Update to our article published on 23 July 2014
See further update published 14 April 2015
On 29 September 2014, Chief Justice Allsop of the Federal Court handed down his judgment in the Coles “Fresh Bread” case.
This decision highlights the potential perils of “pushing the boundaries” when it comes to advertising products for sale in a way that could be construed as misleading or deceptive within the meaning of section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) which is contained within Schedule 2 the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).
Coles has been restrained for a period of 3 years from making any representations on any packaging that its bread was made or baked on the same day it was sold or baked from fresh dough when that is not the case.
Coles has also been ordered to display a corrective notice in a prominent location on counters in Coles Bakery Stores and through a prominent “one-click link” displayed in the top one-third of its homepage.
The Court made various declarations including that in marketing various bread products as “Freshly Baked In-Store” and “Baked Today, Sold Today”, Coles:
- engaged in conduct in trade or commerce that was misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive, in contravention of section 18 of the ACL
- made a representation in trade or commerce, in connection with the supply or possible supply or promotion of the supply of goods that was false or misleading as to the history of the goods in contravention of section 29(1)(a) of the ACL; and
- engaged in conduct in trade or commerce that was liable to mislead the public as to the nature, the manufacturing process, and the characteristics of goods in contravention of section 33 of the ACL.
A copy of his Honour’s reasons for judgment and a copy of the corrective notice can be viewed here: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Limited (No 2) [2014] FCA 1022.
Further information
If you need further information about the potential of making misleading and deceptive statements in advertising, contact us for a 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 circumstance.
Related insights on competition and commercial law
-
Incentivising distributors – key contractual considerations
Incentivising distributors is an effective way to increase sales, reduce inventory and accelerate adoption of new products. This article explores various methods, from incentive programs to vacations and gamification, plus advice on measuring performance and accountability.
-
Federal Court class actions – requirements explained
This article provides an overview of the mechanics behind a Class Action in the Federal Court of Australia. It covers the requirements to commence the action, the ability for members to opt out, and the limits on Class Actions, giving readers a comprehensive understanding of the process and obligations.
-
Registration of .au domain names – what does this mean for businesses?
From 24 March 2022, any persons with a verified connection to Australia will be able to apply for a domain name ending in .au, also known as a direct name or second level name (Direct Name). Any business can apply for a Direct Name as long as they meet the eligibility criteria under the .au…
-
Use of a competitors trade marks for comparative advertising
Comparative advertising can be a powerful tool, but it must be done within the bounds of the law. Learn more about the legal implications of comparative advertising in Australia, including the case of GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited (No 2) [2018] FCA 1.
-
Uber found in breach of Australian privacy laws
This article provides an overview of interesting decisions of Australian Courts in Corporate Law, Technology Law and Intellectual Property. With cases on Trade Marks, Copyright, Defamation, Negligence, Joint Ventures and Confidential Information, it is an invaluable resource for anyone interested in these areas.
-
Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code 2021 update
The Therapeutic Goods Administration has released the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code 2021 (Cth), introducing changes to distinguish between physical and online therapeutic goods, updates to medical device and medicine advertising, and more. Get the details to stay informed and ensure compliance with the new rules.
-
7-Eleven customer survey: implied consent?
The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner found 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd are in breach of the Australian Privacy Principles (APP’s). Learn more about the findings, implications, and how businesses can comply with the APP’s.
-
Use of confidential information – the springboard injunction
This article examines the UK decision of Forse & ors v Secarma Ltd & ors [2019] EWCA Civ 215, which discussed the legal concept of a springboard injunction, and its implications in Australia. The Court must consider similar principles to determine if an injunction should be granted.
-
Is it a debt? – legal test and creditors’ statutory demands
This article examines a Court decision that could have a significant impact on creditors making statutory demands. Learn more about the case of Matrix Group Co Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 1042, and the implications for creditors, as well as relevant legislation and case law.
