Investigation Report No. 3029

File No. ACMA2013/695

Licensee Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd

Station ATN Sydney

Type of Service Commercial television broadcasting service

Name of Program Today Tonight

Date/s of Broadcast 14 February 2013

Relevant Clause 4.3.1 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice Legislation/Code 2010

Date finalised 18 July 2013

Decision No breach of clause 4.3.1 [factual accuracy] The complaint The Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) received a complaint about the program, Today Tonight, broadcast by Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd, the licensee of ATN, on 14 February 2013. The complainant submitted that the program was misleading and used quotes out of context to portray the jewellery industry in a negative light. The complainant was not satisfied with the response provided by the licensee and complained to the ACMA. The investigation has considered the licensee’s compliance with clause 4.3.1 (factual accuracy) of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010 (the Code).

Matters not pursued The complainant submitted that the program also breached clauses 4.4 and 4.5 of the Code. The requirements outlined in clause 4.4 of the Code only apply to news programs. Given that Today Tonight is not a news program, this aspect of the complaint has not been considered in this investigation. Clause 4.5 of the Code relates to the accuracy of factual material and fair representation of viewpoints in promotions for news or current affairs programs. Pursuant to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the complainant is required to complain to the licensee in the first instance. As the complainant did not refer to the program promotion in its complaint to the licensee, the ACMA does not have jurisdiction to deal with this matter. This aspect of the complaint has therefore not been considered in this investigation.

The program Today Tonight is a 30 minute current affairs program and is broadcast at 6.30pm Monday to Friday. On 13 February 2013, the relevant segment was introduced as follows:

A series of raids by consumer affairs officers have found four out of ten jewellery and diamond retailers are breaking the law. The retailers were caught luring unsuspecting shoppers through a variety of illegal ways. [Reporter] and our crew caught it all on camera.

The segment reported on consumer issues experienced in the jewellery industry and referred to recent investigations undertaken by the NSW Department of Fair Trading (NSW Fair Trading) as well as penalties issued by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). The segment featured interviews with a representative from NSW Fair Trading, the Chairman of the ACCC, a jewellery retailer (described in this report as a representative from M Jewellers) and a consumer regarding her experience buying jewellery online via the website, Gumtree. A transcript of the segment is at Attachment A.

ACMA Investigation Report – Today Tonight broadcast by ATN on 14/2/13 2 Assessment This investigation is based on submissions from the complainant and licensee to the ACMA, correspondence between the licensee and the complainant, and a copy of the broadcast provided by the licensee. Other sources used have been identified where relevant. In assessing content against the Code, the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the relevant material. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary, reasonable’ listener or viewer. Australian Courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable’ reader (or listener or viewer) to be:

A person of fair average intelligence, who is neither perverse, nor morbid or suspicious of mind, nor avid for scandal. That person does not live in an ivory tower, but can and does read between the lines in the light of that person’s general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs1.

In considering compliance with the Code, the ACMA considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone, and any inferences that may be drawn. In the case of factual material which is presented, the ACMA will also consider relevant omissions (if any). Once this test has been applied to ascertain the meaning of the broadcast material, it is for the ACMA to determine whether the material has breached the Code.

Issue: Accuracy

Relevant Code clause News and Current Affairs Programs 4.3 In broadcasting news and current affairs programs, licensees:

4.3.1 must broadcast factual material accurately and represent viewpoints fairly, having regard to the circumstances at the time of preparing and broadcasting the program;

4.3.1.1 An assessment of whether the factual material is accurate is to be determined in the context of the segment in its entirety.

The considerations which the ACMA generally applies in assessing whether particular broadcast material is factual in character are set out at Attachment B.

Submissions Submissions from the complainant and licensee are set out at Attachments C and D respectively.

Finding The licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 of the Code.

Reasons The complainant alleges that four statements made during the segment are inaccurate. Each statement has been considered separately below.

1 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at pp 164–167.

ACMA Investigation Report – Today Tonight broadcast by ATN on 14/2/13 3 We went along with NSW Fair Trading as they raided Sydney stores inspecting for no refund policies, false advertising and over-inflated prices... The relevant statement (in bold) was made in the following context:

Reporter: Part of a nation-wide crackdown on jewellery and diamond retailers. In their sights, the underhanded tactics used to lure and mislead unsuspecting shoppers.

NSW Fair Trading Representative: You can be prosecuted, it can be a criminal offence and you can be fined up to $1.1 million

Reporter: We went along with NSW Fair Trading as they raided Sydney stores, inspecting for no refund policies, false advertising and over-inflated sales prices, all offences under the Australian consumer law.

