online trader fined 100 grand for misleading consumers

[thecatspjs]

http://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/electronic-bazaar-operator-to-pay-penalties-of-100000-for-misle...

info includes the following statements -

Electronic Bazaar operator to pay penalties of $100,000 for misleading consumers

13 May 2015

"The Federal Court of Australia has ordered Mr Dhruv Chopra, the sole operator of the online electronics store Electronic Bazaar, to pay penalties totalling $100,000 for contravening the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), in proceedings brought by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

Electronic Bazaar sold camcorders, digital cameras, mobile phones, laptops, projectors, and other electronic goods through its website  The Court declared that since at least 21 May 2014, Mr Chopra had made false or misleading representations to consumers about the availability of refunds and the extent of Electronic Bazaar’s liability for faulty goods.

These representations included that consumers were not entitled to a refund, repair, or replacement for goods in various circumstances, such as where the goods were no longer under an express warranty, where the goods had been used or were not in their original packaging, or unless a claim was made within a specified time period."

“The Court's decision to impose a significant penalty on Mr Chopra, a sole trader, for misrepresenting consumers' refund and warranty rights makes it clear that this conduct is a serious breach of the Australian Consumer Law. A consumer’s right to a refund, repair, or replacement in certain circumstances under the ACL consumer guarantees cannot be excluded or modified by terms or conditions published on a website,” ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said.

[saarzi]

need to know what your point is...... (so people can comment appropriately)...

[thecatspjs]

Take from the post what you will.

 LOL

[davewil1964]

I'll take a stab at at least one point -

"A consumer’s right to a refund, repair, or replacement in certain circumstances under the ACL consumer guarantees cannot be excluded or modified by terms or conditions published on a website".

I'm working on the premise this would apply to ALL consumer law, not just to purchasers of goods.

[saarzi]

ohh. silly man lol

I always thought it was a $20,000 penalty - I guess thats only for companies, not sole traders.

[saarzi]

...that applies to any law in Australia (and most of the rest of the world). They are just saying "under the ACL consumer guarantees" because that is what the case refers to.

Amazing how many people still think that policy, or the "rules you sign up to" override Australian Law, even on this board. I saw a post the other day here where a member said something like "regardless of the law, that is what you signed up to" (regarding Ebay policies).

If the rules, or policy, contradict Australian law they are NOT, at any time, enforceable, and might even be illegal. They are completely meaningless.

[davewil1964]

---

@gtx305 wrote:

...that applies to any law in Australia (and most of the rest of the world). They are just saying "under the ACL consumer guarantees" because that is what the case refers to.

Amazing how many people still think that policy, or the "rules you sign up to" override Australian Law, even on this board. I saw a post the other day here where a member said something like "regardless of the law, that is what you signed up to" (regarding Ebay policies).

If the rules, or policy, contradict Australian law they are NOT, at any time, enforceable, and might even be illegal. They are completely meaningless.

---

I'm fully aware of that. That was my point.

[collect247]

Why would a sole trader be fined more than a company?

A company gets fined more so the $20000 is more like $200000

[thecatspjs]

More for a company ... sometimes...

EnergyAustralia and telemarketer ordered to pay penalties totalling $1.1 million for misleading consumers

27 March 2015

The Federal Court of Australia has ordered that EnergyAustralia Pty Ltd (EnergyAustralia) pay penalties of $1 million and that its former telemarketing company, Bright Choice Australia Pty Ltd (Bright Choice), pay penalties of $100,000 for contravening the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).

AGL SA ordered to pay $700,000 penalty and to offer refunds to consumers for false or misleading discount representations   

29 April 2015

The Federal Court has ordered AGL South Australia Pty Ltd (AGL SA) to pay penalties of $700,000 and to offer refunds totalling approximately $780,000 to 23,000 consumers for making false or misleading representations about the level of discount residential consumers would receive under AGL SA’s energy plans, in proceedings brought by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

[saarzi]

ohh.  lol ...