavo Protect website stated that the app would “save, measure and protect” users’ mobile data, while advertisements on Facebook’s website and app included statements such as “Keep it secret. Keep it safe… Onavo Protect, from Facebook”.


The ACCC is seeking declarations and pecuniary penalties.



The attached document below contains the ACCC’s initiating court document in relation to this matter. We will not be uploading further documents in the event this initial document is subsequently amended. 


Concise statement 


ACCC v Facebook Inc & Ors_ Concise Statement ( PDF 2.34 MB ) 


Background 


US-based Facebook, Inc. owns global social media and private messaging platforms including Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. 


US-based Onavo, Inc. and Onavo Mobile Ltd, based in Israel, were mobile analytics companies that were acquired by Facebook in October 2013. After the acquisition Onavo Mobile became Facebook Israel Ltd. 


Apple removed Onavo Protect from its App store in 2018 for non-compliance with its developer terms such as, among other things, collecting information about other apps installed on a user’s device for the purposes of analytics. It was later also removed from the Google Play store and was discontinued in 2019. 


The ACCC’s Digital platforms inquiry final report examined a range of issues involving digital platforms and consumers, including concerns about Onavo Protect and how its users’ data was being collected and used. 


In December 2020, in an unrelated action, the US Federal Trade Commission (US FTC) brought proceedings against Facebook, alleging that the company is illegally maintaining its personal social networking monopoly through a years-long course of anticompetitive conduct. The US FTC alleges that Facebook engaged in a systematic strategy including its 2012 acquisition of Instagram and 2014 acquisition of WhatsApp, and the imposition of anticompetitive conditions on software developers to eliminate threats to its monopoly. The court documents filed by the US FTC refer to Facebook’s use of Onavo Protect data to identify future acquisitions as part of the allegation that Facebook is illegally maintaining a monopoly.


Friday, 27 September 2019

Debt collector used by DHS-Centrelink to chase unproven robodebts being sued by Australia’s consumer watchdog for a raft of coercive and unconscionable practices


IT News, 24 September 2019: 

A debt collector recently awarded a $3.3 million contract by the Department of Human Services (DHS) to chase money for Centrelink is wholly owned by a company being sued by Australia’s consumer watchdog for a raft of coercive and unconscionable practices. 

In an embarrassing twist to the ongoing Robodebt controversy, iTnews can reveal ARL Collect (Pty Ltd), which is wholly owned by Queensland based Panthera Finance, snared a plum debt recovery deal from DHS just weeks before its parent company was hit by landmark legal action from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. 

The ACCC’s case against Panthera accuses the firm of coercing payments from people – including identity fraud victims – for bills they did not actually owe. 

The direct ownership link between the two companies, which technically are separate legal and financial entities, raises fresh questions around the adequacy of vetting and due diligence surrounding government outsourcing deals, especially those dealing with vulnerable people. 

The ACCC’s action against Panthera, lodged in the Federal Court on 24th July this year, sets out an appalling litany of allegations related to undue harassment and coercion, unconscionable conduct and false and misleading representation to consumers. 

They include forcing money from identity fraud victims by using credit default listings as leverage and follow consumer complaints made about Panthera. 

According to Department of Finance records, DHS published notification of the $3.3 million ARL Collect contract on 29th July; however the contract period is listed as running from 1st July 2019 to 30th June 2020, indicating the tender was let prior to commencement of action by the ACCC. 

The ACCC’s allegations against Panthera, ARL Collects’s owner, all stem from commercial recovery actions, namely attempts to collect on contested bills issued by utilities AGL, Origin Energy and Telstra, raising serious questions of governance and corporate culture. 

A particularly embarrassing coincidence for the government and DHS is that all the examples put forward to the court by the ACCC in its allegations arise from payment demands made by Panthera for bills that were not actually owed and actively disputed by those hit by recovery actions. 

The revelations that the ultimate owner of DHS’s contracted debt collector is a current target of regulatory action is another headache for the government as it vigorously defends its data matching-reliant enforcement regime. 

A class action now in the works against Robodebt being mounted by Gordon Legal also broadly makes its case along the lines of an unreasonable burden of proof being foisted on people labelled debtors, while organisations claiming to be creditors get away with questionable claims. 