NSW Fair Trading Representative: When you see signs that say no refunds, that’s actually illegal.

Reporter: 170 stores were raided across Australia. 41% in NSW alone didn’t comply with the Law. [NSW Fair Trading representative] manages Fair Trading investigations and says the most common offence was misleading refund policies.

The ACMA considers that the relevant statement amounts to factual content as it was presented in a conclusive and unequivocal manner, and it was specific and capable of independent verification. The statement would have conveyed to the ordinary, reasonable viewer that the reporter accompanied NSW Fair Trading as they raided Sydney stores inspecting refund policies, false advertising and over-inflated sales prices. The complainant submitted that it understands that NSW Fair Trading raided the stores inspecting for ‘no refund policies’ only, and therefore it was inaccurate to state that it also investigated false advertising and over-inflated sales prices. The licensee submitted that it made the statement based on advice from NSW Fair Trading which advised that the purpose of the investigation was to: 1. Ensure the guarantees for the supply of goods or services that comply with the ACL [Australian Consumer Law]; 2. Ensure that conditions specified in guarantees are reasonable and there are no associated costs; 3. Identify and obtain details/documents of any refund, repair, replacement priorities in place for minor or major failures; 4. Ensure cover stipulated in extended guarantees is additional cover to that provided for under the ACL; and 5. Investigate any other matters falling under ACL

The ACMA considers that the reference to investigating ‘any other matters falling under ACL’ would include ‘false advertising and over-inflated sales prices’. Further, it is noted that the complainant has not provided any information indicating that the NSW Fair Trading investigation concerned only refund policies. The ACMA therefore does not consider that the relevant factual material was presented inaccurately. Accordingly, the ACMA finds that the statement did not breach of clause 4.3.1 of the Code. We’ve had seven penalties in the last 12 to 18 months of over $1 million

ACMA Investigation Report – Today Tonight broadcast by ATN on 14/2/13 4 The reference to the relevant statement (in bold) was made in the following context:

Reporter: Meanwhile the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has investigated artificially inflated sale prices, where a retailer will bump up the ‘was’ price making the ‘now’ price look more appealing. This advertisement suggests the original price for the ring was $399.95 but the sale price is just $199.95. But that’s not true because the ring has never been sold at the higher price and therefore should never be advertised as a sale. [ACCC Chairman] from the ACCC.

ACCC Chairman: We’ve had seven penalties in the last 12 to 18 months of over $1 million’.

Reporter: Chain Jeweller [Z] was fined $250,000 for misrepresenting savings on 44 jewellery items in its catalogues and brochures. And it wasn’t the only retailer to be caught red handed. [P] was also found to be in breach of the Trades Practices Act and ordered to correct its discounted advertising.

ACCC Chairman: What we are hoping to do through our enforcement action is make sure that companies know that they’ll get found out, that the penalties are large and dissuade them from doing these sorts of things.

The ACMA considers that the statement amounts to factual content as it was presented in a conclusive and unequivocal manner, and was also specific and capable of independent verification. The complainant does not dispute the accuracy of the statement in relation to companies and retailers generally, rather, he submitted that the statement misled viewers into understanding that the seven penalties only related to jewellery companies. The licensee submitted, ‘where a statement is broadcast that is literally true, we do not believe it can be a failure to ‘broadcast factual matters accurately’, because a viewer could have ascribed some other meaning to the statement.’ It also submitted that an average viewer would be aware that the ACCC regulates companies at large, not just jewellers, and therefore that the penalties referred to did not necessarily relate specifically to jewellery stores. The licensee provided an excerpt from the transcript of the unedited interview with the ACCC Chairman to demonstrate that the statement was illustrative of the ACCC’s powers and was not quoted out of context. It also submitted that it was only after contacting the Chairman on receiving the complaint that it was clarified that his comment was referring to the number of penalties in total, and ‘to the extent that the relevant statement did not represent factual matter accurately, this failure should not be considered a breach of the Code as it resulted from a reasonable mistake, or reasonable reliance on information supplied by another person.’ The first issue for the ACMA to determine is whether the ordinary, reasonable viewer would have understood the statement to relate to jewellery retailers only. Clause 4.3.1.1 of the Code requires that an assessment of whether factual material is accurate is to be determined in the context of the segment in its entirety. The ACMA assesses clause 4.3 against the material that was actually broadcast. The ACMA notes that the reporter’s statement preceding the ACCC Chairman’s quote is: ‘meanwhile the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has investigated artificially

