The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission today instituted Federal Court proceedings against Mobileworld Communications (Aust) Pty Ltd, alleging misleading and deceptive conduct and bait advertising.
The action follows a 2 July newspaper advertisement featuring the NEC Sportz Digital, the Ericsson 218, the Nokia 2110 and the Motorolla 1-888. The advertisement offered the phones for $49 with a connection fee of $65 and 12 months' access at $20 per month.
The ACCC alleged that Mobileworld engaged in false and misleading conduct, and bait advertising, as it had no stock, or insufficient stock, at many stores and that it failed to offer the advertised items at most of its Melbourne stores.
The ACCC alleges that Mobileworld:
A directions hearing will be held in the Federal Court, Melbourne on 15 September 1997.
Further information Ms Lin Enright, Director, Public Relations, (02) 6264 2808 MR109/97 5 September 1997
The action follows a 2 July newspaper advertisement featuring the NEC Sportz Digital, the Ericsson 218, the Nokia 2110 and the Motorolla 1-888. The advertisement offered the phones for $49 with a connection fee of $65 and 12 months' access at $20 per month.
The ACCC alleged that Mobileworld engaged in false and misleading conduct, and bait advertising, as it had no stock, or insufficient stock, at many stores and that it failed to offer the advertised items at most of its Melbourne stores.
The ACCC alleges that Mobileworld:
- was aware that it did not have any of the telephones in stock on the day of publication of the advertisement, nor did it offer for sale the telephones at the price specified from its Preston, Essendon, Dandenong, Epping or Campbellfield stores;
- had limited stock and a limited range of telephones at its Mitcham, St Kilda, South Melbourne, Brunswick and Fountain Gate stores;
- at no time had any arrangements in place whereby further quantities of the telephone would be available at any of its stores by the date of the advertisement;
- at no time, either on the date of the advertisement or subsequently, ever acquired further quantities of the telephone; and
- failed offer to supply any of the telephones at the price specified to customers who were unsuccessful in obtaining one of the advertised telephones or to offer a rain check.
- a refund offer to customers who were sold up to the D628 model telephone (priced at $49 with a connection fee of $65 and 12 months' access at $35 per month);
- Mobileworld not to advertise digital telephones unless the advertisement clearly identifies any restriction upon the offer;
- in the case of each Mobileworld stores referred to in any future advertisements where it has less that 20 of the advertised telephones for sale that it clearly identifies this in the advertisement;
- if any future advertisement is for less that seven days it clearly identifies the duration of the offer;
- that for the duration of any future advertisement Mobileworld offer the advertised products or alternate equivalents and Mobileworld retain a list of customers who sought advertised phones but were unable to purchase them;
- that public disclosure be made in the Victorian Herald Sun and displayed at each of the Melbourne stores offering consumers who purchased a Motorolla D628 because Mobileworld were unable to supply one of the telephones featured in the advertisement of 2 July 1997 a full refund of the difference between the price paid (including connection and one years access fees) and the advertised price of $49 (including connection fee of $65 and annual access fee of $240); and
- apologises to those persons who responded to the advertisement and were not supplied with one of the four telephones.
A directions hearing will be held in the Federal Court, Melbourne on 15 September 1997.
Further information Ms Lin Enright, Director, Public Relations, (02) 6264 2808 MR109/97 5 September 1997