The latest Part of the Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law includes the following articles: “Proving Misleading or Deceptive Conduct: Challenges Posed by the Internet” – Adrian Coorey; “Influencers, Instagurus, and Enablers: Using Accessorial Liability to Establish a Norm of Behaviour in Relation to Disguised Viral Marketing” – Lynden Griggs and Aviva Freilich; “Extracting Value from Big Data: Taking Big Data Processing and Analysis into Account” – Suiyi Zhang; Access to Services; Case Note: Tribunal Tableaux; Consumer Concerns; What If…; Comments from Commerce; Report from Russia; Report from New Zealand; and Benchmarks.
Posted in Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law (AJCCL), Journals, Update Summaries | Tagged "Because of the conduct", "Knowingly concerned", "Particular purpose … that the consumer makes known", "Request", "Undue", abusing dominant position, ACCC v Reckitt Benckiser (Aust) Pty Ltd [2016] ATPR 42-530; [2016] FCAFC 181, Access to Services, accessorial liability, Adrian Coorey, AJCCL, Australian Competition Tribunal, Aviva Freilich, Benchmarks, big data, business community, Case Note, civil penalties, Comments from Commerce, Commerce Act 1986 (NZ), Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Consumer concerns, disguised viral marketing, DP World Sydney Ltd v Guy (2016) 262 IR 156; [2016] NSWSC 1072, Editorial, enablers, Evgeny Khokhlov, Fair Trading Act 1986 (NZ), Google, influencers, information collection online, informed consent online, instagurus, internet, Jeremy Riddle, John Hedge, Lindsay Trotman, Lynden Griggs, Matthew Barry, Matthew Berkahn, merchantable quality, misleading or deceptive conduct, online advertising, online commercial transactions, Peter Strong, price monitoring, privacy information, processing and analysis, Report from New Zealand, Report from Russia, restraint of trade clauses, Ron Desiatnik, Russell Miller AM, Russian Federal Antimonopoly Service, s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law, Suiyi Zhang, Tim Luxton, Tribunal Tableaux, trigger for Australian competition liability, What if... |
The latest Part of the Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law marks the journal’s 25th anniversary, and includes the following articles: “Triple A Rated? Regulating Online Information Disclosures” – Robert Walker and Rosannah Healy; “Is There a Gap in the Unfair Contract Term Provisions Between a ‘Consumer Contract’ and a ‘Small Business Contract’?” – Peter Sise; “The Cartelist’s Dilemma: Leniency Policies and Game Theory” – Nick Kotzman; Authorisations and Notifications; Consumer Protection; Enforcement and Remedies; Telecommunications; Case Notes; Energy Etchings; Snapshots; and Report from Africa.
Posted in Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law (AJCCL), Journals, Update Summaries | Tagged "Access Assess Act" behavioural economics framework, ACCC v Cement Australia Pty Ltd (2016) 242 FCR 389; [2016] FCA 453, ACCC v Hillside (Australian New Media) Pty Ltd t/as Bet365 (No 2) [2016] FCA 698, agreed facts and penalties, AJCCL, Australian Energy Regulator, Authorisations and notifications, Banking fees, case notes, civil pecuniary penalties, collective bargaining, consumer contracts, Consumer Protection, contracting out, criminal cartel conduct, deterrence, Douglas Shirrefs, Energy etchings, Enforcement and Remedies, enforcement of prohibited practices, game theory, Immunity Policy, instinctive synthesis, Karen Lee, leniency policies, Lesley Morphet, Lovelle D'Souza, Nick Kotzman, online information disclosures, Paciocco v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2016) 90 ALJR 835; [2016] HCA 28, Paula Conboy, pecuniary penalties, Peter Sise, Pt 2-3 of the Australian Consumer Law, Rebecca McEwen, reliance, Report from Africa, representations, Robert Walker, Rosannah Healy, Scott Meacock, silver anniversary, small business contracts, Snapshots, Stephanie Hayes, Telecommunications, Telecommunications Consumer Protections Code, Tenille Kearney, Tom Bridges and Patrick Barkachi, underquoting, unfair contract term provisions |
The Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law (AJCCL) is now in its 25th year of publication – a significant milestone! In a recent editorial, the Journal’s General Editor Ron Desiatnik said: “Whether it be in reference to the longevity of a marriage, the length of a friendship, or the serving out of a prison sentence, ...more
The latest Part of the Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law includes the following articles: “Margin Squeezes as a Misuse of Market Power” – Paul McLachlan; “‘Your Rights Mob’: Making Indigenous Consumer Protection an Enduring Priority” – Rod Sims; “How Will the Enforcement of Section 46 of the CCA Change under the Full Harper?” – Sophie Matthiesson; and the following sections: Defective Goods; Case Note; Commission Cameos; Report from India; Report from Latin America; and Odds and Ends.
