We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 504

iPhone 6 ad: why do Telcos keep tripping up on consumer law?
  • Wigley + Company
  • Australia, New Zealand
  • December 19 2014

N our article, “Unlimited”claim issues for fixed line Telcos hit mobile operators too we showed how “unlimited” claims are challenges for mobile as


Telemarketing calls and marketing faxes the Do Not Call Register Act 2006 (Cth) implications for your company
  • Addisons
  • Australia
  • July 9 2014

The Do Not Call Register Act 2006 (Cth) (DNCR Act) prohibits telemarketing calls and fax marketing to numbers which are registered on the Do Not Call


High Court to decide whether regulator can determine if a broadcasting service has been used in the commission of an offence
  • King & Wood Mallesons
  • Australia
  • September 1 2014

The legal consequences of the prank call made in December 2012 in which Australian radio announcers called a hospital in London pretending to be


ACMA seeks comments on future licensing arrangements in 3.5 GHz band
  • Baker & McKenzie
  • Australia
  • July 10 2014

In order to ease growing pressures with the 3.5GHz band, the ACMA is looking at implementing new arrangements to maximise the band's future


Does your business use third party telemarketers? A refresher on Do Not Call Register requirements
  • Clayton Utz
  • Australia
  • July 10 2014

With more than nine million numbers listed on the Do Not Call Register, including just over half of Australia's fixed line home numbers, Do Not Call


Making advertising comply with the Australian Consumer Law: Court finds answers in TPG's fine print
  • Clayton Utz
  • Australia
  • April 11 2013

It is the overall impact of an advertisement and not just the dominant message which must be considered when determining if an ordinary consumer


Community service order and $320k penalty for misleading telemarketing
  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • Australia
  • April 15 2014

The Federal Court has ordered by consent that mobile services company Startel Communication Co Pty Ltd (Startel) publish a web page educating


Trams, billboards, and disclosing pricing
  • Wigley + Company
  • Australia, New Zealand
  • April 8 2015

Ads and billboards must prominently display full not just monthly charges. Two pictures tell a thousand words (or not). This billboard shows a


Fine print in ad not good enough, says High Court
  • Cooper Grace Ward
  • Australia
  • December 31 2013

The High Court of Australia has provided important guidance for companies advertising their services to the public in holding that TPG had engaged in


Court finds Optus misled consumers on network coverage
  • King & Wood Mallesons
  • Australia
  • February 24 2014

If you heard the following sentence in an advertisement, what would you think it means? "When it comes to the percentage of Australians the Optus