CONSUMER LAW – where primary judge found that: (1) the first respondent represented to the appellant that the apartment it was selling to the appellant would be on the eleventh and uppermost floor of the building to be constructed; (2) the first respondent had reasonable grounds for the making of the representation – where the appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the first respondent had reasonable grounds – primary judge’s reasoning upheld – appeal dismissed
Related cases – Competition Law
-
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Qteq Pty Ltd (Penalty) [2026] FCA 356
COMPETITION – imposition of pecuniary penalties and related orders under s 76(1) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 – where respondents found to have induced or intended to induce contraventions of the cartel prohibitions – where business and assets of contravenor were divested after the liability judgment and penalty hearing – relevant penalty considerations…
-
Anthony v Apple Inc [2025] FCA 902
COMPETITION LAW — representative proceeding against Apple by developers and users — representative proceeding against Google by developers and users — group members’ claims for overcharge — digital technology — Apple mobile devices — Android mobile devices — operating system software — smart phones — tablets — personal computers — native apps — web apps…
-
Epic Games, Inc v Google LLC [2025] FCA 901
COMPETITION LAW — digital technology — Android mobile devices — operating system software — original equipment manufacturers — Google mobile services — anti-fragmentation agreement — Android compatibility commitment —smart phones — tablets — personal computers — native apps — web apps — web browsers — Google’s Play Store — downloading apps — installing apps —…
