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:

Nearly 200,000 vehicles fitted with potentially deadly airbags are still on the roads, and more than 8,000 of these are considered so dangerous they should not be driven at all, according to the latest ACCC figures on the compulsory recall of Takata airbags.

In addition, a significant number of vehicles fitted with a different type of faulty Takata airbag are yet to be remedied. These vehicles, which are fitted with Takata NADI airbags, are considered so dangerous that manufacturers are offering to buy back the vehicles or to provide a loan vehicle until replacement parts are available. We are aware that there have been two deaths and two injuries in Australia resulting from misdeployments of Takata NADI airbags. 

Motorists are being urged to check now if their vehicles are fitted with these recalled Takata airbags, as car dealerships are still operating and providing replacement airbags free of charge. 

“Even during this pandemic, replacing faulty airbags is an essential and potentially life-saving task, especially as vehicles may be being used by essential workers and care-givers,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said.

“It will also be more important than ever that as more people start to use their cars again, they check that their airbags are safe. Affected Takata airbags can misdeploy and send sharp metal fragments into the vehicle at high speed, and cause serious injury or death to its occupants.”

“Drivers should check online or with their dealer or manufacturer whether their vehicles are subject to this compulsory recall or the voluntary recall of Takata NADI airbags, and never ignore a notice of recall from your car’s manufacturer,” Ms Rickard said.

Globally there have been 29 deaths and over 320 serious injuries reported, including one death and one serious injury in Australia relating to airbags affected by the compulsory recall.

Over four million airbags in more than three million vehicles in Australia were originally affected by the Takata compulsory recall due to these potentially deadly airbags.

More than 88 per cent of airbags have now been rectified, and about six per cent have been reported by suppliers as written-off, stolen, unregistered, exported or modified and unable to be replaced.

Figures from the ACCC’s latest quarterly update on the compulsory recall show that about five per cent (over 228,000) of faulty airbags remain in more than 196,000 vehicles.

In particular, motorists are in danger if they have a critical vehicle containing an airbag that poses a heightened risk of causing injury or death. There still more than 8,000 of these vehicles remaining on the roads, and drivers can check the Product Safety Australia website if their vehicle is affected.

“Vehicles with critical airbags should not be driven. Please contact your dealer to arrange for your vehicle to be towed to the place of repair free of charge so you do not have to drive it,” Ms Rickard said.

The ACCC is also conscious of the impact COVID-19 is having on Australian consumers and businesses.

“We understand dealerships are still operating and are offering the services outlined in the compulsory and voluntary recall notices. Both the ACCC and the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications will be closely monitoring any changes to these arrangements,” Ms Rickard said.

Consumers can also search for vehicles affected by the Takata compulsory recall by entering their number plate and state or territory at: IsMyAirbagSafe.com.au or by texting 'Takata' to 0487 AIRBAG (247224).

A list of vehicle manufacturer helplines and contact details is available at: Vehicle manufacturer helplines & contact details.

Takata fast facts

• In total about 3.62 million airbag inflators (88.1%) have now been rectified in about 2.64 million vehicles.
• This excludes 259,025 airbag inflators (6.3%) in 216,138 vehicles reported by suppliers as unrepairable (written off, scrapped, stolen, or modified and unable to have the airbag replaced). 
• There remains 228,764 airbag inflators (5.6%) in 196,299 vehicles outstanding for replacement.
• As at 31 March 2020, there are 1,895 vehicles with critical-alpha airbags and 6,471 vehicles with critical non-alpha airbags outstanding for replacement.
• Vehicles with critical airbags should not be driven, and drivers are entitled to have their vehicles towed to the dealership to have the airbag replaced for free. 