The Department of Human Services, its minister Stuart Robert and Prime Minister Scott Morrison have steadfastly maintained welfare overpayment recovery mechanisms are subject to due administrative process, a stance that has done little to quell criticism of Robodebt, which has now become a political weapon. 

Irrespective of the politics, the ACCC’s case against Panthera is highly significant because it spotlights the poor conduct of some collection agencies. 

It also reveals how receivables ledgers of questionable data accuracy are on-sold and the way legitimately disputed debt is treated. 

And it goes deep into the hardball culture and often high pressure tactics of the darker corners of the collections industry, a sector that has been struggling to reform its image......

In one of the examples, a Queensland woman anonymised as “Witness A” disputed a $378 debt for an Origin electricity bill racked up under her name for an address in New South Wales where the woman had never lived. 

She had also never been a customer of Origin. After filing a complaint with the Australian Cybercrime Online Reporting Network (ACORN) and supplying Panthera with the case reference number the debt collector still pursued her. 

“Witness A again informed them that she had never lived in NSW, she had provided an ACORN reference number and stated that she had never received Centrelink payments in her life, referring to the Centrelink deductions recorded on the Origin bills provided to her,” the ACCC court documents state. 

“Witness A provided Panthera with the details of the person the police had informed her was responsible for the Origin Debt, including that the person still resided at the NSW premises to which the electricity was supplied, and also with the relevant police officer’s contact information,” the ACCC’s court documents continue. 

Despite this, Panthera continued asking her for information she just did not have, the ACCC alleges.....

In another case a man dubbed "Witness B" told Panthera that he believed a Telstra mobile broadband account created in his name had been fraudulently obtained. 

Despite a police officer telling Panthera that she was “looking into fraud” in relation to the account “the man still had a credit default listed against his name.” What came next borders on extortion. 

“On 4 April 2017, a Panthera representative called Witness B’s financial advisor and stated that Panthera was aware of Witness B’s dispute and was investigating it, offered to negotiate a payment in order to secure the removal of the default listing and represented that Witness B would need to make a payment of $100 to Panthera in order for the default listing to be removed,” the ACCC’s court documents state. 

“This was in circumstances where the Panthera representative knew that Witness B’s account was in the process of being ‘written off’ by Panthera, but also knew that Witness B needed the default listing removed quickly because he was trying to obtain finance.” 

Even after paying the $100 and Panthera telling the man the default listing had been removed “as at September 2018 Witness B’s credit file still contained a default listing with respect to the Telstra Debt”.......

Read the full article here.

Sunday, 11 August 2019

Alleged data theft by HealthEngine leaves hundreds of thousands of Australians vulnerable


Perhaps now is the time for readers to check who owns the company they might use to make medical appointment online.

ABC News, 8 August 2019: 

Australia's biggest medical appointment booking app HealthEngine is facing multi-million-dollar penalties after an ABC investigation exposed its practice of funnelling patient information to law firms. 

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has launched legal action against the Perth-based company in the Federal Court, accusing it of misleading and deceptive conduct. 

In June last year, the ABC revealed HealthEngine was passing on users' personal information to law firms seeking clients for personal injury claims. 

The details of the deal were contained in secret internal Slater and Gordon documents that revealed HealthEngine was sending the firm a daily list of prospective clients at part of a pilot program in 2017.



The ACCC has also accused the company of passing the personal information of approximately 135,000 patients to insurance brokers in exchange for payments.


"Patients were misled into thinking their information would stay with HealthEngine but, instead, their information was sold off to insurance brokers," ACCC chairman Rod Sims said in a statement.

The information sold included names, phone numbers, dates of birth and email addresses.

The ACCC has not said how much money the company earned form the arrangement.

The ABC revealed last year that HealthEngine had also boasted to advertisers that it could target users based on their symptoms and medical conditions. 

HealthEngine has also been accused of misleading consumers by manipulating users' reviews of medical practices. 

"We allege that HealthEngine refused to publish negative reviews and altered feedback to remove negative aspects, or to embellish it, before publishing the reviews," Mr Sims said. 

Among a range of examples, the ACCC alleges that one patient review was initially submitted as: "The practice is good just disappointed with health engine. I will call the clinic next time instead of booking online." 