ACMA Investigation Report – Today Tonight broadcast by ATN on 14/2/13 5 inflated sale prices, where a retailer will bump up the ‘was’ price making the ‘now’ price look more appealing’. The statement then goes on to provide an example of over-inflated sales prices in the jewellery industry. The Chairman’s statement is immediately followed by a reference to jewellers Z and P who had been found in breach of the Australian Consumer Law and Trade Practices Act for misrepresenting savings and discounted advertising. In this context, a viewer would have understood the statement to mean that seven penalties had been applied to jewellers in the last 12 to 18 months with respect to over-inflated jewellery sale prices. The surrounding statements of the ACCC Chairman do not make it clear that the figure concerns total penalties. As the segment in its entirety deals with breaches of the law by jewellery retailers and the ‘nation-wide crackdown’ in response, the most likely interpretation, is that the penalties related to breaches in that industry. Such an interpretation would not be inconsistent with an awareness that the ACCC regulates all companies. The ACMA considers that the relevant statement is inaccurate as the penalties did not apply solely to the jewellery industry. However, on reviewing the transcript of the interview by the ACCC Chairman provided by the licensee, the ACMA accepts its submission that the statement was not quoted out of context, and that the inaccuracy resulted from a reasonable mistake, or reasonable reliance on another person and therefore clauses 1.5.1 or 1.5.2 of the Code applies. As such, the ACMA considers that the licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 of the Code.

[P] was also found to be in breach of the Trades Practices Act... The reference to the relevant statement (in bold) was made in the following context:

ACCC Chairman: We’ve had 7 penalties in the last 12 to 18 months of over $1 million’.

Reporter: Chain Jeweller [Z] was fined $250,000 for misrepresenting savings on 44 jewellery items in its catalogues and brochures. And it wasn’t the only retailer to be caught red handed. [P] was also found to be in breach of the Trade Practices Act and ordered to correct its discounted advertising.

ACCC Chairman: What we are hoping to do through our enforcement action is make sure that companies know that they’ll get found out, that the penalties are large and dissuade them from doing these sorts of things.

The ACMA considers that the statement amounts to factual content as it was presented in a conclusive and unequivocal manner. It was also specific and capable of independent verification. The complainant submitted that the relevant statement gave the impression that the breach against P was a recent case and is therefore inaccurate because the breach occurred some five years ago. The licensee submitted that the date of the case was not referenced as this was not relevant to the purpose of the statement, which was to provide an example of a jewellery retailer penalised for unfair practices. The licensee further submitted that the statement is factually accurate as P was found to be in breach of the Trade Practices Act and that the date of the penalty was immaterial.

ACMA Investigation Report – Today Tonight broadcast by ATN on 14/2/13 6 The issue for the ACMA to determine is whether the ordinary, reasonable viewer would have understood that P was recently found to be in breach of the Trade Practices Act. The context in which the statement was made focused on issues experienced in the jewellery industry regarding over-inflated sales prices, the regulatory response including raids by NSW Fair Trading, as well as the powers of the ACCC in regulating Australian Consumer Law. There is no dispute that these were recent responses to ongoing consumer issues. As such, a viewer might reasonably infer that the breach finding against P was recent. However, aside from the ACCC Chairman’s comment that the ACCC had issued ‘seven penalties in the last 12 to 18 months’, no reference is made to the date or year in which P and other jewellers were found to be in breach of the Trades Practices Act. The purpose of this part of the segment was to provide general information about the enforcement action carried out by NSW Fair Trading and the ACCC, and not to discuss timing. The ACMA accepts the licensee’s submission that the point of the statement was to provide examples of recognised jewellery retailers that had been penalised for unfair practices. Although it was not entirely immaterial given the segment featured current issues, the ACMA considers that as the date of the penalty was not referred to, in the context of the segment in its entirety the factual material was not inaccurate. Accordingly, the ACMA finds that the licensee has not breached clause 4.3.1 of the Code.

[Consumer] learnt the hard way when she bought... an 18-carat platinum gold diamond ring off online classifieds site Gumtree The reference to the Gumtree website (in bold) was made in the following context:

Reporter: Legally diamonds don’t have to be accompanied with a valuation certificate but [representative from M jewellers] says if a jeweller doesn’t offer you an independent certification proving the value of the diamond or piece of jewellery you might not be getting what you paid for.

[...]

Reporter: [Consumer] learnt the hard way when she bought what she thought was a 18- carat platinum diamond gold ring off online classifieds site Gumtree.

Consumer: It had a real 18 carat gold stamp inside of the ring, so, you know, from the ad I thought ‘ok, well it’s obviously real’. He said that, ‘oh I’ve lost all the papers but you can get a valuation done in the city really easily’.

