Aussie Spam Act applied to US SMS marketing outfit
Did you know that SMS-based marketing is subject to Australia’s Spam Act ?
Or that the Australian law can also apply to offshore marketers ?
mBlox, which describes itself as ‘the world’s largest mobile transaction network’ now knows it, following an $11,000 ACMA penalty.
Struggling to make sense of Dodo’s liability clauses
Regular readers will know that T&C clauses that (supposedly) limit CSP liability are very important. If you don’t get them right, you can be exposed to unnecessary legal risk.
Worse, you may commit a criminal offence under the Trade Practices Act – of misrepresenting peoples’ legal rights.
Dodo’s most recent brush with the law caused us to take a look at its ‘liability limitation’ clause. All we can say is ‘Wow !’ What planet’s legal system generated this weird stuff ?
Dodo stung hard for DNCR Act breaches
This week’s record fine for breaches of the Do Not Call Register Act does more than sting national ISP Dodo, the unhappy record holder.
It ends an information drought for Australian businesses that use contract call centres for telemarketing.
As a regular contributor to the coffers of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, Dodo is no stranger to regulatory imposts. But the speed at which big Do Not Call fines can accumulate should alarm even the most blasé operator.
Just 67 non-compliant telesales calls translated into a $147,400 penalty.
ACCC launches telco trade practices blitzkrieg
ACCC today launched heavyweight legal proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against 28 parties involved in ‘bundled services deals’, alleging that customer equipment is ‘secretly’ financed while the customer (wrongly) believes they are getting ownership of it for free.
The deals, pitched at SMEs, involve tens of millions of dollars all up.
ACCC alleges that the way the deals operate and were marketed, there have been extensive breaches of sections 52, 53(e) and 53(g) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and/or sections 12DA(1), 12DB(1)(e) and (12DB(1)(g) of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001.
ACCC also says that these kind of bundled services deals constitute exclusive dealing, in breach of section 47(6) of the TPA.
Make no mistake, this kind of action is a big deal for ACCC and they’ll run it accordingly.
TMG Asia Pacific rolls over in Federal Court
In an earlier post, we reported on Federal Court action by ACCC against TMG Asia Pacific Pty Ltd ACN 119 828 698. ACCC alleged that the company had engaged in false, misleading and deceptive conduct in contravention of the Trade Practices Act 1974.
According to the ACCC, advertisements for three premium-SMS based competitions run by TMG failed to adequately disclose:
- that to be eligible for the prize, participants were required to pay a $5 joining fee and respond to a maximum of 10 quiz questions at $5 each
- participating in the quiz also resulted in the consumer signing up to a subscription quiz consisting of six SMS messages per month at the cost of $5 each, and
- that prizes could not be awarded to residents of the ACT, Victoria and Queensland even though they would be charged for the service.
On 1 October 2008, the case settled in the Federal Court. TMG rolled over and gave the ACCC what it wanted.
We explain the outcome, and how companies can deliver cost effective trade practices compliance programs.