ACCC executes perfect hit on Telstra, Optus and Vodafone
After months of secret negotiations, Telstra, Optus & Voda have rolled over and ‘offered’ ACCC a court enforceable undertaking … equivalent to court injunctions … to stamp out false advertising in the broadband and telephony industry.
When legal advisers warn second and third tier telcos and ISPs about advertising content, the single most common retort is ‘Telstra gets away with it’ and ‘We saw an Optus ad like that’ and ‘But Voda says the same thing’.
It’s a pretty good argument. If the giants can do it, why can’t we ?
No mistake, this is the biggest telco-truth-in-advertising hit ever landed by the national regulator. Like all good commando raids, it seemed to come from nowhere. Only yesterday morning did rumours start to circulate that ‘something big’ was coming out of Canberra in the next 24 hours.
If Tiers 2, 3 & 4 don’t get their act together now, they can’t complain they’re being picked on. And ACCC has made sure that Telstra, Optus & Voda are motivated to keep their networks honest.
Senate Committee rubber stamps draft unfair contracts law
The Senate Standing Committee on Economics has received, and noted, strong submissions that part of the proposed new unfair contracts law can’t be right.
But so what ? The Committee majority finds no fault with the reasoning of law Professor Frank Zumbo, or the Consumer Action Law Centre … but it has still rubber stamped the Bill, virtually guaranteeing its passage into law.
And yes, the problem wording is the part we described as the Bill’s ‘bonkers bit’ back in June 2009. It’s disappointing that the Senate Committee system hasn’t been able to deliver a sensible outcome.
Chariot fined $10,000 for failing to lodge eligible revenue return
OK, that’s a March 2006 headline, but it makes the point: failing to comply with the approaching 28 September deadline for carriers to lodge their annual Eligible Revenue Return is not a good idea.
The ERR is used to determine each carrier’s proportionate liability to contribute to funding the Universal Service Obligation, and one late return holds up the whole exercise.
As ACMA Chairman Chris Chapman said at the time:
‘This court decision highlights that ACMA is comfortable with taking action in appropriate circumstances against carriers that fail to meet their regulatory responsibilities.’
CSP Central has previously backgrounded the return and its requirements.
ISPs: Be careful what you say to media about copyright case
Online tech magazine IT News could have inadvertently lured ISPs into legal disaster with a recent article on copyright issues.
By publishing broadband provider comments about legal advice they may have obtained, the mag could have led them to waive the right to keep the details secret.
It’s vital for CSPs to understand the risk they may create if they publicly refer to legal advice they have received.
Web Ace aced by ACMA
The Australian Communications and Media Authority has flexed its Telecommunications Act muscles against ISP Web Ace, directing it to comply with the billing rules under the Telecommunications Consumer Protections Code.
Web Ace is the trading name of Jason Kenneth McKay of Perth, WA. ACMA says that McKay has been extracting payments from customer credit cards without authority, and failing to refund.
The issue was first publicised on Whirlpool, the Australian internet users’ town square. In May 2008, Whirlpool user ‘yabbitboy’ posted:
I am signed up to webace’s email only plan ( $60 a year ), I get unauthorized billings by webace 4 times already, 4*$60. I had contacted them by email – never got replied and also tried contacting them by phone – I do speak to them by person to person but they said they are ‘busy’ and say they will call me back which is *******.
ACMA has now used its power to direct McKay not to extract payments without issuing a bill and in accordance with customer authorisation.
Mythbuster: ‘Entire agreement’ clauses lock out misrepresentation claims
People are often confused about the effect of clauses that say ‘You acknowledge that we have made no other promises or representations to you.’
Often you see such clauses quoted in support of an argument that a claim for misrepresentation cannot succeed where a contract contains this clause.
But that ain’t necessarily so. In fact, it ain’t normally so.
Bank of Queensland finances telco scam
Finance companies are racing against time to squeeze money out of Australian small businesses before a major Federal Court case shows that their contracts are unenforceable.
Two separate groups of telco companies promoted the notorious telco equipment / finance / servces bundling scam that has cheated businesses of millions of dollars, saddling them with massive debt for goods and services never supplied. One of these groups has been taken to court by ACCC, which is determined to smash its illegal conduct.
Watching on the sidelines are the financiers of the other group. It doesn’t take much to figure out that they won’t be able to recover their dodgy debts after the Federal Court case against the first group is over. So the finance companies are grabbing as much cash from innocent business operators as they can before the ACCC shuts the gate.
And Bank of Queensland’s equipment finance subsidiary is one of the players. Yes, that’e the same Bank of Queensland that denies all responsibility for the outrageous lending practices of failed Storm Financial.