Zamel s ordered to pay $250,000 for misleading consumers | ACCC Skip to Content Skip to Sitemap
About regulated infrastructure ACCC's role in regulated infrastructure Regulatory resources Regulatory projects Airports & aviation ACCC role in airports ip kamera & aviation Airports & aviation ip kamera price notifications Airports & aviation projects Airports monitoring Communications ip kamera ACCC role in communications Broadcasting & content Compliance & anti-competitive conduct Fixed line services Industry reform Intellectual property Mobile services Monitoring & reporting National Broadband Network Transmission services & facilities access Energy ACCC role in energy Fuel ACCC's fuel monitoring role Postal services ACCC role in postal services Postal services projects Postal services publications Rail ACCC role in rail ARTC Hunter Valley access undertaking ARTC Interstate Rail access undertaking Rail projects Water ACCC role in water Water guides Water monitoring & reporting ip kamera Water projects Water trading, brokers & exchanges Waterfront & shipping ACCC role in waterfront & shipping Monitoring & reporting for container stevedoring Wheat export ACCC role in wheat export Wheat export projects Close About us
Contact the ACCC Other helpful agencies Industry ombudsmen & dispute resolution State & territory ip kamera consumer protection agencies State & territory small claims tribunals Other regulators & government agencies Close
The Federal Court has imposed a penalty of $250,000 on The Jewellery Group Pty Ltd, trading as Zamel s, for misleading consumers regarding savings made on jewellery, following action brought by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
On 16 August 2012, Justice Lander found that Zamel s had misrepresented the savings consumers would make from purchasing items during sale periods for 44 jewellery items featured in one or more Zamel s catalogues and a flyer distributed nationally by letter box drop, in-store and on Zamel s website between November 2008 and May 2010.
The Court found that by using statements such as $99 $49.50 or WAS $275 NOW $149 , Zamel s represented to consumers, who were unaware that they could obtain discounts outside Zamel s sales periods, that they would save an amount being the difference between the higher and lower price if the items were purchased during the sale when that was not the case. In respect of the 44 jewellery items, it was found that Zamel s had either not sold the items at the higher ip kamera price, or that it had sold a very limited quantity at the higher price prior to the sale commencing.
Today, Justice Lander imposed a $250,000 penalty on Zamel s in relation to its May 2010 catalogue, the only conduct subject to a civil penalty. His Honour stated that the penalty reflects the seriousness of the conduct and the need to deter other retailers from engaging in similar conduct. His Honour stated Zamel s should be deterred from engaging in any further conduct of this kind. Moreover, the penalty must be sufficient to deter any like-minded retailer from engaging in the same conduct.
The ACCC has taken steps to ensure consumers are not misled as to savings they may make when retailers advertise goods. In this very competitive market, consumers are vulnerable to false and misleading tactics and the penalty imposed by the court today should serve as a stern warning to other retailers, Mr Sims said.
Zamel s conduct was found to be in breach of sections 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974*, which prohibits conduct that is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive. ip kamera Zamel s also contravened section 53(e) of the Trade Practices Act 1974, which prohibits making false or misleading representations with respect to the price of goods or services.
Subscribe
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission Conferences & events Consultative committees Careers Information ip kamera for... International relations Tools & resources Consultations & submissions ip kamera Using our website
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn ip kamera Email Print
About regulated infrastructure ACCC's role in regulated infrastructure Regulatory resources Regulatory projects Airports & aviation ACCC role in airports ip kamera & aviation Airports & aviation ip kamera price notifications Airports & aviation projects Airports monitoring Communications ip kamera ACCC role in communications Broadcasting & content Compliance & anti-competitive conduct Fixed line services Industry reform Intellectual property Mobile services Monitoring & reporting National Broadband Network Transmission services & facilities access Energy ACCC role in energy Fuel ACCC's fuel monitoring role Postal services ACCC role in postal services Postal services projects Postal services publications Rail ACCC role in rail ARTC Hunter Valley access undertaking ARTC Interstate Rail access undertaking Rail projects Water ACCC role in water Water guides Water monitoring & reporting ip kamera Water projects Water trading, brokers & exchanges Waterfront & shipping ACCC role in waterfront & shipping Monitoring & reporting for container stevedoring Wheat export ACCC role in wheat export Wheat export projects Close About us
Contact the ACCC Other helpful agencies Industry ombudsmen & dispute resolution State & territory ip kamera consumer protection agencies State & territory small claims tribunals Other regulators & government agencies Close
The Federal Court has imposed a penalty of $250,000 on The Jewellery Group Pty Ltd, trading as Zamel s, for misleading consumers regarding savings made on jewellery, following action brought by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
On 16 August 2012, Justice Lander found that Zamel s had misrepresented the savings consumers would make from purchasing items during sale periods for 44 jewellery items featured in one or more Zamel s catalogues and a flyer distributed nationally by letter box drop, in-store and on Zamel s website between November 2008 and May 2010.
The Court found that by using statements such as $99 $49.50 or WAS $275 NOW $149 , Zamel s represented to consumers, who were unaware that they could obtain discounts outside Zamel s sales periods, that they would save an amount being the difference between the higher and lower price if the items were purchased during the sale when that was not the case. In respect of the 44 jewellery items, it was found that Zamel s had either not sold the items at the higher ip kamera price, or that it had sold a very limited quantity at the higher price prior to the sale commencing.
Today, Justice Lander imposed a $250,000 penalty on Zamel s in relation to its May 2010 catalogue, the only conduct subject to a civil penalty. His Honour stated that the penalty reflects the seriousness of the conduct and the need to deter other retailers from engaging in similar conduct. His Honour stated Zamel s should be deterred from engaging in any further conduct of this kind. Moreover, the penalty must be sufficient to deter any like-minded retailer from engaging in the same conduct.
The ACCC has taken steps to ensure consumers are not misled as to savings they may make when retailers advertise goods. In this very competitive market, consumers are vulnerable to false and misleading tactics and the penalty imposed by the court today should serve as a stern warning to other retailers, Mr Sims said.
Zamel s conduct was found to be in breach of sections 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974*, which prohibits conduct that is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive. ip kamera Zamel s also contravened section 53(e) of the Trade Practices Act 1974, which prohibits making false or misleading representations with respect to the price of goods or services.
Subscribe
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission Conferences & events Consultative committees Careers Information ip kamera for... International relations Tools & resources Consultations & submissions ip kamera Using our website
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn ip kamera Email Print
No comments:
Post a Comment