Notes to editors:

• The Takata airbag recall is the world’s largest automotive recall, affecting an estimated 100 million vehicles globally.
• It is the most significant compulsory recall in Australia’s history, with over four million affected Takata airbag inflators and involving more than three million vehicle recalls.
• Takata airbags affected by the compulsory recall use a chemical called phase-stabilised ammonium nitrate (PSAN). The ACCC’s investigation concluded that certain types of Takata PSAN airbags have a design defect. The defect may cause the airbag to deploy with too much explosive force so that sharp metal fragments shoot out and hit vehicle occupants, potentially injuring or killing them.
• In addition to the compulsory recall of vehicles fitted with Takata PSAN airbags, eight vehicle manufacturers have also issued voluntary recalls for some vehicles manufactured between 1996 and 2000, which may have been fitted with a different type of faulty Takata airbag, being a NADI airbag.

The Full Court of the Federal Court has today delivered its judgment on the ACCC’s appeal in relation to proceedings brought to stop Pacific National’s acquisition of the Acacia Ridge Terminal in Brisbane by Aurizon (ASX: AZJ).

The ACCC had appealed the 2019 judgment of the Federal Court which held that the acquisition would not be likely to substantially lessen competition due to an undertaking that Pacific National had offered the Court.

While the ACCC was successful in relation to a number of legal issues, the Full Court found there was insufficient evidence to establish that the acquisition was likely to result in a substantial lessening of competition, and dismissed the ACCC’s appeal.

Although the majority of the Full Court agreed with the ACCC’s position on the meaning of ‘likely’, the case hinged on the ACCC establishing the likelihood of another player seeking to enter the market in the next five to ten years. The Full Court considered that the prospect of new entry was no more than speculative.

“This was a particularly important case for Australia’s merger laws, and the outcome demonstrates the real difficulty of applying the substantial lessening of competition provisions in the legislation,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.

The result of the Full Court’s decision is that Pacific National’s acquisition of the Acacia Ridge Terminal may proceed, without the access undertaking accepted by the trial judge.

“This is also a sad day for the economy, because the ACCC’s view is that the prospects of competition in rail freight have been significantly diminished and the impacts of this will be with us for more than a decade,” Mr Sims said.

The ACCC’s case was that Pacific National’s ownership of the Acacia Ridge Terminal would allow it to effectively prevent access to new entrants, entrenching Pacific National’s position as the dominant rail freight carrier on the east coast.

“We will now carefully consider the Full Court’s judgment. The ACCC will continue to consider what changes are needed to make Australia’s merger laws work in the way they need to, to safeguard the economy from highly concentrated markets,” Mr Sims said.

Notes to editors

The term ‘intermodal’ freight is used to describe the carriage of general freight usually in a container using two or more modes of transportation, such as truck and rail. ‘Intermodal rail linehaul’ refers to the rail leg of the movement of intermodal freight. ‘Steel rail linehaul’ refers to similar services that are provided in respect of steel products.

An intermodal terminal, such as the Acacia Ridge Terminal, comprises infrastructure with a connection to a rail line where containers can be transferred between transportation modes.

Background

The ACCC commenced proceedings on 18 July 2018 alleging that Pacific National’s acquisition of the Acacia Ridge Terminal from Aurizon would have the likely effect of substantially lessening competition in breach of section 50 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

The ACCC was concerned that the acquisition of the Acacia Ridge Terminal would deter a new entrant from providing interstate linehaul services in competition with Pacific National.

The ACCC had commenced a public investigation of Aurizon’s proposed exit plans, including the proposed acquisitions by Pacific National of the Acacia Ridge Terminal and Queensland intermodal business on 27 October 2017. The ACCC issued a statement of issues on 15 March 2018.

The Federal Court dismissed the ACCC’s proceedings on 15 May 2019. The trial judge found that, with Pacific National’s undertaking offered to the Court, the acquisition of the Acacia Ridge Terminal would not be likely to substantially lessen competition.

The ACCC lodged an appeal on 27 June 2019. The appeal, and cross appeals by Pacific National and Aurizon, were heard before the Full Court of the Federal Court from 17 – 20 February 2020.

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).