Reporter: She paid $610 for nothing more than a piece of plastic.

The complainant submitted that the relevant statement was misleading as it gave the impression that Gumtree is a jewellery retailer. The licensee submitted that Gumtree is a well known online classifieds website and that viewers would understand Gumtree is not a jewellery retailer. The ACMA is satisfied that the ordinary, reasonable viewer would have understood that Gumtree was not a jewellery retailer, but rather an online classifieds site as specifically stated by the reporter. It considers that it was clear from the context of the segment that the purpose of this interview was to illustrate the range of consumer isuses with the purchase of jewellery rather than to identify particular retailers.

ACMA Investigation Report – Today Tonight broadcast by ATN on 14/2/13 7 Accordingly, the ACMA finds that the licensee has not breached clause 4.3.1 of the Code in this instance.

ACMA Investigation Report – Today Tonight broadcast by ATN on 14/2/13 8 Attachment A Transcript – Today Tonight – 14 February 2013

Presenter: A series of raids by consumer affairs officers have found 4 out of 10 jewellery and diamond retailers breaking the law. The retailers were caught luring unsuspecting shoppers through a variety of illegal ways. [Reporter] and our crew caught it all on camera. Consumer: What I received was a piece of plastic Representative from NSW Fair Trading: This is breaking the law. That is illegal, that sign. It is a misrepresentation of what the law is. Reporter: Investigators on the hunt. NSW Fair Trading Representative: Hi, we’re investigators for NSW Fair Trading. Reporter: Part of a nation-wide crackdown on jewellery and diamond retailers. In their sights, the underhanded tactics used to lure and mislead unsuspecting shoppers. NSW Fair Trading Representative: You can be prosecuted, it can be a criminal offence and you can be fined up to $1.1 million Reporter: We went along with NSW Fair Trading as they raided Sydney stores, inspecting for no refund policies, false advertising and over-inflated sales prices, all offences under the Australian consumer law’. NSW Fair Trading Representative: When you see signs that say no refunds, that’s actually illegal. Reporter: 170 stores were raided across Australia. 41% in NSW alone didn’t comply with the Law. [NSW Fair Trading Representative] manages Fair Trading investigations and says the most common offence was misleading refund policies. NSW Fair Trading Representative: When you go to buy something, you don’t want to be stressed out in relation to the refund policies if something goes wrong. Reporter: Meanwhile the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has investigated artificially inflated sale prices, where a retailer will bump up the ‘was’ price making the ‘now’ price look more appealing. This advertisement suggests the original price for the ring was $399.95 but the sale price is just $199.95. But that’s not true because the ring has never been sold at the higher price and therefore should never be advertised as a sale. [ACCC Chairman] from the ACCC. ACCC Chairman: We’ve had seven penalties in the last 12 to 18 months of over $1 million’. Reporter: Chain Jeweller [Z] was fined $250,000 for misrepresenting savings on 44 jewellery items in its catalogues and brochures. And it wasn’t the only retailer to be caught red handed. [P] was also found to be in breach of the Trade Practices Act and ordered to correct its discounted advertising. ACCC Chairman: What we are hoping to do through our enforcement action is make sure that companies know that they’ll get found out, that the penalties are large, and dissuade them from doing these sorts of things.

ACMA Investigation Report – Today Tonight broadcast by ATN on 14/2/13 9 Representative from [M] Jewellers: Some of these things are illegal but all of them are designed to either mislead or confuse the consumer. Reporter: [Representative from [M] Jewellers] from [M] Jewellers is a member of the Australia Diamond Guild. He says these types of tactics are easy to spot. Representative from [M] Jewellers: If you were to walk through a shopping centre or down a mall and they’re constantly on sale or they constantly have banners in their window and that’s the enticement of ‘you’re going to get a good deal’. Reporter: Legally diamonds don’t have to be accompanied with a valuation certificate but [representative from [M] Jewellers] says if a jeweller doesn’t offer you an independent certification proving the value of the diamond or piece of jewellery you might not be getting what you paid for. Representative from [M] Jewellers: If an item is massively discounted it compromises what those true elements of that value are. Consumer: When I opened it up, I just knew. I just looked at it, I thought it just looks like one of those rings you get, you know, at a costume jewellery store. It doesn’t look real like a real ring. Reporter: [Consumer] learnt the hard way when she bought what she thought was a 18-carat platinum diamond gold ring off online classifieds site Gumtree. Consumer: It had a real 18 carat gold stamp inside of the ring, so, you know, from the ad I thought ‘ok, well it’s obviously real’. He said that, ‘oh I’ve lost all the papers but you can get a valuation done in the city really easily’. Reporter: She paid $610 for nothing more than a piece of plastic. Consumer: So I took the ring to my friend who’s a jeweller and he did a proper valuation and he said it’s worth nothing, I’d be lucky if I got a $1 for it. Reporter: [Consumer] says if you feel you’ve been mislead, you do have rights. Consumer: If they buy a good and it’s not what it’s meant to be, not what it was said to be, or it breaks down well within what would normally be considered a reasonable time they can actually take that good back, they can get a refund. Reporter: [Consumer] was lucky enough to get a refund through Paypal’s buyer protection policy but wants to warn others from making the same mistakes Consumer: I just want this man to be found out and caught and every single person he’s ripped off, he should return their money. Presenter: All that glitters is not gold, [Reporter] reporting there.

