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.
Optus toughens up mobile contract
Last December Optus incurred customer wrath, effectively torpedoing mobile access to cheap international VoIP services by charging them at international rates.
At the time, Optus insisted that:
International calls within the meaning of your Optus Mobile Standard Form of Agreement for all Timeless and Cap plans includes calls that re-route or divert to international numbers.
CSP Central asked Optus to tell us where the SFoA said that. We couldn’t be sure – because the document is a confused mish-mash – but as far as we could tell it said no such thing.
Apparently Optus didn’t feel too sure of its grounds, either. So it has bolted on a powerful, unbalanced new contract term that is sure to attract the interest of consumer regulators who have unfair contract terms legislation in their armory. Today, that’s only Victoria. On 1 January 2010, it will be every Australian State and Territory, and the ACCC.
Component pricing seminar notes available
Seminar notes from today’s popular ‘Component Pricing Law’ seminar at Logie-Smith Lanyon Lawyers are now available for download.
Delivered in our trademark style … plain english guaranteed … the seminar offered practical and expert insights into living harmoniously with the new trade practices law.
We’ll offer a repeat session soon … keep watching.
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.
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.
Why Telstra and Optus need to be concerned about the coming unfair contracts law
Some time this month, Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs Chris Bowen will introduce an ‘unfair contract terms’ Bill into Federal Parliament. Telstra and Optus have both slammed it.
Businesses that contract with Telstra and Optus need to understand why the coming law could give the telco giants such grief.
FunnyTel smashes ACCC
FunnyTel’s legal and hospitality manager Chad Blake has announced the company’s total bypass of ACCC’s new component pricing law.
In a brilliant moment, Chad was being shouted at by FunnyTel CEO Steve that the company didn’t have to employ him, and every day at his desk was a favour. Steve’s a motivational speaker in his spare time.
But then Chad realised … Steve doesn’t need me, and the customers don’t need us ! Everything they buy is optional, and options don’t need to be included in the total product price, do they ??? So FunnyTel’s famous ‘Zero Heroes’ campaign was born and ACCC was smashed again by Australia’s fastest thinking telco.
‘And it’s interesting to note’, says Chad, ‘that we didn’t need to waste a single dollar on external advice. The ‘$Nuffin to pay’ campaign is proof you don’t need Bourke Street tossers to create a totally legal campaign.’
TPG gets new law a bit right !
Let’s give credit to TPG. The compliance-challenged comms co doesn’t often set a standard, but after recently breaching the new component pricing law, it has taken a reasonable shot at complying with today’s web site advert.
Sure, its math doesn’t make sense. $20 SIM plus $20 deposit does not equal $52.99. But we know what they mean … it’s the $20 SIM plus the $20 deposit plus the $12.99 for a non-contracted month that adds up to $52.99.
And the total price isn’t super-prominent, but it’s not in micro-print, and it is in a clear area of its own, and it is immediately below the headline pricing, and it’s not a big or cluttered ad, and it is in capitals. ACCC might debate whether it passes the ‘prominence’ test but by TPG’s standards, it’s a good effort.
And you know two crazy things ?