The Federal Court has ordered that STA Travel Pty Ltd (STA Travel) pay $14 million in penalties for making false or misleading claims when advertising its MultiFLEX Pass product.

STA Travel admitted that, between March 2014 and August 2019, it made misleading representations in MultiFLEX Pass advertising that consumers who bought the airfare add-on could change their flights without paying fees or charges.

“Consumers were misled into purchasing the MultiFLEX Pass on the representation that they would not have to pay anything further for date changes to their flights, when, in fact, STA often charged consumers hundreds of dollars for changing their flights” ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said.

In many cases, STA Travel’s charges were not reflective of additional fees imposed by the airline. For example, in almost a quarter of cases where a customer was charged extra by STA Travel, the amount was more than double the additional airfare and tax imposed by the airline.

“In 12 per cent of cases, STA Travel charged MultiFLEX Pass customers to make a change to a flight although the airline itself had not charged STA Travel anything at all for the change,” Ms Court said.

“These penalties serve as a timely reminder to all travel businesses that they must not misrepresent the costs applicable when travel services are changed.”

The MultiFLEX Pass cost up to $149 to purchase upfront. Between 2015 and 2019, STA Travel estimates it sold on average approximately 16,000 MultiFLEX Passes per year.

STA Travel admitted liability and made joint submissions with the ACCC to the Federal Court. STA Travel will also contribute to the ACCC’s legal costs.

Notes to Editors

The ACCC initiated proceedings against STA Travel in March 2019 and the proceedings are unrelated to any COVID-19 issues.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the ACCC is assessing the impacts on consumers and working with the travel industry more broadly. Given the circumstances, the ACCC is urging all businesses to treat customers fairly in these exceptional times.

More information on consumer rights during the COVID-19 pandemic can be found here: COVID-19 (coronavirus) information for consumers.

Background:

STA Travel is a national supplier of travel and tourism services. Its advertising targets students and young people and emphasises discounts and flexibility.

STA Travel promoted the MultiFLEX Pass via multiple channels including its website, brochures/flyers, in store posters, a YouTube video and in-store LCD screen displays.

STA Travel sold a range of MultiFLEX Passes to consumers, namely:

• the ONEFlex Pass, costing $49 and allowing one flight date change;
• the ‘3 Change Pass’ or ‘Multiflex Pass’, costing $99 and allowing three flight date changes; and
• the ‘Unlimited’ or ‘Ultimate’ change pass, costing $149 and allowing unlimited flight date changes.

An example of one of STA Travel’s misleading advertisements is below:

7-Eleven and its franchisees have been granted conditional interim authorisation to discuss potential temporary store closures or reduced trading hours in light of reduced customer demand because of COVID-19 restrictions.

7-Eleven owns and operates stores in competition with its franchisees in some areas and therefore discussions and agreements between them risk breaching the competition laws.

“We recognise that 7-Eleven and its franchisees are facing difficult trading conditions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and believe this co-operation could help the network and individual stores to remain viable,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.

“Importantly, franchisees are not required to temporarily close or reduce their store hours if they do not wish to. Our decision to grant interim authorisation does not force franchisees to agree to the terms offered by 7-Eleven.”

Franchisees that agree to close temporarily will receive an ex-gratia payment from 7-Eleven to cover certain unavoidable operational costs. For franchisees that agree to reduce their hours, the minimum guaranteed income that the franchisee receives from 7-Eleven would be pro-rata adjusted to reflect the temporary reduction in trading hours.

“Franchisees are strongly encouraged to seek independent legal and financial advice when considering whether to adopt these temporary measures,” Mr Sims said.

Interim authorisation is subject to a condition that requires 7-Eleven to notify the ACCC of arrangements reached with franchisees to provide some ACCC oversight.

“We are going to closely monitor the effect of these arrangements and when it is appropriate for this authorisation to be revoked,” Mr Sims said.

Having granted interim authorisation for the arrangements, the ACCC will seek feedback on 7-Eleven’s application for authorisation. 

Details on how to make a submission and more information, including the ACCC’s interim authorisation decision, is available at 7-Eleven Stores Pty Limited.

Background

Authorisation provides statutory protection from court action for conduct that might otherwise raise concerns under the competition provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

The Franchising Code of Conduct will continue to apply to franchisees that operate non-fuel stores and the Oil Code will continue to apply to franchisees that operate fuel stores. Both codes contain a dispute resolution process.

Dispute resolution services are provided by the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman (ASBFEO). More about resolving franchising disputes and oil code dispute resolution is available on the ACCC website.

Section 91 of the Act allows the ACCC to grant interim authorisation when it considers it is appropriate. This allows the parties to engage in the proposed conduct while the ACCC is considering the merits of the substantive application.

