Optus to pay for 'infinite' Vodafone case

 

Advertising dispute discontinued in Federal Court.

The Federal Court has ordered Singtel Optus to pay all Vodafone’s legal costs in a dispute over the latter’s advertisements for ‘infinite’ calls, text messages and social networking access.

Optus filed suit on 10 December, after its own ‘unlimited’ advertisements were deemed “misleading and deceptive” in a separate case against the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

It sought to prohibit competitor Vodafone from claiming to provide infinite mobile services, as well as costs and any “further or other orders, directions or relief” that the Court might recommend.

According to Optus’ statement of claim, disclaimers on Vodafone’s print and television advertisements were not prominent enough to draw consumers’ attention to the limits of its ‘infinite’ offerings.

Optus accused Vodafone of contravening section 52 of the Trade Practices Act – an allegation Vodafone refuted.

On 16 December, Optus moved to discontinue the case. It subsequently applied to avoid paying its competitor’s legal costs, arguing that there was technically no winner or loser in the case.

Federal Court Justice Emmett last week granted leave for the case to be discontinued and ordered Optus to pay all Vodafone’s legal costs.

"After Optus' initial interlocutory injunction against Vodafone's 'Infinite' marketing and advertising was unsuccessful, Optus today withdrew its claims and agreed to pay Vodafone's costs in regard to those proceedings," a Vodafone spokesman told iTnews on Friday.

An Optus spokesman said the company has closed the case and would pay costs as ordered.

Copyright © iTnews.com.au . All rights reserved.


Optus to pay for 'infinite' Vodafone case
"These sorts of cases should not be necessary, if there was any government oversight of advertising. The evidence that Optus and Voda both had wild claims "infinite use" with insufficient highlighti..."
By Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu)
 
 
 
Comments: 2
Ezy2Confuze
May 2, 2011 2:56 PM
Really it's the only decision the judge could take, otherwise AFACT would probably scream blue murder after not being able to get away without paying the legal costs from the first iiNet case.
Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu)
May 2, 2011 6:29 PM
These sorts of cases should not be necessary, if there was any government oversight of advertising. The evidence that Optus and Voda both had wild claims "infinite use" with insufficient highlighting of the limitations to be applied is PROOF that self-regulation by the advertising industry is a failure. ALL telcos fail the test of sufficient highlighting of the limitations to be applied to their first-line claims. Given they all flash up in 5pt text on the final second of a TV ad lots of small print that cannot be read in the time, and have lots of fine print in brochures and print ads... it is very much a case of 'pot calling the kettle black' in having one telco claim another is misleading in its ads under s51 of the TPA.
Let's have them offer whatever plans they want, provided any "clarifying limitations" are put up in text at least 60% of the size of the headline offer, whether on TV, or in print. They could still put 'insignificant' qualifiers in relatively small print, with a minimum of 6-pt used in text... and if they complain that they can't explain their offer in less than 1000-words, then their offer was just too complex/convoluted/qualified.
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Australian miners send drones to work
In-depth: Unmanned aerial vehicles in the resources sector.
 
The New Zealand telco problem
Opinion: Could Telstra save Kiwi telcos?
 
IT price probe to 'name and shame' gougers
Industry ducking the issue, committee claims.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Should the Government enact new legislation to protect copyright holders in the digital age?

   |   View results
Yes
  19%
 
No
  81%
TOTAL VOTES: 510

Vote