Optus fined $178k for soft cap plans

 

Contentious campaign.

Optus has been fined $178,200 by the competition watchdog over its advertising of capped phone plans.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission said today it had issued 27 infringement notices over the Optus 'Max Cap' campaign run in July and August 2010.

The ACCC alleged the advertisements "gave the impression that a consumer could purchase these cap plans and expect to pay a maximum specified amount per month, when in fact the specified amount was the minimum the consumer would pay each month."

"If you advertise a service as a '$49 Max Cap' when $49 is the minimum that consumers have to pay, then you risk breaching the law by misleading consumers about the cost of the service," Acting ACCC chairman Peter Kell said.

The ACCC also raised concerns about the types of calls included in the plans.

Regulators were in the final stages of a planned crackdown on telco advertisements. In particular, the word 'cap' was to be banned under new rules being considered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

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


Optus fined $178k for soft cap plans
"Maybe they don't feel able to seriously take on the biggest providers. The biggest probably has more lawyers on staff than most law firms, and often there also is the use of big national firms ..."
By anonymous
 
 
 
Comments: 4
djzort
May 19, 2011 8:38 AM
this is just an ant bite compared to their record profits. these sort of fines need to be much more substantial to have any impact on the ethics of these companies.
maxama
May 19, 2011 9:11 AM
It also goes to show what a "JOKE" our legal system is.
$178k = Peanuts. It's like a drop in the ocean to optus.


pameacs
May 19, 2011 2:35 PM
I think we need a review of Trade Practises penalties. A complaint should set in motion a clock, for each day until resolved if found against they business will pay a percentage of average daily turnover. Lets see one of the big boys Telstra, Optus Woolworths would have a substantial penalty to risk. This penalty needs to be paid daily to a trust account, so if the business looses there is no risk of them declaring bankrupt to block the payment. In the event of them winning their case they get their money back. If they lose and it is anti-competitive the business who brought the complaint gets a slice, a charity of choice by the complainant gets a slice, and the ACCC gets a slice to fund their operation. Some incentive for business not to go before the ACCC, and some incentive for the ACCC to pursue a case. These punitive damages like the one against Coles and Woolies the other day on food labeling are no penalty to doing it.
anonymous
May 19, 2011 6:16 PM

Maybe they don't feel able to seriously take on the biggest providers.

The biggest probably has more lawyers on staff than most law firms, and often there also is the use of big national firms if things look serious.

It seems to be clearer every day that the ACCC needs a lot more funding so it can have some hope of matching the big spenders in this area.
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