But when that review was made public, it was allegedly changed to simply read: "The practice is good." 

HealthEngine is facing a fine of $1.1 million for each breach of the law, but the ACCC has yet to determine how many breaches it will allege....

Wednesday, 2 May 2018

Q. If Telstra steals est. $60 million, repays $5 million in compensation and is fined $10 million, leaving a profit of $45 million - how big are the telco’s performance bonuses this year?



Readers with a Telstra mobile phone account need to check that their phone was not set to ‘Premium Direct Billing’ before 3 March 2018.

Because although Telstra put out a media release there was no promise to proactively contact all mobile customers with this news below and, the telco will be be deciding which individual account holders (who have been overcharged for a service they did not consent to) will be contacted concerning compensation.

It is possible it will not manage to contact every customer who had been improperly charged. So if you suspect that you may have been then phone Telstra.

New Matilda, 27 April 2018: 
      
Ordinarily, when you get caught stealing, you have to pay the money back, and the punishment you receive is meant to dissuade you from stealing again.

Unless you’re a major Australian corporation. In which case, you can steal tens of millions of dollars from your ‘valued clients’, pay a fine that represents a tiny proportion of what you pinched, issue a few million in refunds… and then keep the rest.

Introducing Telstra and its third-party ‘Premium Direct Billing’ scam, which netted Australia’s biggest Telco a cool $45 million profit, after fines and refunds.

Yesterday, the Federal Court fined Telstra $10 million for the rip-off after it found that Telstra “did not adequately inform customers it had set the Premium Direct Billing service as a default on their mobile accounts. If customers accessed content through this service, even unintentionally, they were billed directly by Telstra”.

“Thousands of Telstra mobile phone customers unwittingly signed up to subscriptions without being required to enter payment details or verify their identity.

By introducing and operating the Premium Direct Billing service, Telstra generated substantial profits by exposing customers to unauthorised charges,” Chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Rod Sims announced in a media statement.

The prosecution was launched by the ACCC with powers delegated from the Australian Securities & Investments Commission. You might remember that sleepy Australian corporate watchdog from such scandals as the banking royal commission....

“Telstra estimates it has provided refunds of at least $5 million, and it will review any future complaints in light of this action and deal with those customers in good faith. The ACCC estimates further refunds may be in the order of several million dollars.”

Monday, 26 September 2016

ACCC to rule on News Corp's planned purchase of APN News & Media regional print and online newspapers by 29 September 2016


The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is currently  investigating the proposed acquisition of APN News & Media Limited (APN)'s Australian Regional Media division (ARM) by News Corporation (News) – with the aim of establishing what if any the impact of the proposed acquisition will have on on competition, and whether it will: lower the quality of content, especially local news content; reduce the choices available to readers for local news content; increase newspaper prices and/or increase the price of advertising, especially in newspapers in Queensland and northern New South Wales.

As to lowering the quality of content, especially local news content or reducing the choices available to readers for local news content – well that horse was out the stable door in a flash once Murdoch had acquired the largest single shareholding in APN News & Media.

This will be the extent of News Corp’s print and online stable once the ACCC signs off on this $36.6 million sale:

The acquirer – News Corporation
News Corporation (News) is a global diversified media and information services company with businesses in news and information services, digital real estate services, book publishing, digital education and, through its investment in Foxtel Management Pty Limited, subscription television.
 In Australia, News, through various indirect, wholly owned subsidiaries, publishes a number of state, regional and community newspapers as well as The Australian.
It also publishes various websites associated with its newspapers as well as news.com.au. News publishes the following paid print newspapers in Queensland and northern NSW:
· The Courier Mail, published daily Monday to Saturday, while the Sunday Mail is published on Sunday
· Gold Coast Bulletin, published daily Monday to Saturday
· Townsville Bulletin, published daily Monday to Saturday
· Cairns Post, published daily Monday to Saturday (published as the Weekend Post on Saturdays)

