Reading time: 6 minutes

LegalVision is excited to launch its weekly update on all things consumer law. This update will follow the activities of the national regulator, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) – and keep you informed about key developments relating to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA) and the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).

The first instalment of this update comes at the end of a relatively quiet week for the ACCC. But there has still been some excitement in the world of competition and consumer law. This week’s highlights:

  • The ACCC issued a public warning about misleading representations relating to government grants;
  • An international consumer protection network released guidelines for online reviews; and
  • The Australian Competition Tribunal waved through an acquisition that the ACCC previously opposed.

Permission Not Granted

In the final days of June, the ACCC issued a public warning notice regarding alleged misleading representations by the Australian Business Funding Centre (ABFC) about government grants.

For small businesses, a grant from the government can make a big difference. According to complaints made to the ACCC, ABFC exploited this vulnerability through its website and its sales reps. ABFC took fees of around $500 to $700, supposedly to give small businesses access to a treasure trove of government grants and loans. Unfortunately, many businesses paid the fees only to find out that the grants were not right for their purposes.

ABFC’s business model seems particularly strange, considering that small businesses can access information about government grants without paying a cent at

Worse still, the ACCC followed up some of the testimonials listed on ABFC’s website and discovered that the businesses in question hadn’t benefited from ABFC’s services or given permission for the ABFC to use their testimonials.

On both counts – the utility of ABFC’s service and the validity of the testimonials – the ACCC suspected that ABFC had made false or misleading representations (in breach of sections 29(1)(f) and (g) of the ACL). The ACCC took action by issuing a public warning notice.

A quick recap on this enforcement tool available to the ACCC. Under section 223 of the ACL, the ACCC can issue a public warning notice if:

  • The ACCC suspects a breach of consumer protections;
  • The ACCC is satisfied that people have suffered as a result of the breach; and
  • The ACCC is satisfied that it is in the public interest to issue the notice.

International Guidelines for Online Reviews

Next up this week, the International Consumer Protection and Enforcement Network (ICPEN) published a set of three guidelines dealing with online testimonials and reviews. The ICPEN is a collection of regulators from over 50 countries. The ACCC is a member of the ICPEN.

Testimonials and reviews form an important online resource for consumers – but only if the reviews are reliable, accurate and independent. This explains the importance of section 29(1)(f) of the ACL relating to false or misleading testimonials, which appeared earlier in this update.

The ICPEN has developed three sets of guidelines:

The overarching theme of the guidelines is to use common sense when it comes to online reviews:

  • Administrators need to be equal and fair in collecting reviews;
  • Businesses must not hide bad reviews from consumers or pay for fake testimonials; and
  • Influencers need to disclose commercial interests and offer their genuine opinion in reviews.

The ICPEN guidelines will hopefully help improve the reliability of online reviews – and make sure that reviews are, for the most part, a useful source of information for consumers. However, as the ACCC emphasised, the guidelines won’t replace the ACL. When in doubt, it’s always a good idea to speak to a consumer lawyer.

Public Benefit Outweighs Reduction in Competition

Finally this week, some competition news. The Australian Competition Tribunal authorised a deal for marine freight assets in Australia’s far north-east to change hands between two competitors. This decision is interesting because the ACCC announced that it would oppose the proposed transaction back in July 2015.

To understand the dynamics at play here, we need a quick refresher course on Australian merger law. Section 50 of the CCA prohibits mergers or acquisitions that would have the likely effect of substantially lessening competition. As I have explained elsewhere, Australia has an informal merger review process. Through this process, merger parties can notify the ACCC about proposed transactions and the regulator will indicate whether or not it intends to oppose the deal. In making this assessment, the ACCC applies the test in section 50. The only consideration is whether the deal will reduce competition.

However, under section 95AT of the CCA, the Tribunal can authorise an acquisition – meaning that section 50 will no longer stand in the way of the transaction. The Tribunal can only grant authorisation if it is satisfied that the acquisition will result in a sufficient benefit to the public. The Tribunal’s job, therefore, involves weighing up competing considerations: the damage caused by reduced competition on one hand and the benefit to the public on the other.

