Advertisers have been warned again about small print disclaimers in their advertising. In the Federal Court, Perth, Justice Carr issued consent orders against Office Link (Aust) Pty Ltd, a mobile phone and telephone services retailer, over an advertisement published in The West Australian on 9 July 1997.
The advertisement appeared to offer a Motorola mobile phone for $9 with the bonus of Voice Mail Access with no monthly access fees. It appeared that the purchaser would pay only for the calls made.
The ACCC alleged the advertisement used fine print disclaimers which did not disclose, or did not sufficiently disclose, that the Motorola mobile phone could not be bought for $9. It was part of a package that included purchasing Vodac telephone services for 15 months at a cost of $450 with a connection fee of $65. This made the minimum cash price of the package, without the cost of calls, $524. Further call retrieval costs applied to Voice Mail Access.
Office Link consented to orders which included:
- declarations that the advertisement contravened the Act; injunctions restraining it from
- a) advertising prices without clearly disclosing all relevant conditions,
- b) advertising part of the price of goods and services without specifying the cash price;
- corrective newspaper advertising; sending corrective letters to all purchasers of the Motorola mobile phones; orders for refunds where the purchasers claim they were misled; orders that will require it to review its advertising and conduct training in the trade practices law for staff; and costs.
For further information about this media release:
Professor Allan Fels, Chairman, (02) 6243 1129
Ms Lin Enright, Director, Public Relations, (02) 6243 1108