About Peter Moon

Peter Moon is a commercial lawyer with 20 years experience in the tech and telco industries.
Author Archive | Peter Moon

National consumer law Bill hits Parliament

By on 27 June 2009 in advertising, New laws, Trade Practices Act

accc-kickOn 24 June 2009, the Government introduced the Australian Consumer Law Bill into Parliament.  It represents the biggest shake up of Australian consumer law in a long time.

From 1 January 2010, the Government intends that we’ll have a national unfair contract terms law.  ACCC will have power to demand that advertisers positively substantiate any claims they make.  And there’ll be new penalties, enforcement powers and options for compensating consumers.

Stay tuned to CSP Central for plenty of news and expert commentary about the new law.  We already have some detailed comments on one misconceived part of the drafting.

Links

Share
Comments { 0 }

Component pricing law seminar announced

By on 25 June 2009 in advertising, New laws, Trade Practices Act

plain-english-2-midOn 21 July 2009 CSP Central contributors Victor Ng and Peter Moon will be conducting a masterclass in understanding and complying with the new component pricing law.

Victor says that the seminar will explain the law as it applies to ISPs, telcos and other industries.  ‘This law applies over almost all retailing in Australia,’ says Victor.  ‘So every business needs to be across it.’  Victor and Peter both specialise in plain english explanations, so this will be an ideal chance for business people to learn these important new rules.

Bookings are free but places are limited.  There are only so many people who can fit into the Logie-Smith Lanyon board room :-)

Here’s the seminar flyer.

Share
Comments { 0 }

Australia tolerates currency forging

By on 18 June 2009 in advertising, Trade Practices Act

aussie_moneyAmazing headline ?  Well, it’s true.  Companies … well known companies … are manufacturing bogus Aussie dollars, and Canberra isn’t stopping it. 

How is it so ?  Simple.  Within Australia, the exchange rate is fixed.  A dollar in Perth is a dollar in Sydney. 

Only the dubious end of the telco sector gets away with saying ‘A dollar is worth whatever we say it is, for the purposes of any given plan.’

Continue Reading →

Share
Comments { 0 }

3′s ‘Up yours’ to ACCC

By on 18 June 2009 in advertising, New laws, Trade Practices Act

3Mobile provider 3 is shirt-fronting ACCC in its current ‘Hot Offers’ promotional brochure.  Total pricing for 24 month plans throughout the document is buried in a sea of barely readable, light-coloured, small print at the foot of each page.

Under the new component pricing law that kicked in on 25 May, the single buy price of a plan like that must be ‘specified in a prominent way’.  If 3′s catalogue goes anywhere near passing that test, the new law is dead. 

ACCC really needs to kick off some enforcement action against retailers it considers aren’t complying with section 53C of the Trade Practices Act.  It’s hard to expect CSPs to follow the spirit of the component pricing law when their competitors seem to be getting away with feint micro-print.

Share
Comments { 1 }

ACMA confirms 2009/10 Do Not Call washing fees

By on 17 June 2009 in DNCR Act

walletACMA has announced that excess usage fees for list washing will be abandoned from 1 July 2009.  Instead a so-called ‘annual subscription’ will in fact be a block prepurchase of washing credits that will normally expire if not used within 12 months.

If a telemarketer’s remaining ’annual’ subscription credits aren’t sufficient to pay for washing a submitted list in less than 12 months, they will have to buy a new ‘annual’ subscription before that list can be washed.  In that case, any unused credits from the first subscription will be rolled over into the second one.

ACMA has made the change because 90% of list washing ‘access seekers’ are already estimating their requirements pretty accurately.   If they keep doing that, the new block prepayments will usually cover a year’s use.  If not, access seekers may find their annual subscriptions aren’t actually annual.   Wonder what ACCC would make of a CSP that advertised an ‘annual’ fee that may or may not cover a year :-)

Keep reading for the full table of rates, showing the comparison with 2008/09.
Continue Reading →

Share
Comments { 0 }

SFoA backgrounder released

By on 16 June 2009 in Making sense of contracts, Telecommunications Act

contract-2Many CSPs are already using a ’Standard Form of Agreement’ but many others don’t … and don’t know what it’s all about.

To demystify the topic, here’s a dowloadable SFoA backgrounder that overviews what they are and why they can improve CSP business processes, with the compliments of CSP Central and Logie-Smith Lanyon Lawyers :-)

You should also check out this post about complying with the SFoA Summary notification regime.

Share
Comments { 0 }

Why Telstra and Optus need to be concerned about the coming unfair contracts law

By on 12 June 2009 in New laws, Trade Practices Act

contract1Some time this month, Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs Chris Bowen will introduce an ‘unfair contract terms’ Bill into Federal Parliament.  Telstra and Optus have both slammed it.

Businesses that contract with Telstra and Optus need to understand why the coming law could give the telco giants such grief.

Continue Reading →

Share
Comments { 0 }

FunnyTel smashes ACCC

By on 11 June 2009 in advertising, Funnytel, New laws, Trade Practices Act

funnytel-zeroFunnyTel’s legal and hospitality manager Chad Blake has announced the company’s total bypass of ACCC’s new component pricing law.

In a brilliant moment, Chad was being shouted at by FunnyTel CEO Steve that the company didn’t have to employ him, and every day at his desk was a favour.  Steve’s a motivational speaker in his spare time.

But then Chad realised … Steve doesn’t need me, and the customers don’t need us !  Everything they buy is optional, and options don’t need to be included in the total product price, do they ???  So FunnyTel’s famous ‘Zero Heroes’ campaign was born and ACCC was smashed again by Australia’s fastest thinking telco.

‘And it’s interesting to note’, says Chad, ‘that we didn’t need to waste a single dollar on external advice.  The ‘$Nuffin to pay’ campaign is proof you don’t need Bourke Street tossers to create a totally legal campaign.’

Share
Comments { 0 }

TPG gets new law a bit right !

By on 10 June 2009 in advertising, New laws, Trade Practices Act

tpg-goofLet’s give credit to TPG.  The compliance-challenged comms co doesn’t often set a standard, but after recently breaching the new component pricing law, it has taken a reasonable shot at complying with today’s web site advert.

Sure, its math doesn’t make sense.  $20 SIM plus $20 deposit does not equal $52.99.  But we know what they mean … it’s the $20 SIM plus the $20 deposit plus the $12.99 for a non-contracted month that adds up to $52.99. 

And the total price isn’t super-prominent, but it’s not in micro-print, and it is in a clear area of its own, and it is immediately below the headline pricing, and it’s not a big or cluttered ad, and it is in capitals.  ACCC might debate whether it passes the ‘prominence’ test but by TPG’s standards, it’s a good effort. 

And you know two crazy things ?

Continue Reading →

Share
Comments { 0 }

Optus monsters component pricing law

By on 10 June 2009 in advertising, New laws, Trade Practices Act

Just days after ACCC wrote to the industry demanding immediate compliance with its new component pricing law, mega-telco Optus has ignored it.

Today’s web carries a flash ad spruiking a ‘new monster value ‘yes’ $59 cap, ‘so good, it’s scary’.  So is the fact that it’s an illegal advertisement.

Well, $59 is the monthly base price for the plan, so unless it’s a month-to-month plan (so that $59 would be the total cost as well as the monthly cost), the advert needs to state prominently the total contract cost.

Well, the flash banner doesn’t, and neither does the web page it links to.  The web page includes total cost down the bottom and in small print.  But ‘prominent’ ?  No way.  Optus is plainly in breach of section 53C of the Trade Practices Act.

Share
Comments { 3 }