Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v StoresOnline International Inc (No. 2) [2010] FCA 418

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v StoresOnline International Inc (No. 2) [2010] FCA 418

The respondents' representations regarding package pricing, workshop savings, and availability were false and misleading because the packages were never offered or intended to be offered at the represented full price or 90 day price, nor were actual savings presented at workshops genuine. These practices contravened ss 52 and 53(e) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).

Parties
Applicant: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION; First Respondent: STORESONLINE INTERNATIONAL INC; Second Respondent: STORESONLINE INC
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the applicant; declarations made; costs ordered against respondents.
Legal Topics
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, False Representations About Price, Declarations, Costs
Trade Practices Consumer Protection Misleading or Deceptive Conduct False Representations About Price Declarations Costs

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION

Applicant

STORESONLINE INTERNATIONAL INC

First Respondent

STORESONLINE INC

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether representations by respondents at seminars and workshops were misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive under s 52 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether representations were false or misleading with respect to the price of goods or services under s 53(e) Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents' representations regarding package pricing, workshop savings, and availability were false and misleading because the packages were never offered or intended to be offered at the represented full price or 90 day price, nor were actual savings presented at workshops genuine. These practices contravened ss 52 and 53(e) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).

Court Disposition

Judgment for the applicant; declarations made; costs ordered against respondents.

Orders

  • Each respondent engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of s 52 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) by making false price representations at seminars and workshops.
  • Each respondent made false or misleading representations with respect to the price of services in contravention of s 53(e) Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).