Three-month exemptions have been granted to financial services providers required to share product reference data by 1 July 2020, due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The temporary exemptions under the Consumer Data Right, until 1 October, will apply to non-major ADIs, including non-major banks, building societies and credit unions, and extend to non-primary brand products offered by the major banks.

The major banks have been sharing product reference data since July 2019.

Product reference data refers to information about a bank’s rates, fees and features of banking products. 

This data can be used by businesses, such as comparison sites, to compare products in the market.

“The ACCC is granting these exemptions as an acknowledgement of the intense resource requirements of the industry as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and in particular non-major banks that may not be able to prioritise this at this time,” ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said.

“We understand that financial providers are dedicating many resources at present to support their customers, however we do encourage providers to share product reference information on a voluntary basis if they are in a position to do so,” Ms Court said.

Further consultation on Consumer Data Right Rules

A revised draft of the Consumer Data Right Rules have also been published today.

The proposed amendments to the Rules include:

1. clarifications on the types of accounts in scope for sharing consumer banking data
2. new rules on the function of the Accreditation Register and Registrar
3. rules relating to the use of the Consumer Data Right logo.

The proposed amendments following this consultation will come into effect from July 2020.

A copy of the draft revised Rules is available here: ACCC consultation on proposed amendments to the Competition and Consumer (CDR) Rules 2020

Bob Jane Corporation Pty Ltd (Bob Jane) has given the ACCC a court-enforceable undertaking to comply with its obligations under the Franchising Code of Conduct in relation to renewal and extension of franchising agreements.

The ACCC was concerned that Bob Jane failed to comply with its obligations under the Code relating to end of term and renewal of agreements. In particular, Bob Jane failed to notify some franchisees whether it intended to renew or extend their franchise agreements at least six months before the expiry of their agreements.

The ACCC was also concerned that it extended the term of certain franchise agreements without first providing required documentation to franchisees and obtaining a written statement that the franchisees had received, read and had an opportunity to understand certain documentation.

“Under the Franchising Code, franchisors must notify franchisees in writing whether they intend to extend or renew the agreement prior to the expiry of the agreement,” ACCC Deputy Chair Mick Keogh said.

“This is an important obligation as it allows franchisees to make informed decisions about the future direction of their business.”

“Franchisors must ensure they comply with their obligations under the Code. We took this action because we were concerned that Bob Jane failed to meet a number of its obligations,” Mr Keogh said.

Bob Jane has acknowledged that its conduct was likely to have contravened the Franchising Code of Conduct and section 51ACB of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. 

As part of the undertaking, Bob Jane has agreed not to terminate any franchise agreements operating under interim arrangements without providing six months’ written notice.

As required by the Code, it will also obtain written notice from franchisees that they have received, read and had a reasonable opportunity to understand disclosure documents and the Code before entering into, renewing, transferring or extending the term or scope of franchise agreements.

Bob Jane has also undertaken to implement and maintain a compliance program for three years.

“Ensuring small businesses receive the protections of competition and consumer laws, with a focus on the Franchising Code, is a current compliance and enforcement priority for the ACCC,” Mr Keogh said. 

“Franchisors often have a stronger bargaining position in their dealings with franchisees, and we will continue to investigate and take action against franchisors where we believe there has been a potential breach of the Code.”

A copy of the undertaking can be found at Bob Jane Corporation Pty Ltd.

Background

Bob Jane, trading as Bob Jane T-Marts, operates a national network of franchised and company-owned tyre retail stores supplying tyres for a wide range of vehicles, and tyre and car maintenance-related services.

The Franchising Code of Conduct is a mandatory industry code across Australia that regulates the conduct of franchising participants towards each other. The ACCC regulates the Code and investigates alleged breaches.

In 2019, a Franchising Taskforce was established to provide advice to the Government to inform the Government’s response to the recommendations made to the Parliamentary Joint Committee Inquiry into franchising. 

On 11 November 2019, the Taskforce released a Consultation Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) for public consultation setting out identified problems with the franchising sector and possible options for government action.

The ACCC’s submission outlines the ACCC’s view that serious consideration should be given to a different regulatory model to address the fundamental concerns that persist in the franchising sector, rather than the incremental changes to the Code currently being considered by the Franchising Taskforce.

The ACCC’s submission in response the RIS can be found on the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources website.

More information for the franchising sector can be found on the ACCC’s website.

The COVID-19 pandemic is dramatically changing the global economic landscape and causing severe disruption to Australian small businesses, ACCC Chair Rod Sims said today.

“Many small businesses are doing it tough, and are being forced to restrict their hours, lay off staff and, for too many, close their doors,” Mr Sims said.

Mr Sims was speaking via Zoom at an event organised by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI).

“We know the COVID-19 pandemic is having a significant economic impact across Australia, which is why we are taking measures to help consumers and small to medium sized businesses,” Mr Sims said.

