Russell Miller AM

Home
Journals
News & Summaries
- Update Summaries
Journals Index
Subscribe & Purchase
Permissions
Submissions

Home

Russell Miller AM

Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law update: Vol 27 Pt 1

By Journal Alerts on March 18, 2019

The latest Part of the Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law includes the following articles: “Deceptive Domain Names – Misconduct through Misnomers” – Adrian Coorey; “Merger Authorisation Processes in Australia in Light of the Tabcorp Decision (It’s Hip to Be Square – Hipster Economics and Antitrust)” – Dave Poddar; “Commercial Reality: Its Place in the Authorisation of Mergers” – Ketki Kotwal; and the following sections: Authorisations and Notifications; Telecommunications; Landmarks; Energy Etchings; Case Notes; Consumer Concerns; What If…; Report from Russia; and Report from India.

Posted in Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law (AJCCL), Journals, Update Summaries | Tagged 2018 work of the Australian Energy Regulator (AER), ACCC’s Digital Platforms Inquiry, Adrian Coorey, AJCCL, annual update, Another New Feature, appellate review and misleading conduct, authorisation of mergers, Authorisations and notifications, case notes, Christopher Hodgekiss SC, Consumer concerns, cybersquatting of domain names, deceptive domain names, Defiance Holdings Ltd, Editorial, Ekaterina Zotova, Energy etchings, Evgeny Khokhlov, Gareth Downing, Gippsland Dairy Farmers Group Collective Bargaining Authorisation, Holly Raiche, information asymmetries in telecommunications, Ketki Kotwal, Landmarks, Matthew Paterson, merger authorisation process in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA), Michael Daniel, misuse of market power in Australia, Natasha Dixon, Niloufer Selvadurai, Nivedha Krishnan, Paula Conboy, Pravin Anand, Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL v ACCC [2018] FCAFC 30, public benefits under competition legislation, Re Queensland Co-Operative Milling Association Ltd, recent cases concerning retailers' price co-ordination, Report from India, Report from Russia, Rosannah Healy, Russell Miller AM, Tabcorp Matter, Telecommunications, types of cybercrime, Vaibhav Gagga, Vaishali Mittal, What if... | Leave a response

Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law update: Vol 25 Pt 2

By Journal Alerts on June 15, 2017

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... | Leave a response

Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law update: September 2016

By Journal Alerts on September 8, 2016

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 | Leave a response

Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law update: June 2015

By journals team on June 9, 2015

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.