New User? Start here.
Error goes here
The issue of the provided case study is the action Australian Competition And Consumer Commission (the ACCC) took towards Google for providing search results of misleading and deceptive conduct pursuant by an advertiser web address according sec-52 of the Trade Practices Act (now sec-18 of the Australian Consumer Law) is that an offence?
According the case study, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (the ACCC) made an complain towards Google where they told Google made an offence of misleading or deceptive conduct contrary according to sec-52 of the Trade Practices Act . However, High Court establishes a judgment that they did not hold themselves for misleading or deceptive conduct or accept any statement, which showed or displayed in search result. According to the sec- 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (before sec-52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974) prohibits the conduct in trade or commerce which misleading or deceptive . Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd  HCA 54 [52 of the Trade Practices Act 1975 (Cth)] and Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Ltd are famous cases where the importance of sec 18 of the Australian Consumer Law established its facts that how the companies who are related in advertisement business has involved in misleading and deceptive conduct.
The sec 18 of the Australian Consumer Law, which was previously known as sec-52 of the Trade Practice Act 1974 is, the prohibitions of conduct of misleading or deceptive facts. By misleading, any facts in advertisement may cause harm to the consumers who are getting services from the production. The misleading and deceptive conduct, which is provides unlawful services. Providing unlawful business through any website, which is, used free searches. Any advertisement company never provide any misleading or deceptive conducts through their advertise which could be the reason of negative response from consumer.
Google Inc is one of the company, which operate free search engine named as’ Google’ which internet related some services included online advertisement , software, hardware . It provides the rights to the advertiser to show their advertisement of relevant content or their own contents which also known as AdWords . When someone typed any words in Google search engine, the websites provide related facts to the internet users featuring the Google-partnered page where advertisement is also showed. Actually, this search engine produces sponsored links, which are highlighted paid advertisement, and organic links those are displayed free. When a Google user opens an organic link, he found some web pages related to the fact then the web pages links provide the sponsored link through AdWords programming.
Here, Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission  case the Australian Competition And Consumer Commission (the ACCC) brought an complain against Google where they told that Google made an offence according sec-52 of the Trade Practices Act 1975 (Cth) . This includes some sponsored links searches related to: “Harvey World Travel”, “Honda.com.au”, “Alpha DogTraining” and “Just 4x4s Magazine”. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (the ACCC) said that Google breach the section of 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1975 (Cth) because that sponsored link displayed an advertisement which contain the of misleading or deceptive conduct . “Section 52(1) of the Trade Practices Act provided that ‘A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive”.
The ACCC argued because they thought Google was involved in misleading or deceptive conduct where that program software allowed adviser include the name of the sponsored link of the Advertiser Company, which was misleading or deceptive conduct. However, Google was not liable for the act because it has not allowed that or not involve in misleading representations of the advertisers .
The trial Judge Nicolas J found that Google is not responsible for the act and reject the ACCC’s application. They found that STA Travel, Carsales, Ausdog and Trading Post advertisement is not disputed of misleading or deceptive facts. The advertisement that showed is falsely presented between the advertiser and the businesses that had been searched. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission again applied to the Full COURT of the Federal Court according the section of 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1975 (Cth). In the High Court the Judges French CJ, Crennan, Kiefel JJ gave their joint judgment and Hayne and Heydon JJ gave their separate judgment for the following matters.
French CJ, Crennan, Kiefel JJ jointly present that Google is not responsible of any misleading or deceptive conduct. Google is a free online search engine, which establishes a communication between advertisers and consumers where it published, present, or broadcast the advertisement through adviser. It only provides the information according the user’s search, which did not make Google any originator for the sponsored link.
Hayne J stated in his judgment that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) established the fact they have made against Google about misleading or deceptive conduct is never been accepted. Because Google is unable to understand to engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct and its users also not understand how they present their information.
Heydon J found in the case of Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission  that the Full Court of the Federal Court had made a mistake in the law and an error of the related fact. He stated his judgment that the court was created an error about how Google used the sponsored link in their business.
In every judgment, we can see that judges make decision against Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. They failed to prove that Google is liable for the deceptive conducts and make an offence of sec 52 of the Trade Practice Act (now sec 18 of the Australian Consumer Law). Heyne J explained his judgment using publisher defense [sec 83(3)] where he stated that the defendant always defense himself for his business and Google also publish the advertisement for the publication and did not recognized that the advertisement was provide deceptive conduct. In this judgment we can follow that, Google who is the defendant, have been found to do an offence of sec- 52, in relation with misleading and deceptive conduct and sec- 85(s) which established a potential defense. This sec protects those defendants who are involved in the offence of sec -52 of the Trade Practice Act .
