The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has reinforced its stance against the publication of false testimonies and reviews online instituting proceedings against A Whistle (1979) Pty Ltd trading as Electrodry Carpet Cleaning (Electrodry).
Electrody is a franchise business that offers carpet and upholstery cleaning services. The ACCC alleges Electrodry engaged a contractor to publish fictitious reviews online constituting misleading and deceptive conduct. The fake reviews appeared on a number of popular internet review websites such as True Local, Word of Mouth and Google. As a franchisor Electrodry is said also to have encouraged franchisees to publish false testimonials online.
In 2013, the ACCC released guidelines include a broad set of ‘principles’ that are aimed at reducing the number of misleading, solicited and fictitious reviews online. The publication of false or misleading information may also be in violation of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA).
According to section 18 of Schedule 2 of the CCA: “a person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading and deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive” The ACCC is seeking a declaration that Electrodry breached the CCA, as well as penalties, injunctions and the publication of corrective notices. There are steps businesses can take to avoid breaching the CCA and ACCC guidelines:
- Where a business has an arrangement or commercial relationship with a reviewed business it is important to clearly inform consumers of the extent of that relationship and how it influences the review;
- While incentives may be offered to users to submit reviews, these incentives must apply equally to positive and negative reviews. Businesses should specify at the point of submission that the incentive is not response dependent;
- Reviews should be displayed in a way that does not distort their value. For example, if a product or service is rated then the total number of reviews submitted should be clearly displayed.
- Businesses should not submit reviews concerning themselves or encourage family or friends to do the same.
Links and further references
Legislation
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)
Competition and Consumer Legislation Amendment Act 2011 (Cth) Schedule 2
Cases
Other links
ACCC Advertising your business – Social Media
ACCC Guide for business and review platforms
Undertaking of Citymove Pty Ltd
Further information
If you need further information, contact us for confidential and obligation-free discussion:
Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS.
Legal Practice Director
T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred)
M: +61 419 726 535
E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au
Disclaimer
This article contains general commentary only. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances.
Related insights about litigation and disputes
-
Point in time valuation and minority shareholder oppression
Shareholder oppression, or minority shareholder oppression, is generally thought to occur when the majority shareholders misuse their power to oppress or control the minority.
-
Tortious interference with contract – injunctive relief
The wrongful or “tortious” interference with a contract occurs when a third party intentionally causes a contracting party to commit a breach of contract. The third party will be liable if they intentionally induced or disrupted a party’s ability to perform the terms of a binding contract. Remedies for tortious interference are available to ensure…
-
Software developer obtains Court order – names behind IP addresses
Justice Burley of the Federal Court of Australia in the case of Siemens Industry Software Inc v Telstra Corporation Limited [2020] FCA 901 ordered that Telstra, within fourteen (14) days, provide to Siemens all documents in its control relating to the identity of certain Telstra Account holders. Those account holders were suspected by Siemens of…
-
Skincare brand Biologi breached the ACL – ordered to publish 5 corrective notices
In a recent decision of the Federal Court in Native Extracts Pty Ltd v Plant Extracts Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1265 Downes J issued an initial judgement and made orders for declaratory relief and the publication of eight (8) corrective notices by Plant Extracts Pty Ltd ACN 613 551 349 (Plant Extracts) and skincare brand…
-
Is a proposed settlement fair and reasonable – Federal Court
Class action lawsuits commonly resolve in a settlement between the members of a class and the respondents to a claim. However, there are strict requirements to proposed settlements, including that they are ‘fair and reasonable’, which will be subject to judicial oversight.
-
Is a proposed settlement fair and reasonable – what will the Federal Court consider?
Parties seeking to settle a class action must apply to the Federal Court for approval. Judges will assess the fairness of the settlement by examining factors such as the best possible recovery, risks of litigation, class reaction, and independent advice.
-
Legal costs – discontinuing by consent in the Federal Court
Businesses must take care when making forecasts, as potential legal consequences may arise if records of the basis for them are not kept.
-
What is standard discovery in the Federal Court?
This article provides an in-depth look into the requirements of standard discovery in the Federal Court of Australia. Learn more about the relevance of documents, what constitutes ‘readily accessible’ documents, and relevant case law for narrowing the scope of discovery for a just resolution of disputes.
-
Inspection of documents in the Federal Court
Document inspection in civil litigation before the Federal Court of Australia: rights of parties, rights of non-parties, court rules, and the two exceptions to presumption of access for non-parties.