Mr Sims said the ACCC’s immediate response to the pandemic has focused in two broad areas of work:

• authorisation of crisis collaboration between competitors, particularly in relation to hardship polices, and
• the establishment of the ACCC’s COVID-19 Taskforce to tackle immediate harmful consumer and small business problems arising from the crisis.

Mr Sims said the ACCC has already granted interim authorisation allowing retailers to collectively bargain with landlords about rent relief during the pandemic.

“We see a clear public benefit in allowing retailers to work together in negotiations with landlords and help tenants who are experiencing financial hardship,” Mr Sims said.

Mr Sims said a conditional authorisation had also been granted to allow the Australian Energy Council and wholesale and retail energy businesses to provide financial relief to business customers financially impacted by the current crisis.

“Energy is an essential service and it is important energy market participants support businesses through the pandemic,” Mr Sims said.

Mr Sims said there may be further benefits to energy users flowing from the crisis.

“One rare positive to come from this pandemic is that wholesale electricity and gas prices are falling significantly. These falls need to be passed on to businesses that rely on energy,” Mr Sims said.

“As Australia comes out of this crisis we will need our energy prices to fall significantly if we are to have the recovery we need.”

Mr Sims said the ACCC’s COVID-19 Taskforce is rapidly responding to the thousands of phone calls, emails and social media reports from impacted businesses.

“We are already engaging with some large businesses about allegations they are deliberately choosing not to pay their suppliers, or demanding large discounts off goods already delivered, and also delaying payments significantly, and that they should cease the conduct immediately,” Mr Sims said.

“We are looking into concerns that many small grocery or convenience stores are missing out on supplies that now seem readily available to the large supermarkets. We need to maintain strong competition in the retail sector to ensure economic recovery once the pandemic subsides.”

The ACCC and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) today jointly released the Compliance and Enforcement Policy for the Consumer Data Right.

The Policy outlines the approach that the ACCC and the OAIC have adopted to encourage compliance with, and address breaches of, the Consumer Data Right regulatory framework. The Policy has been developed following consultation with current and future data holders and recipients.

‘‘The Consumer Data Right is an important reform that will give consumers greater access to and control over their data,” ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said.

“With this important reform come significant and serious safeguards.”

“It is the responsibility of each Consumer Data Right participant to be fully aware of their regulatory obligations or face scrutiny by the ACCC and the OAIC,” Ms Court said.

“Today’s release of the Compliance and Enforcement Policy helps clarify these obligations as people prepare to participate in the Consumer Data Right from July 2020.”

The ACCC and OAIC have adopted a strategic risk-based approach to compliance and enforcement, which focuses on building consumer confidence in the security and integrity of the Consumer Data Right system.

“My office and the ACCC will work in partnership to monitor and actively enforce participants’ compliance with their regulatory obligations, including the privacy safeguards,” Australian Information Commissioner and Privacy Commissioner Angelene Falk said.

“A strong regulatory framework is in place to protect privacy and build public confidence in the Consumer Data Right, and the Compliance and Enforcement Policy released today provides increased certainty about how we will uphold these consumer protections.”

“Economic reforms like the Consumer Data Right which build consumer confidence in the use of their personal information and encourage innovation will be critical to our recovery after the COVID-19 outbreak,” Commissioner Falk said.

The ACCC and OAIC will regularly review the Compliance and Enforcement Policy so that it continues to reflect best practice regulation and evolves with the Consumer Data Right regime.

A copy of the Compliance and Enforcement Policy is available online.

This media release was jointly issued with the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.

Background

Principles

The ACCC and OAIC will adopt a strategic risk-based approach to compliance and enforcement which recognises the joint regulatory model and a requirement to deal with breaches of the legislation efficiently and effectively. Both agencies will act with integrity, professionalism and in the public interest, guided by the principles of accountability, efficiency, fairness, proportionality and transparency.

Compliance monitoring tools

The ACCC and OAIC will use a wide range of information sources and monitoring tools to assess compliance and identify potential breaches of the Consumer Data Right legislation (including Privacy Safeguards), Consumer Data Right Rules and Data Standards. These sources and tools will include:

• stakeholder intelligence and complaints
• business reporting, which will include summaries of Consumer Data Right complaint data
• audits and assessments
• information requests and compulsory notices.

Enforcement options

There are a range of enforcement options available to respond to and resolve breaches of the Consumer Data Right legislation (including the Privacy Safeguards), Consumer Data Right Rules and Data Standards. These include:

• administrative resolutions, whereby a business provides a voluntary written commitment to address a non-compliance issue
• infringement notices and court-enforceable undertakings
• suspension or revocation of accreditation by the ACCC (as the accreditor)
• determination and declarations, using the OAIC’s power to make a determination following an investigation, to either dismiss or substantiate a breach of a Privacy Safeguard or Rule relating to the privacy or confidentiality of Consumer Data Right data
• court proceedings (which may result in penalties, injunctions and other orders).