The ACCC has granted new interim authorisation for an expanded range of measures allowing participants in the gas and electricity markets to work together to help safeguard Australia’s energy supply during the COVID-19 pandemic.

On April 3, the ACCC granted interim authorisation to the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), allowing energy market participants to co-operate on certain measures intended to maintain secure and reliable energy supplies while the pandemic continues.

AEMO had applied for approval for a broader range of conduct, which the ACCC required more time to consider.

The ACCC has now granted interim authorisation for an expanded set of measures, including allowing market participants to share information about the operation of critical facilities and any risks to their continued operation. AEMO is also able to notify the ACCC of further types of conduct it needs to undertake in order to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The ACCC has expressly excluded any conduct relating to gas availability from this new interim authorisation because at this stage it is not persuaded about the need for coordinated conduct regarding gas.

Importantly, the new interim authorisation imposes the same strict conditions as the original interim authorisation, including that AEMO report regularly on any measures taken, a ban on any contracts that would outlast the ACCC’s authorisation period, and a requirement that parties to the authorisation continue to comply with other conditions of authorisation that apply to conduct occurring under this authorisation.

“It is essential that Australian businesses and households have access to reliable and efficient energy supplies during this difficult time. There is a clear need for co-operation between industry participants to prevent any disruption to these supplies,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.

“However, it is important to note that this co-operation cannot extend to making agreements about energy prices or to sharing confidential information about pricing or profits. It will also only take place during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

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

The need for co-operation in the energy sector during the pandemic was raised at last month’s COAG Energy Council. COAG’s newly formed Energy Coordination Mechanism, made up of government and industry leaders, will be kept informed about measures taken to secure energy supplies. The ACCC will also be informed of such measures through this authorisation.

More information is available on the ACCC public register at Australian Energy Market Operator.

Background

AEMO manages electricity and gas markets and systems across Australia to ensure a reliable, secure, affordable and sustainable energy system. Its members include government and industry participants.

Electricity industry participants that might qualify for the interim authorisation include electricity generators, retailers, network service providers, metering service providers, and many other industry specific service providers. Gas industry participants that might qualify include producers, traders, retailers, storage providers and many other industry specific service providers.

Notes to editors

ACCC 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.

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.

The ACCC may review a decision on interim authorisation at any time, including in response to feedback raised following interim authorisation.

Broadly, the ACCC may grant an authorisation when it is satisfied that the likely public benefit from the conduct outweighs any likely public detriment.

The ACCC has announced that it will not oppose Ventia’s proposed acquisition of Broadspectrum. Ventia is a 50/50 partnership between CIMIC Group Limited (ASX:CIM) and funds management firm Apollo Global Management, LLC.

Ventia and Broadspectrum are both providers of infrastructure services. The ACCC’s review focused on three types of infrastructure services: design and construction, operation and maintenance and facilities management.

The companies provide services to a wide range of industries, including industries that provide critical services to consumers such as electricity, telecommunications and water.

“We looked at this proposed acquisition closely to ensure strong competition remains in the supply of infrastructure services to industries with a direct impact on consumer prices,” ACCC Commissioner Stephen Ridgeway said.

“We contacted many customers of infrastructure services, and received consistent feedback that there is sufficient competition from alternative suppliers and that companies will continue to have a variety of options when contracting for infrastructure services.”

“Ventia and Broadspectrum generally offer differentiated services with minimal overlap in a number of industries including defence, justice, education, social housing, oil and gas, environmental consulting and real estate,” Mr Ridgeway said.

We are conscious of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on many businesses and transactions and, where possible, we will expedite reviews as we have done in this review.

Further information is available at Ventia Services Group Pty Ltd - Ferrovial Services Australia Pty Ltd (Broadspectrum).

