48
competition increase on a fully laden freighter would have been more than $80,000 a week. ACCC steps up action against cartels Sims said the ACCC had stepped up its focus on cartels, starting with its short film The Marker, which he sent to CEOs of Australia’s top 300 companies. It has started civil proceedings in the Federal Court in Adelaide against Japanese company Yazaki Corporation and its Australian subsidiary, Australian Arrow Pty Ltd, alleging they engaged in cartel conduct, market sharing and price fixing.
As part of the ACCC’s cartel conduct investigation, the Federal Court has ordered Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd and Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd to pay a total of $23 million in penalties for breaching the TPA and the Competition and Consumer Act. The alleged cartel conduct is for supplying wire harnesses to Toyota Motor Corporation and its Australian affiliates. Wire harnesses are electrical systems that distribute power and send electrical signals to various car components. The ACCC alleges there was an overarching cartel arrangement between Yazaki and a competitor until at least late 2009. ACCC is seeking pecuniary penalties, declarations, injunctions and costs. Its action follows similar enforcement cases
FRH0043_TheAge_T21_R1.indd 1
Australasian Legal Business ISSUE 11.02
against Yazaki and other cartel participants by Japanese and U.S. competition regulators for supplying wire harnesses and other automotive components to several car manufacturers. ACCC aims to fight TPG further The ACCC is also seeking special leave in the High Court to appeal against a Federal Full Court decision that partially overturned a $2 million misleading conduct ruling against internet provider TPG Internet. ACCC initially succeeded in its action against TPG for allegedly misleading advertising on TV, radio, internet and on public transport. On November 4, 2011, Federal Court Justice Bernard Murphy found TPG’s initial and amended Unlimited ADSL2+ ads were misleading because they conveyed the impression TPG’s Unlimited ADSL2+ broadband could only be acquired with a “bundled” home telephone line for an additional $30 a month. In a second set of reasons handed down on June 15, 2012, Justice Murphy ordered several forms of relief, including declarations, injunctions, corrective advertising and pecuniary penalties totalling $2 million, comprising $600,000 for the initial advertisements and $1.4 million for the revised advertisement. On December 20, TPG partially won its appeal to the Federal Full Court. Justices Michael Jacobsen, Annabelle Bennett and John Gilmour, who partially allowed the appeal, said Justice Murphy had failed to consider the target audience’s knowledge. The ads conveyed ADSL2+ cost $29.99 a month and the judges said “a degree of robustness is required. The legislation does not operate for the benefit of those who fail to take care of their own interests … Once the attributes of the hypothetical ordinary or reasonable viewer are taken into account; we doubt such a person would be misled. As we have said, that person is taken to know the service may be offered as bundled with another and that some form of connection is required to receive the service. He or she is also taken to know that set-up charges are often made”. Justices Jacobsen, Bennett and Gilmour held only TPG’s TV ads were misleading because of the ‘fleeting’ nature of the medium. They said the ads breached s53(c) of the TPA because the minimum correct price was not prominently displayed.
3/08/12 3:34 PM