However, again that court rejected ACCC’s application that Google is involved in misleading or deceptive conduct. The High Court established that Google only published the sponsored links which user searched but they never endorse them. The allegation about showing deceptive conducts is false. The High Court establish the judgment by following Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Ltd case where they pointed that sec-52 of the Trade Practices Act provide only particular facts as basis of general rules. Google provide only that information, which users searched. Those advertisements they showed in the web results are also provided according the users searched for. s
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd  HCA 54 [52 of the Trade Practices Act 1975 (Cth)] is another famous case where the importance of sec 18 of the Australian Consumer Law established its facts that the company which is related in advertisement business had involved in misleading and deceptive conduct. In this case the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) sue TPG Internet Pty Ltd for contains misleading and deceptive conduct in a advertisement. For this offence, the judge gave a penalty order to the company. The TPG Internet Pty Ltd applied to the Full Court and penalty was reduced amount of $50,000.
In France SARL v. Louis Vuitton Malletier SA is another famous case of AdWorks that related with the Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission  case. In this case, when internet users used Louis Vuttion trademarks, the website showed the AdWorks, which provided the sponsored links through advertisement, are conduct of misleading and deceptive. Here the advertiser may copy the Louis Vuttion’s trademarks. The French regional court established some facts that Google had infringed over the trademarks of Louis Vuttion. However, European Court of Justice confirmed that Google had not copied those trademarks on its own.
In United Kingdom, Interflora Inc. and Interflora British Unit v Marks and Spencer Plc and Flowers Direct Online Limited is a case of another AdWork and trademark. It stated that in Google France or Google Inc v ACCC cases Google was not liable for any deceptive conducts, the advertiser who produce and supply the advertisement. Therefore, there are lot of differences between natural search results and paid advertising through a free search engine. In this case of Interflora Inc. and Interflora British Unit v Marks and Spencer Plc and Flowers Direct Online Limited the UK court gave judgments the users from UK not a significant internet users rather than free users.
In this case study, the the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) tried to stated in their complains. That Google made an offence of misleading and deceptive conduct of sec- 52 of the Trade Practice Act. However, High Court rejected that cases and Google found innocent in the joint judgment by the Judges French CJ, Crennan, Kiefel JJ, Hayne and Heydon JJ . In the AdWorks the companies gives services according the users search. Sometimes the sponsored links provide the advertisement, which give information of misleading and deceptive conducts.
"Advertising And Selling Guide | ACCC". Accc.Gov.Au, 2017, https://www.accc.gov.au/accc-book/printer-friendly/29527.
Competition, Australian, and Consumer Commission. "Airport monitoring report 2015-16." (2017).
Corones, Stephen G. Competition law in Australia. Thomson Reuters Australia, Limited, 2014.
Hansen, Graham. "Google Inc v Australian competition and consumer commission  HCA 1: Misleading and deceptive representations." UW Austl. L. Rev. 37 (2013): 153.
Keyes, Mary, and Therese Wilson. Codifying Contract Law: International and Consumer Law Perspectives. Routledge, 2016.
Riefa, Christine, and Christiana Markou. "Online Marketing: Advertisers Know You are a Dog on the Internet!." (2015).
Sands, Rosanne. "Google v ACCC: The High Court Considers Misleading and Deceptive Conduct." U. Notre Dame Austl. L. Rev. 15 (2013): 152.
Scardamaglia, Amanda, and Angela Daly. "Google, online search and consumer confusion in Australia." International Journal of Law and Information Technology (2016): eaw004.
Smith, R., and Arlen Duke. "Agreements and competition law in Australia." Competition and Consumer Law Journal 22 (2014): 54-79.
Song, Sylvia, and Matthew Stewart. "Online trade mark infringement and keyword advertising." Intellectual Property Forum: journal of the Intellectual and Industrial Property Society of Australia and New Zealand. No. 105. Intellectual and Industrial Property Society of Australia and New Zealand Inc, 2016.
Taylor, Des, and Noeleen McNamara. "The Australian consumer law after the first three years-is it a success?." Curtin Law and Taxation Review 1.1 (2014): 96-132.
Thampapillai, Dilan, et al. Australian Commercial Law. Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Vitry, Agnes. "Transparency is good, independence from pharmaceutical industry is better!." Australian prescriber 39.4 (2016): 112.
Welkowitz, David S. "Trademarks and Related Rights: Highlights for 2009-10." Akron Intellectual Property Journal 5.1 (2016): 3.
To View this & another 50000+ free samples. Please put
your valid email id.
Earn back the money you have spent on the downloaded sample by uploading a unique assignment/study material/research material you have. After we assess the authenticity of the uploaded content, you will get 100% money back in your wallet within 7 days.
Get Moneyinto Your Wallet
Total 8 pages, 1 USD Per Page
*The content must not be available online or in our existing Database to qualify as
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
My Assignment Help. (2021). Business Law. Retrieved from https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/law101-business-law/australian-consumer-law.html.
"Business Law." My Assignment Help, 2021, https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/law101-business-law/australian-consumer-law.html.
