{"id":16174,"date":"2023-07-14T02:55:26","date_gmt":"2023-07-14T02:55:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/?p=16174"},"modified":"2023-07-14T02:55:26","modified_gmt":"2023-07-14T02:55:26","slug":"australian-business-law-review-update-vol-51-pt-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/2023\/07\/14\/australian-business-law-review-update-vol-51-pt-1\/","title":{"rendered":"Australian Business Law Review update: Vol 51 Pt 1"},"content":{"rendered":"

Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU. If you are using Checkpoint, the links can be found in the Checkpoint PDF <\/strong>at the bottom of this post.<\/p>\n

To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com<\/a> or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AST).<\/p>\n

The latest issue of the Australian Business Law Review <\/em>(Volume 51 Part 1) contains the following material:<\/p>\n

EDITORIAL<\/a> \u2013 General Editor: Michael Terceiro<\/em><\/p>\n

Articles<\/h3>\n

The Rise and Fall, and Possible Rise Again, of the Use of Infringement Notices By the Australian Securities and Investments Commission<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u2013 Ian Ramsay and Miranda Webster<\/p>\n

Infringement notices issued by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), which specify monetary penalties to be paid by those whom ASIC believes have contravened the law, were introduced in 2004. Since then, they have been extensively used by ASIC. However, infringement notices are controversial for reasons including the significant increase in the areas of law which are subject to infringement notices, the substantial monetary penalties that are payable for some infringement notices and their use in areas of the law which are both complex and have serious offences for contraventions, leading some to argue that courts should decide the penalties rather than ASIC. The authors examine all infringement notices issued by ASIC between 2004 and 2022, documenting how the use of the notices differs substantially according to the area of law and also how the use of infringement notices has varied over time. Reasons for these findings are explored by the authors.<\/p>\n

\u201cPlease Watch This Ad \u2026 Or Else\u201d: Could Advertisements Requiring User Focus or Response Be \u201cCoercive\u201d under the Australian Consumer Law?<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u2013 Mark A Giancaspro<\/p>\n

From posters in shop windows and on light posts to pop-ups and banner ads on computers and smartphones, advertising has evolved dramatically over the past century. In recent times, emergent technologies have seen advertising take another quantum leap forward. Some major corporations are now employing what this article terms \u201ccompulsive advertising technologies\u201d (CATs) to market to consumers. CATs require consumers to actively engage with the advertisement shown in order to terminate. Some ads track eye movements, read facial profiles, and even demand verbal responses to cues. This article is the first to consider whether the use of CATs could amount to \u201ccoercive\u201d conduct, proscribed by s 50 of the Australian Consumer Law <\/em>(ACL), by using compulsion to negate the consumer\u2019s choice or freedom to act in circumstances that are unreasonable or unjustifiable. Through a doctrinal analysis, it is argued that existing case law interpreting s 50 of the ACL supports this view. The article concludes by suggesting amendment to the consumer law to provide clarity as to the sorts of non-physical conduct that can amount to coercion.<\/p>\n

PRIVACY LAW<\/a> \u2013 Editor: Normann Witzleb<\/em><\/p>\n