Posted in Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law (AJCCL), Journals, Update Summaries | Tagged "Your Rights Mob", “effects test”, “taking advantage of” requirement, “the Full Harper”, Aarthi Sridharan, Abhilasha Nautiyal, ACCC v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Energia SRL (No 12) [2016] FCA 822, AJCCL, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), cartel conduct, Case Note, Claribel Medina, Commission Cameos, Competition Act 2000 (India), Competition Commission of India (CCI), competition policies, Defective Goods, Editorial, Emilia Cadenas, free range eggs, Hank Spier, Harper Review, Indigenous consumer protection, Juan Mercant, Luis Eduardo Nieto, Luis Omar Guerrero Rodriguez, margin squeezes, Marianne Windirsch, Martin F Michaus, misuse of market power, Odds and Edds, Paul McLachlan, Peta Stevenson, Report from India, Report from Latin America, Rod Sims, section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA), Sophie Matthiesson, Swati Sharma, T H J Cadd |
The latest Part of the Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law includes the following articles: “Australia’s Protected Cartel Information Scheme: Has the Right Balance Been Struck?” – Holly Yang Cao; and “The ACCC, the Internet and Extraterritorial Injunctions” – Adrian Coorey; and the following sections: Access to Services; Administration and National Competition Policy; Case Note; What If…; Consumer Concerns; Report from Asia; Report from North America; and Worth Repeating.
Posted in Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law (AJCCL), Journals, Update Summaries | Tagged ACCC v Yazaki Corp (No 2) [2015] FCA 1304, Access Regulation, Access to Services, Administration and National Competition Policy, ADR processes, Adrian Coorey, AJCCL, Antitrust Enforcement, ASEAN, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), Business-to-Business Disputes, Caroline Michel, Case Note, Christopher Pleatsikas, Consumer concerns, Extraterritorial Injunctions, Frank Zumbo, Holly Yang Cao, Indirect Causation, internet, Jessica Rusten, John Hedge, Ketki Kowal, lemon cars, misuse of market power, Monopoly Pricing, Protected Cartel Information Scheme, Rachel Burgess, Report from Asia, Report from North America, Russell Miller AM, Sarah Agar, Shila Dorai Raj, Small and medium enterprises (SMEs), United States, What if..., Worth repeating |
The latest Part of the Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law includes the following articles: “Are gas processing facilities ‘safe’ from third party access?” – Leanne McClurg; “Unilateral conduct and the role of the purpose test in section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)” – Dr Shirley Quo; and “Everyone beware: A comparative study of consumer protection in Chinese and Australian mobile commerce” – Mary Ip; and the following sections: Authorisations and notifications; Consumer protection; Case Note; Consumer Concerns; Economic(s) Matters; Report from Russia; and Odds and Ends.
Posted in Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law (AJCCL), Journals, Update Summaries | Tagged “take advantage” requirement, AJCCL, Alex Sundakov, Authorisations and notifications, Beijing Qihoo Technology Co Ltd v Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co Ltd, Bernard McCabe, broadband performance, Carolyn Oddie, Case Note, Chinese mobile commerce, comparative study, Consumer concerns, Consumer Protection, Dr Shirley Quo, Economic(s) Matters, Editorial, Evgeny Khokhlov, exemption, free range eggs, gas processing facilities, Harper Report, Harper Review, ihail Pty Ltd, Justin Lipinski, Leanne McClurg, Mary Ip, misuse of market power, Molly Snaith, Odds and Ends, Pt IIIA of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), purpose test, Rachel Thomas, Report from Russia, s 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Stephanie Hayes, third party access, unilateral conduct |
The latest Part of the Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law includes the following articles: “Could the Harper Review recommendations revive private enforcement of cartel prohibitions?” – Rebecca Gilsenan; “Place names as marketing tools: Legal issues in the use of geographic names” – Neil Francey; and “Are we there yet? A return to the rational for Australian consumer protection” – Brenton Lee Worth; and the following sections: Access to Services; Telecommunications; Case Notes; Tribunal Tableaux; Council Considerations; Energy Etchings; Snapshots; Report from Europe; Report from New Zealand; and Book Review.
Posted in Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law (AJCCL), Journals, Update Summaries | Tagged ACCC v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2013] ATPR 42-452, ACCC v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2015] FCAFC 103, AJCCL, Anti-Cartel Enforcement in a Contemporary Age: Leniency Religion, Australian Competition Tribunal, Australian Energy Regulator (AER), book review, Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd v CFMEU [2015] VSC 352, Brenton Lee Worth, business names, Caron Beaton-Wells, case notes, Christopher Hodgekiss SC, Christopher Tran, Commerce Commission (NZ), comparative advertising, competitive advertising, copyright, Council considerations, Damien O'Brien QC, Debra Wilson, declaration criterion, Douglas Shirrefs, e-commerce sector inquiry, Editorial, Energy etchings, European Commission, Flight Centre Ltd v ACCC (2015) 234 FCR 367; [2015] FCAFC 104, Harper Report, Harper Review, Holly Raiche, Jennifer Hambleton, Jessica Rusten, John Hedge, Jonathan de Ridder, national access regime, Neil Francey, Niloufer Selvadurai, passing off, Paula Conboy, Peeta Hutson, Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal (2012) 246 CLR 379, place names legislation, private enforcement of cartel laws, procedural fairness, R J Desiatnik, Raymond Roca, Rebecca Gilsenan, Reckitt Benckiser (Aust) Pty Ltd v Proctor & Gamble Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 753, Report from Europe, Report from New Zealand, Snapshots, Telecommunications Competition Notice Guidelines, Tom Pick, trade marks, Tribunal Tableaux, unfair contract term legislation |
The latest Part of the Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law includes the following articles: “Serving the goals of trademark owners through the Australian Consumer Law: A reflection on Google Inc v ACCC” – Althaf Marsoof; and “Exempting environmental protection boycotts from competition laws: Should purpose or public benefit be the test?” – David Goodwin; and the following sections: Defective Goods, Case Notes; Report from India; Report from North America; Benchmarks; and Book Review.
