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

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.