Consumer Bill’s bonkers bit
There’s an element in the proposed national unfair contract terms law that:
- isn’t in the Productivity Commission report that recommended the new law
- isn’t in the Victorian law that is already in force in Victoria
- isn’t in the United Kingdom law that served as the model for Victoria’s law, and
- is bonkers.
It makes no sense. It’s bananas. And the Explanatory Memorandum that accompanies the Bill admits as much.
National consumer law Bill hits Parliament
On 24 June 2009, the Government introduced the Australian Consumer Law Bill into Parliament. It represents the biggest shake up of Australian consumer law in a long time.
From 1 January 2010, the Government intends that we’ll have a national unfair contract terms law. ACCC will have power to demand that advertisers positively substantiate any claims they make. And there’ll be new penalties, enforcement powers and options for compensating consumers.
Stay tuned to CSP Central for plenty of news and expert commentary about the new law. We already have some detailed comments on one misconceived part of the drafting.
Links
Component pricing law seminar announced
On 21 July 2009 CSP Central contributors Victor Ng and Peter Moon will be conducting a masterclass in understanding and complying with the new component pricing law.
Victor says that the seminar will explain the law as it applies to ISPs, telcos and other industries. ‘This law applies over almost all retailing in Australia,’ says Victor. ‘So every business needs to be across it.’ Victor and Peter both specialise in plain english explanations, so this will be an ideal chance for business people to learn these important new rules.
Bookings are free but places are limited. There are only so many people who can fit into the Logie-Smith Lanyon board room 
Here’s the seminar flyer.
Australia tolerates currency forging
Amazing headline ? Well, it’s true. Companies … well known companies … are manufacturing bogus Aussie dollars, and Canberra isn’t stopping it.
How is it so ? Simple. Within Australia, the exchange rate is fixed. A dollar in Perth is a dollar in Sydney.
Only the dubious end of the telco sector gets away with saying ‘A dollar is worth whatever we say it is, for the purposes of any given plan.’
3’s ‘Up yours’ to ACCC
Mobile provider 3 is shirt-fronting ACCC in its current ‘Hot Offers’ promotional brochure. Total pricing for 24 month plans throughout the document is buried in a sea of barely readable, light-coloured, small print at the foot of each page.
Under the new component pricing law that kicked in on 25 May, the single buy price of a plan like that must be ’specified in a prominent way’. If 3’s catalogue goes anywhere near passing that test, the new law is dead.
ACCC really needs to kick off some enforcement action against retailers it considers aren’t complying with section 53C of the Trade Practices Act. It’s hard to expect CSPs to follow the spirit of the component pricing law when their competitors seem to be getting away with feint micro-print.
ACMA confirms 2009/10 Do Not Call washing fees
ACMA has announced that excess usage fees for list washing will be abandoned from 1 July 2009. Instead a so-called ‘annual subscription’ will in fact be a block prepurchase of washing credits that will normally expire if not used within 12 months.
If a telemarketer’s remaining ’annual’ subscription credits aren’t sufficient to pay for washing a submitted list in less than 12 months, they will have to buy a new ‘annual’ subscription before that list can be washed. In that case, any unused credits from the first subscription will be rolled over into the second one.
ACMA has made the change because 90% of list washing ‘access seekers’ are already estimating their requirements pretty accurately. If they keep doing that, the new block prepayments will usually cover a year’s use. If not, access seekers may find their annual subscriptions aren’t actually annual. Wonder what ACCC would make of a CSP that advertised an ‘annual’ fee that may or may not cover a year
Keep reading for the full table of rates, showing the comparison with 2008/09.
Read more…
iiNet and AFACT both claim ‘win’ in preliminary discovery issues
We previously reported iiNet’s request for AFACT to give it access to various documents relating to the film studios’ potential actions against other ISPs in Australia and overseas.
Yesterday, the Federal Court largely rejected iiNet’s request, limiting the scope of the documents to be produced by AFACT to certain categories relating to local infringement investigations.
At the same time, the Court ordered that iiNet discover the details of 20 anonymous customer accounts, well short of the 300 to 400 accounts reportedly sought by AFACT.
Both sides were quick to claim a minor victory - AFACT saying 20 accounts is sufficient for them to prove their case and iiNet saying they have effectively got the documents they asked for.
SFoA backgrounder released
Many CSPs are already using a ’Standard Form of Agreement’ but many others don’t … and don’t know what it’s all about.
To demystify the topic, here’s a dowloadable SFoA backgrounder that overviews what they are and why they can improve CSP business processes, with the compliments of CSP Central and Logie-Smith Lanyon Lawyers
You should also check out this post about complying with the SFoA Summary notification regime.