Posted in Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law (AJCCL), Update Summaries | Tagged Abhilasha Nautiyal, ACCC v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd (2014) 317 ALR 73, ACCC v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 330, ACCC v Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd (2015) 110 IPR 324, accessorial liability provisions, AdWords, AJCCL, Australian Consumer Law (ACL), Benchmarks, book review, boycotts, case notes, Christopher Pleatsikas, Competition Commission of India, competition laws, Consumer Protection, David Goodwin, Defective Goods, Director, dominant purpose test, Dr Ron Desiatnik, e-commerce, Editorial, environmental protection, exemption, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v CFMEU (2015) 229 FCR 331, From Protection to Competition: The Politics of Trade Practices Reform in Australia, Google Inc v ACCC (2013) 249 CLR 435, intellectual property, Kerrie Round, Larissa Detmold, Martin Shanahan, misleading and deceptive, North Carolina Dental case, online service providers, public benefit test, Report from India, Report from North America, Rural Export & Trading (WA) Pty Ltd v Hahnheuser (2008) 169 FCR 583, s 45DD(3) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), start-ups, Swati Sharma, Thea Fabricius, therapeutic gel packs, Tom Bridges, Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), trademark owner |
The latest Part of the Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law includes the following articles: “Unconscionable conduct in equity and under statute: The Australian Consumer Law and the Lux decision” – Hayden Fielder; and “Government exemption from competition and consumer law: Has Harper patched the holes?” – Nick Seddon; and the following sections: Access to Services; Authorisations and Notifications; Consumer Protection; Unconscionable Conduct and Codes of Conduct; Case Notes; Commission Cameos; Report from Africa; Report from Latin America; and Odds and Ends
Posted in Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law (AJCCL), Update Summaries | Tagged ACCC v Lux Distributors Pty Ltd, Access to Services, AJCCL, Authorisations and notifications, case notes, Commission Cameos, competition and consumer law, Consumer Protection, government exemption, Harper Report, Hayden Fielder, Nick Seddon, Odds and Ends, Report from Africa, Report from Latin America, Unconscionable Conduct and Codes of Conduct, unconsionable conduct |
The latest Part of the Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law includes the following articles: “A fly in the ointment for the ACCC? Implications of the Cement Australia decision for the interpretation of section 46” – Caroline Coops; and “Acceptable quality v merchantable quality” – Lynsey Edgar. Also in this Part are the following sections: Enforcement and Remedies; Case Note; What if…; Comments from Commerce; Consumer Concerns; Snapshots; Economic(s) Matters; Report from New Zealand; Report from Asia; and Report from Russia.
Posted in Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law (AJCCL), Update Summaries | Tagged "essential facilities", ACCC, acceptable quality, AJCCL, Alex Sundakov, Amanda Seethor, ASEAN member countries, Australian Consumer Law, Caroline Coops, Case Note, Cement Australia decision, Comments from Commerce, Competition Policy Review, Consumer concerns, Diana Biscoe, Douglas Shirrefs, Economic(s) Matters, energy usage charges, Enforcement and Remedies, Harper Review, Jemimah Roberts, Jenny Mee, Julia Borisova, Kerry Lee, Lindsay Trotman, Lynsey Edgar, Matthew Berkahn, Matthew Knox, merchantable quality, Murray Deakin, net neutrality, privatising regulated infrastructure, Report from Asia, Report from New Zealand, Report from Russia, Russell Miller AM, s 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Simon Pryor, Snapshots, Tom Clarke, What if..., Xavier O’Halloran |
Facebook
Twitter
Rss
Journals Talk is Thomson Reuters’ portal for our journals customers and contributors. Here you’ll find the latest on the most extensive range of legal journals in the Australian market, along with articles, news, submission requirements and more.
Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law update: Vol 25 Pt 2
The latest Part of the Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law includes the following articles: “Proving Misleading or Deceptive Conduct: Challenges Posed by the Internet” – Adrian Coorey; “Influencers, Instagurus, and Enablers: Using Accessorial Liability to Establish a Norm of Behaviour in Relation to Disguised Viral Marketing” – Lynden Griggs and Aviva Freilich; “Extracting Value from Big Data: Taking Big Data Processing and Analysis into Account” – Suiyi Zhang; Access to Services; Case Note: Tribunal Tableaux; Consumer Concerns; What If…; Comments from Commerce; Report from Russia; Report from New Zealand; and Benchmarks.