News also publishes the following community newspapers:
· through Quest Community Newspapers, 13 free community newspapers circulating in various parts of greater Brisbane as well as Brisbane News, a glossy free magazine distributed to inner city Brisbane. The 13 free community newspapers are:
o Albert and Logan News o Caboolture Herald o Pine Rivers Press/North Lakes Times
o Redcliffe & Bayside Herald
o City North News o North-West News
o Northside Chronicle
o Westside News
o South-West News/Springfield News
o City South News
o South East Advertiser o Southern Star
o Wynnum Herald

· through Sun Community Newspapers, the free newspaper The Gold Coast Sun, in four localised editions:
o Gold Coast Sun Upper North
o Gold Coast Sun North o Gold Coast Sun Central
o Gold Coast Sun Tweed / Southern 4

· a number of small community publications circulating in Cairns and surrounds including The Tablelands Advertiser, The Tablelander, Innisfail Advocate and the Port Douglas & Mossman Gazette
· the Bowen Independent, a paid newspaper published twice a week, and a number of other small community publications in Townsville and surrounds including The Herbert River Express, The Northern Miner and The Burdekin Advocate. News also publishes the Weekly Times, a paid newspaper distributed predominantly in rural Victoria and the Riverina region. A small number of copies are also distributed in Queensland and NSW.
News also publishes or has an interest in a range of online publications including the following:
· News.com.au
· Carsguide.com.au (48.95% interest)
· Realestate.com.au (majority interest)
· Careerone.com.au (25% interest)

News, through a wholly-owned subsidiary, also has a 14.99% interest in APN......

The target business – ARM
The target business – ARM The ARM business comprises:
· 12 paid daily, 14 paid non-daily and 32 free non-daily, community newspapers circulating in various parts of south-east and regional Queensland and northern NSW
· 14 specialist print newspapers including 'seniors', 'agriculture' and 'big rigs' titles · 4 specialist business-to-business magazines for the education and health care sectors
· 60 websites including masthead websites, websites for the specialist print newspaper titles, other websites not linked to a print title and classifieds website finda.com.au
· printing facilities located in Yandina, Warwick and Rockhampton in Queensland. A full list of ARM’s print publications is set out below:
North Queensland (Mackay region)
· Daily Mercury
· The Midweek 5
· Whitsunday Times
· Whitsunday Coast Guardian Central Queensland
· The Morning Bulletin
· The Observer
· Capricorn Coast Mirror
· Central Telegraph
· Central Queensland News Wide Bay Burnett
· NewsMail
· Fraser Coast Chronicle
· The Gympie Times
· Guardian
· Isis Town & Country
· Central & North Burnett Times
· Hervey Bay Observer
· The Maryborough Herald
· Cooloola Advertiser
· Hervey Bay Independent

South-East Queensland - Sunshine Coast
· Sunshine Coast Daily
· Sunshine Coast Sunday
· Noosa News
· Coolum & North Shore News
· Maroochy Weekly
· Kawana Weekly
· Caloundra Weekly
· Nambour Weekly
· Buderim Chronicle South-East Queensland (Greater Brisbane and Ipswich)
· Caboolture News
· Bribie Weekly
· The Logan Reporter
· The Satellite
· Bayside Northern Suburbs Star
· The Queensland Times
· The Ipswich Advertiser South-West Queensland
· Warwick Daily News
· The Chronicle
· Stanthorpe Border Post
· Dalby Herald
· Gatton, Lockyer and Brisbane Valley Star
· Laidley Plainland Leader
· South Burnett Times
· Southern Downs Weekly 6
· Balonne Beacon
· The Western Star
· Western Times
· Chinchilla News and Murilla Advertiser

Northern NSW (Gold Coast, Tweed and northern NSW)
· Tweed Daily News
· Tweed Daily News – Community Edition
· The Northern Star
· The Daily Examiner
· The Woolgoolga Advertiser
· Byron Shire News
· Ballina Shire Advocate
· Lismore Echo
· The Richmond River Express Examiner
· Coastal Views
· The Coffs Coast Advocate

Specialist publications
· Surat Basin News
· Rural Weekly (five editions, including a Northern Territory edition)
· Big Rigs
· CQ Industry
· Style Magazine
· Seniors Newspaper (eight different editions distributed in South-East Queensland and NSW)
· APN Educational Media publications (business-to-business publisher of Education Review, Nursing Review, Aged Care Insite and Campus Review