SingTel Optus Pty Limited v Australian Football League [2012] FCA 138

SingTel Optus Pty Limited v Australian Football League [2012] FCA 138

The application was dismissed because the impugned statements were not made in trade or commerce and, even if they were, they were not misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive. The comments were part of a wider public narrative about media rights, technology and copyright law reform, and the statements that Optus was "lifting" content and acting "akin to stealing" were opinions or vernacular descriptions understood in context, not misleading statements of fact.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Australian Consumer Law Proceeding Alleging Misleading or Deceptive Conduct / Final Determination After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'conduct in Trade or Commerce' 'statements of Opinion' 'media Rights to Sporting Events' 'tv Now Recording Service']
['australian Consumer Law' 'consumer Protection' 'copyright'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'conduct in Trade or Commerce' 'statements of Opinion' 'media Rights to Sporting Events' 'tv Now Recording Service']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Australian Consumer Law Proceeding Alleging Misleading or Deceptive Conduct / Final Determination After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents, by publishing or causing to be published the impugned statements, engaged in conduct in trade or commerce within s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law.' 'Whether the statements that Optus was "lifting" content and acting "akin to stealing" were misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive.' 'Whether declarations, injunctions, corrective publication orders, damages or other relief should be granted under the Australian Consumer Law.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the impugned statements were not made in trade or commerce and, even if they were, they were not misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive. The comments were part of a wider public narrative about media rights, technology and copyright law reform, and the statements that Optus was "lifting" content and acting "akin to stealing" were opinions or vernacular descriptions understood in context, not misleading statements of fact.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicants pay the respondents' costs, as agreed or taxed."]