In Brief

Retail­ers must not mis­lead cus­tomers about the amount of mon­ey they are sav­ing dur­ing adver­tised sale periods.


ACCC v Jew­ellery Group Pty Lim­it­ed (No 2) [2013] FCA 14

Last month, the Fed­er­al Court found that Zamel’s Jew­ellers engaged in mis­lead­ing or decep­tive con­duct and made false or mis­lead­ing rep­re­sen­ta­tions by dis­trib­ut­ing numer­ous cat­a­logues pro­mot­ing the sale of jew­ellery using dual-pricing.

By using strikethrough and was/​now pric­ing tech­niques, Zamel’s rep­re­sent­ed to cus­tomers that cus­tomers would save the dif­fer­ence between the com­pared prices if those cus­tomers pur­chased the items dur­ing the sale being adver­tised in the rel­e­vant cat­a­logue. This rep­re­sen­ta­tion was mis­lead­ing because Zamel’s did not in fact sell or rarely sold the items in ques­tion at the high­er price in the peri­od imme­di­ate­ly before the rel­e­vant cat­a­logue sale period.

Court ordered that Zamel’s pay pecu­niary penal­ties of $250,000 in respect of the con­tra­ven­tions of the Trade Prac­tice Act (as it then was) and the ACC­C’s costs.

In addi­tion to the sig­nif­i­cant pecu­niary penal­ties, the court ordered that Zamel’s pub­lish cor­rec­tive adver­tis­ing, imple­ment a com­pli­ance pro­gram, con­duct a risk assess­ment to assess the like­li­hood of the con­tra­ven­tions reoc­cur­ring, estab­lish, main­tain and admin­is­ter a trade prac­tices com­plaints han­dling sys­tem, imple­ment staff train­ing and con­duct an exter­nal review of the busi­ness’ compliance.

Where to from here?

Strikethrough and was/​now pric­ing is not nov­el or new for the retail sec­tor. How­ev­er, what has shift­ed is the dura­tion of sales peri­ods. The tra­di­tion­al bi-annu­al sales peri­ods fol­low­ing Christ­mas and mid-year have been replaced with con­stant sales cam­paigns through­out the year. A walk down the main street of any cap­i­tal city through­out the coun­try reveals that a major­i­ty of retail stores are adver­tis­ing some type of discount.

Clients tell us that the result of this shift is that con­sumers are no longer pre­pared to pay full price for qual­i­ty items. Retail­ers must adapt and be cre­ative. If they need to sell goods for a reduced price for pro­longed peri­ods they need to ensure that their mar­ket­ing cam­paigns do not fall foul of the law by cre­at­ing a mis­lead­ing impres­sion.

For more infor­ma­tion or sup­port with ensur­ing that your busi­ness’s print or online mar­ket­ing cam­paigns do breach the law or for assis­tance with the imple­men­ta­tion of a trade prac­tice com­pli­ance pro­gram for your busi­ness, con­tact Swaab Attorneys.

If you would like to repub­lish this arti­cle, it is gen­er­al­ly approved, but pri­or to doing so please con­tact the Mar­ket­ing team at marketing@​swaab.​com.​au. This arti­cle is not legal advice and the views and com­ments are of a gen­er­al nature only. This arti­cle is not to be relied upon in sub­sti­tu­tion for detailed legal advice.

Publications

Impor­tant Stra­ta Law Changes — Effec­tive 1 July 2025

The Stra­ta Schemes Leg­is­la­tion Amend­ment Act 2025 (Amend­ing Act) intro­duces fur­ther reform in Gov­ern­men­t’s ongo­ing review of the stra­ta legislation. On 1 July…

Own­ers Cor­po­ra­tions / Asso­ci­a­tions now sub­ject to Unfair Con­tract Terms 

Under the new stra­ta law reforms com­menc­ing 1 July 2025 (the Stra­ta Schemes Leg­is­la­tion Amend­ment Act 2025 (No. 14) NSW) a key change…

Unfair con­tract terms in out­dat­ed stan­dard form con­tracts could cost you a fine of $50 mil­lion (Com­pa­nies) or $2.5 mil­lion (Indi­vid­u­als)

If you have not reviewed your stan­dard form con­struc­tion con­tracts since 9 Novem­ber 2023 (when the amend­ed Com­pe­ti­tion and Con­sumer Act…

In the News

Press Release | We are pleased to announce five senior pro­mo­tions in key prac­tice areas of the firm effec­tive, 1 July 2025

Con­grat­u­la­tions:Maris­sa Arag­o­na — AssociateRamesh Chamala — AssociateAaron Boz — AssociateWilliam Clement — Senior AssociateKel­lie Van Mun­ster — Spe­cial Counsel “I am per­son­al­ly delight­ed…

Michael Byrnes quot­ed in the arti­cle, “‘Creep­ing’ unfair dis­missal thresh­old will increase to $183k on 1 July”, pub­lished in HR Leader on 27 June 2025

Michael Byrnes quot­ed in the arti­cle, “‘Creep­ing’ unfair dis­missal thresh­old will increase to $183k on 1 July”, pub­lished in HR Leader…

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, ABC may face sig­nif­i­cant penal­ties’ after can­cel cul­ture’ sack­ing ruled unlaw­ful”, pub­lished in HR Leader on 26 June 2025

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, ​“ABC may face ​‘sig­nif­i­cant penal­ties’ after ​‘can­cel cul­ture’ sack­ing ruled unlaw­ful”, pub­lished in…

Sign up for our Newsletter

*Mandatory information