In this case, the ACCC formed the view that the acquisition – under which Sea Swift (majority owned by private equity firms) proposed to purchase assets from Toll (ultimately owned by Japan Post) – would result in less competition for scheduled marine freight services. The ACCC noted that these services are critical for deliveries of essential goods such as food and fuel to remote communities.

Despite the ACCC’s concerns, the Tribunal decided that the acquisition would lead to such a public benefit that it should be given the green light. Nonetheless, the Tribunal’s blessing comes with some behaviour conditions for Sea Swift. The conditions include a cap on prices in the future and a commitment to maintain freight services to remote communities for up to five years.

Merger authorisation has always been a somewhat obscure area of competition law. There have only ever been four applications to the Tribunal for merger authorisation – including a 2015 application for authorisation of the Sea Swift acquisition, which was withdrawn early. The Tribunal has granted authorisation in just one other case.

The Tribunal is yet to publish reasons for its decision to approve the latest Sea Swift application. The competition community will highly anticipate the Tribunal’s analysis of the case – which should shed further light on when a merger that hurts competition will nonetheless be seen to deliver public benefit.


Tune in next week for more Consumables and let us know your thoughts on Twitter @legalvision_au.


Redundancies and Restructuring: Understanding Your Employer Obligations

Thursday 7 July | 11:00 - 11:45am

If you plan on making a role redundant, it is crucial that you understand your employer obligations. Our free webinar will explain.
Register Now

How to Sponsor Foreign Workers For Your Tech Business

Wednesday 13 July | 11:00 - 11:45am

Need web3 talent for your tech business? Consider sponsoring workers from overseas. Join our free webinar to learn more.
Register Now

Advertising 101: Social Media, Influencers and the Law

Thursday 21 July | 11:00 - 11:45am

Learn how to promote your business on social media without breaking the law. Register for our free webinar today.
Register Now

Structuring for Certainty in Uncertain Times

Tuesday 26 July | 12:00 - 12:45pm

Learn how to structure to weather storm and ensure you can take advantage of the “green shoots” opportunities arising on the other side of a recession.
Register Now

Playing for the Prize: How to Run Trade Promotions

Thursday 28 July | 11:00 - 11:45am

Running a promotion with a prize? Your business has specific trade promotion obligations. Join our free webinar to learn more.
Register Now

Web3 Essentials: Understanding SAFT Agreements

Tuesday 2 August | 11:00 - 11:45am

Learn how SAFT Agreements can help your Web3 business when raising capital. Register today for our free webinar.
Register Now

Understanding Your Annual Franchise Update Obligations

Wednesday 3 August | 11:00 - 11:45am

Franchisors must meet annual reporting obligations each October. Understand your legal requirements by registering for our free webinar today.
Register Now

Legal Essentials for Product Manufacturers

Thursday 11 August | 11:00 - 11:45am

As a product manufacturer, do you know your legal obligations if there is a product recall? Join our free webinar to learn more.
Register Now

About LegalVision: LegalVision is a commercial law firm that provides businesses with affordable and ongoing legal assistance through our industry-first membership.

By becoming a member, you'll have an experienced legal team ready to answer your questions, draft and review your contracts, and resolve your disputes. All the legal assistance your business needs, for a low monthly fee.

Learn more about our membership

Need Legal Help? Submit an Enquiry

If you would like to get in touch with our team and learn more about how our membership can help your business, fill out the form below.

Our Awards

  • 2020 Innovation Award 2020 Excellence in Technology & Innovation Finalist – Australasian Law Awards
  • 2020 Employer of Choice Award 2020 Employer of Choice Winner – Australasian Lawyer
  • 2020 Financial Times Award 2021 Fastest Growing Law Firm - Financial Times APAC 500
  • 2020 AFR Fast 100 List - Australian Financial Review
  • 2021 Law Firm of the Year Award 2021 Law Firm of the Year - Australasian Law Awards
  • 2022 Law Firm of the Year Winner 2022 Law Firm of the Year - Australasian Law Awards