Background

Ventia is a 50/50 partnership between CIMIC Group Limited and funds management firm Apollo Global Management, LLC. Ventia provides infrastructure services throughout a range of industries, including social infrastructure, transport and utilities. Ventia also supplies services for telecommunication infrastructure assets through its Visionstream subsidiary.

Broadspectrum provides infrastructure services across a range of industries, including defence, urban and social infrastructure, natural resources, transport, telecommunications and real estate. It also provides integrated property and facilities management services to 37 different Australian Government entities, including the ACCC.

Broadspectrum operates in its own name and through its subsidiary brands, including APP Corporation and Easternwell Group.

Design and construction services involve the planning, design and construction of capital assets. These services are inputs into the overall project delivery method used to take the project design from conception to construction, and handover to the customer.

Operation and maintenance services relate to existing infrastructure and include a combination of ongoing asset maintenance and repair, operational support and asset replacement.

Facilities management services relate to the maintenance of physical assets and their support processes.

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.

The ACCC has granted unconditional merger authorisation to Gumtree’s proposed acquisition of Cox Australia Media Solutions (Cox Media), allowing Gumtree Cars to be combined with Cox Media’s Carsguide and Autotrader sites.

“We authorised this merger because we concluded it was not likely to lead to a substantial lessening of competition, including in the supply of online automotive classifieds in Australia. Therefore it was not necessary to consider the public benefit limb of the authorisation test,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.

Carsales is the leading provider of online automotive classified advertising in Australia and is a significant competitive constraint on Gumtree and Cox Media. Facebook Marketplace is also a growing competitor to Gumtree and Cox Media in the supply of online automotive classifieds services.

“Our investigation showed that Carsales and Facebook Marketplace are likely to continue to provide significant competition in online automotive classifieds after Gumtree acquires Cox Media,” Mr Sims said.

“We also found that Gumtree and Cox Media focus on different segments, with Gumtree focussing on private seller listings and Cox Media focussing on dealer listings.”

The ACCC also investigated the impact of the acquisition on the supply of online display advertising on digital automotive content providers.

The ACCC was satisfied that the acquisition is unlikely to result in a reduction of competition for supplying online display advertising to advertisers wishing to target potential car buyers.

“Many advertisers use third parties to place targeted advertisements to individual consumers based on browsing history data on a wide range of websites. Further, we found there are a range of other digital automotive content providers where direct advertisers could place automotive-related advertising, including Drive, Carsales, GoAuto and digital versions of automotive print publications,” Mr Sims said.

The ACCC’s determination is available at Gumtree AU Pty Ltd proposed acquisition of Cox Australia Media Solutions Pty Ltd.

Background

Gumtree’s application is the second merger authorisation application following reforms in 2017 to the merger authorisation process, which reinstated the ACCC’s ability to consider applications for merger authorisation. Previously authorisation applications were made directly to the Australian Competition Tribunal.

Merger authorisation provides an alternative avenue for merger clearance to the informal merger review process, which is the most commonly used avenue used by merger parties. The authorisation process is public. If merger authorisation is granted, merger parties are exempt from the merger laws.

The ACCC may grant authorisation for a proposed merger if it is satisfied the merger is not likely to substantially lessen competition, or where the likely public benefits outweigh the likely public detriments.

Gumtree sought merger authorisation for its proposed acquisition of Cox Media. Gumtree (through Gumtree Cars) and Cox Media (through Carsguide/Autotrader) both offer online automotive classified advertising to private and dealer sellers in Australia. Gumtree and Cox both sell third parties display advertising space on their websites and mobile applications.

Gumtree is a subsidiary of eBay Classifieds Holding BV, whose ultimate parent company is eBay Inc. eBay operates a multi-category general classifieds website in Australia.

Cox Media is a subsidiary of Cox Automotive, which is 70 per cent owned by Cox Automotive International Sarl and 30 per cent owned by DealerMotive Ltd, a consortium of Australian dealer groups. Carsguide and Autotrader provide automotive editorial content and automotive classifieds.

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 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).