online trader fined 100 grand for misleading consumers

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.

 

Message 1 of 21
Latest reply
20 REPLIES 20

Re: online trader fined 100 grand for misleading consumers

Crow and Cat...

 

ohh well there you go. This was quite some time ago (like years) I was learning about it. I was under the impression it was $20,000 per incident, then theyd add on things like court fees / compensation / other relative fines etc etc whatever else. Must have been something else.

 

I read it as $10,000... missed a 0... wow, he'll never do that again!

 

 

 

Message 11 of 21
Latest reply

Re: online trader fined 100 grand for misleading consumers

I made a typo & missed a zero in the subject title ..... I then edited it to correct it ...

 

I tricked ya Cat Very HappyCat LOL

 

 

.... some of the titles in subsequent posts still show as $10K

Message 12 of 21
Latest reply

Re: online trader fined 100 grand for misleading consumers

poor guy. a sole trader fined 100K. there goes the mortgage 😕

 

I find this has a significant impact on sellers on ebay, "mum and dad" sellers who don't have a proper business structure and do not understand ebay rules, let alone the law. I shake my head when I see disclaimers like "no refunds!" "no returns" on some listings.

Message 13 of 21
Latest reply

Re: online trader fined 100 grand for misleading consumers

Samsorange I think you missed a very important point regarding your mum and dad sellers.

 

A consumer’s right to a refund, repair, or replacement in certain circumstances

 

The law does not apply to non business sellers nor does it apply to second hand goods.

____________________________________________________
It says in this book I am reading that by 2065 80% of women will be overweight.

See what a trendsetter I am?
Message 14 of 21
Latest reply

Re: online trader fined 100 grand for misleading consumers

saarzi
Community Member
A sole trader doesnt mean hes poor... hes probably a millionare for all we know.


Message 15 of 21
Latest reply

Re: online trader fined 100 grand for misleading consumers


@phorum_junkie* wrote:

Samsorange I think you missed a very important point regarding your mum and dad sellers.

 

A consumer’s right to a refund, repair, or replacement in certain circumstances

 

The law does not apply to non business sellers nor does it apply to second hand goods.


Consumer law does indeed apply to second hand goods if bought from a business.

 

 

http://www.consumerlaw.gov.au/content/the_acl/downloads/consumer_guarantees_guide.pdf

 

"Which goods are covered?

 

Goods are covered by the consumer guarantees as long as they are sold in trade or commerce and bought by a consumer.

 

Second-hand, leased or hired goods are also covered."

Message 16 of 21
Latest reply

Re: online trader fined 100 grand for misleading consumers

So I didn't word it very well, I did mean second hand goods from private sellers although the second hand items, I have been told, are only covered for misrepresentation, in other words if they are sold As is and any faults are mentioned it is buyer beware.

____________________________________________________
It says in this book I am reading that by 2065 80% of women will be overweight.

See what a trendsetter I am?
Message 17 of 21
Latest reply

Re: online trader fined 100 grand for misleading consumers

Not so sure about the "poor guy" Electronic Bazaar is well known on Whirlpool for its poor customer service and refunds.  Whirlpool has a topic going back to 2008 over 18 pages about the problems buyers have had with them.

 

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1094235

 

 

---------------------------------------------------
Profanity is no substitute for wit.
Message 18 of 21
Latest reply

Re: online trader fined 100 grand for misleading consumers

lol, yes but consumer law in Australia has gotten out of hand.

 

Someone can buy something use it, break it, or it break down, then demand refund or a new one when its

meant to be under warranty and get repaired and thats provided it wasnt from customer damaging it.

(In the fine lettering of the law, if the item is customer damaged in ANY way, the claim can be refused but,

most business's go down the repair path as its often cheaper n quieter but technically the customer under

the fine lettering of the law can demand and is owed a refund, have to argue over major fault which

can be claimed to be anything.) Contradicts itself.

 

Hence some items have reduce warranties(down to a matter of weeks) but the consumer law seems to imply much longer

coverage(years) and never clarifies it for anything. I know as in regards to radio control toys have gone thru the coals over it.

Your just meant to absorb it n include the costs into your business.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Message 19 of 21
Latest reply

Re: online trader fined 100 grand for misleading consumers


@toysandthings12 wrote:

lol, yes but consumer law in Australia has gotten out of hand.

 

Someone can buy something use it, break it, or it break down, then demand refund or a new one when its

meant to be under warranty and get repaired and thats provided it wasnt from customer damaging it.

(In the fine lettering of the law, if the item is customer damaged in ANY way, the claim can be refused but,

most business's go down the repair path as its often cheaper n quieter but technically the customer under

the fine lettering of the law can demand and is owed a refund, have to argue over major fault which

can be claimed to be anything.) Contradicts itself.

 

Hence some items have reduce warranties(down to a matter of weeks) but the consumer law seems to imply much longer

coverage(years) and never clarifies it for anything. I know as in regards to radio control toys have gone thru the coals over it.

Your just meant to absorb it n include the costs into your business.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


BS

Message 20 of 21
Latest reply