My Assignment Help (2021) Business Law [Online]. Available from: https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/law101-business-law/australian-consumer-law.html[Accessed 18 September 2021].
My Assignment Help. 'Business Law' (My Assignment Help, 2021) <https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/law101-business-law/australian-consumer-law.html> accessed 18 September 2021.
My Assignment Help. Business Law [Internet]. My Assignment Help. 2021 [cited 18 September 2021]. Available from: https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/law101-business-law/australian-consumer-law.html.
The respective sample has been mail to your register email id
* $5 to be used on order value more than $50. Valid for
We have sent login details on your registered email.
Have you ever wondered an easier way of not taking stress in your thematic essay? Just take guidance from MyAssignmenthelp.com, one of the best custom writing service. But it doesn’t stop till thematic essay. You can also ask help for analytical essay, critical analysis essay, compare and contrast essay or any college essays. Top of that, MyAssignmenthelp.com is probably the cheapest writing service you can ever find. You can call us or e-mail us any time you want. We have 24*7 student-support executive who are happy to resolve your query.
Whether there is an enforceable contract between Tim and Jen, or not?
A contract can be defined as an exchange of promise, for doing or not doing a specified thing, in exchange of a consideration. It can either be drawn verbally or in a written manner. In order to form a contract, it needs to have the requisite elements of the contract, which include offer and acceptance, a consideration, intent, capacity and clari...
1. Legal forms of business
In the present situation there are two friends, Rachel and Monica who are planning to open three beauty salons in Adelaide. In such case the most suitable form of business would be a partnership business. Both of them have limited capital to invest in this case. Thus it would be advisable for them have limited liability where they would share the profits as per the ratio of investment (Graw, 2011). For prote...
The Victorian Supreme Court judge, Justice Robson, handed down the penalty judgment on August 09th, 2012, in the proceedings which were brought against Andrew Lindberg by the ASIC, i.e., the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Lindberg was the ex-MD, i.e., Managing Director of AWB Limited who was claimed to have breached his directors’ duties. After an agreement was reached to settle the proceedings, ...
Case Study 1:
Based on the facts provided in the case study, the issue that arises here is:
Whether the partnership be bound by this contract?
Can other partners take action against Lance?
Legal Principles and Laws:
According to Section 10 of the Partnership Act, 1892, where any wrong act is committed by any of the partner acting in the ordinary course of the business, or with the authority of the other partners, a...
Australian Securities Exchange
Australian Securities Exchange Ltd, is a public company in Australia, through which Australia’s primary security exchange is operated. The company was known as Australian Stock exchange before the December 2006 and had been brought to existence in the on 1st April 1987. The company has been formed under the statue made by the Australian parliament in order to substitute the ...
Are you confident that you will achieve the grade? Our best Expert will help you improve your grade
BUS5PB Principles Of Business Analytics
LST2BSL Introduction To Business Law And Ethics
HA2022 Business Law
HI6027 Business And Corporation Law
ADBC103 Business Law
BUS200 Law Of Business Organisation
BUS 4403 Business Policy And Strategy
PUB AFRS 5750H Business And Government Relationship
LAW105 Introduction To Business Law
LAW210 Business And Corporate Law
PRS303 Public Relations Management And Tactics
TLAW 303 Taxation Law
MGT101 Fundamentals Of Management
STA101 Statistics For Business
FIN201 Corporate Finance
ACC204 Advanced Financial Accounting
CMU202 Marketing Communications
MGT306 Strategic Management
PRS304 Public Relations Writing An Media Techniques
Just refer 5 friends to earn more than $2000.
After the successfull payment you will be redirected to the detail page where you can see download full answer button over blur text.You can also download from there.
Or you can also download from My Library section once you login.Click on the My Library icon
My Library page open there you can see all your purchased sample and you can download from there.
That's our welcome gift for first time visitors
It is too easy to create or access your own library, just enter your email and make your search
MyAssignmenthelp.com stores a huge
COLLECTION OF QUESTIONS AND SAMPLES, which you can refer to any time you want.
Every time you find something useful, you can save that using the bookmark tool. From the next time,
can access that from your personalized library.
With this feature, you get to create your own collection of documents. You get free
choose and bookmark any document you wish.
Accessing the collection of documents is absolutely easy. Once you bookmark a sample,
access its content with a few clicks on your mouse.
This personalized library allows you to get faster access to the necessary documents.
longer need to spend hours to locate the sample you need.
Finding a sample from a list of thousands is nothing less than spotting a needle in a
Personalizing your own library relieves you from that stress.
On APP - grab it while it lasts!
*Offer eligible for first 3 orders ordered through app!
ONLINE TO HELP YOU 24X7
OR GET MONEY BACK!
OUT OF 33845 REVIEWS
Received my assignment before my deadline request, paper was well written. Highly