The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has instituted proceedings in the Federal Court, Adelaide against Dodo Internet Pty Ltd alleging misleading and deceptive conduct, false and misleading representations and unconscionable conduct in breach of the Trade Practices Act 1974.
The ACCC alleges that from about September 2001 to January 2002, Dodo made representations in its television advertisements, in pamphlets, on its website and in telephone conversations between its sales representatives and consumers to the effect that:
- it provided unlimited Internet access for $9.90 per month
- it provided Internet access with a local call cost for connection
- it provided Australia-wide Internet access at the cost of a local call
- the use of particular dial in telephone numbers would provide Internet access at the cost of a local call
- it had no contracts or joining fees/minimum period agreements.
The ACCC also alleges that from about September 2001 to the present time Dodo has made representations on its website to the effect that its customers have no rights or remedies against Dodo in relation to the provision of its services.
The ACCC alleges that Dodo engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct and made false or misleading representations in breach of sections 52, 53(e) and 53(g) of the Trade Practices Act because:
- from August to December 2001, consumers using the dial in telephone number provided by Dodo for the Perth suburb of Wanneroo could not access the Internet through Dodo for the cost of a local call and incurred STD telephone call charges;
- from August 2001 to April 2002, consumers using the dial in telephone number provided by Dodo for Broome would not access the Internet through Dodo for the cost of a local call and incurred STD telephone call charges;
- Dodo does not provide Australia-wide access for the cost of a local call as consumers in Broome are not able to access the Internet through Dodo for the cost of a local call and would incur STD telephone call charges;
- from August 2001, Dodo sales representatives provided incorrect dial in telephone numbers to some consumers in other parts of Australia and they incurred STD telephone call charges;
- when consumers complained to Dodo about STD call charges incurred by them as a result of connecting to the Internet through Dodo, Dodo relied on terms and conditions on its website and denied liability for the STD charges; and
- Dodo's terms and conditions contain clauses that purport to exclude consumers’ rights and remedies under statute and the general law.
The ACCC further alleges that Dodo engaged in unconscionable conduct in breach of section 51AB of the Act in its dealings with consumers who received large STD telephone bills as a result of relying on Dodo’s misrepresentations.
The ACCC is seeking court orders including:
- declarations
- injunctions
- corrective advertising
- compensation for affected consumers
- a trade practices compliance program
- costs.
The matter has been listed for a directions hearing in the Federal Court, Adelaide on 29 October 2002, at 9.15 a.m.