ACMA Investigation Report – Today Tonight broadcast by ATN on 14/2/13 10 Attachment B Considerations which the ACMA has regard to in assessing whether or not broadcast material is factual in character

 The primary consideration is whether, according to the natural and ordinary meaning of the language used and the substantive nature of the message conveyed, the relevant material is presented as a statement of fact or as an expression of opinion.  In that regard, the relevant statement must be evaluated in its context , i.e. contextual indications from the rest of the broadcast (including tenor and tone) are relevant in assessing the meaning conveyed to the ordinary reasonable listener/viewer.  The use of language such as ‘it seems to me’, ‘we consider/think/believe’ tends to indicate that a statement is presented as an opinion. However, a common sense judgment is required as to how the substantive nature of the statement would be understood by the ordinary reasonable listener/viewer, and the form of words introducing the relevant statement is not conclusive.  Factual material will usually be specific, unequivocal and capable of independent verification.  Inferences of a factual nature made from observed facts are usually still characterised as factual material (subject to context); to qualify as an opinion/viewpoint, an inference reasoned from observed facts would usually have to be presented as an inference of a judgmental or contestable kind.  The identity of the person making the statement would not in and of itself determine whether the statement is factual material or opinion, i.e. it is not possible to conclude that because a statement was made by an interviewee, it was necessarily a statement of opinion rather than factual material.  Statements in the nature of prediction as to future events would nearly always be characterised as statements of opinion.

ACMA Investigation Report – Today Tonight broadcast by ATN on 14/2/13 11 Attachment C Complainant’s submissions

The complainant submitted in their letter of complaint to the licensee that:

[...]

Firstly the program opened with the statement that “NSW Fair Trading raided Sydney jewellery stores, inspecting for no refund policies, advertising and over-inflated prices...” It is our understanding that NSW Fair Trading raided the stores inspecting for no refund policies only.

[...]

The president of the ACCC [RS] was quoted as saying the ACCC had successfully prosecuted seven companies over the past year...The average viewer would have thought that all these prosecutions related to jewellery companies when, in fact, only one jewellery company has been fined in the past 12 months.

[...]

The program also referred to a successful prosecution involving Prouds... implying that it was a recent case. Once again this is misleading viewers.

[...]

Finally the [program] interviewed a lady who had purchased a platinum ring and subsequently found the ring to have been made of plastic... This ring was purchased on the website Gumtree. Gumtree is a consumer to consumer website and therefore has nothing to do with the jewellery industry.

ACMA Investigation Report – Today Tonight broadcast by ATN on 14/2/13 12 Attachment D Licensee’s submissions The licensee submitted in their response to the complainant that:

[...]

... we can confirm that the information in the report was accurately presented. At the time of broadcast, the NSW Fair Trading advised Seven that the purpose of their investigation was to: 1. Ensure the guarantees for the supply of goods or services that comply with the ACL [Australian Consumer Law]; 2. Ensure that conditions specified in guarantees are reasonable and there are no associated costs 3. Identify and obtain details/documents of any refund, repair, replacement priorities in place for minor or major failures; 4. Ensure cover stipulated in extended guarantees is additional cover to that provided for under the ACL; and 5. Investigate any other matters falling under ACL

[...]

...[RS] statement referred generally to companies and retailers and Seven did [not] suggest in its report that his statement should only be understood to apply solely to jewellers.

[...]

... Although we acknowledge the comments you have made in relation to the date of the Prouds finding, no reference was made in the report in relation to the date...

[...]

...we respectfully disagree with your view that viewers of the program would have believed the Gumtree website was a jewellery retailer, or somehow associated only with jewellery retailers. Indeed, Gumtree is a popular and extensively used classifieds website.

In a submission to the ACMA of 10 May 2013, the licensee submitted the following:

[...]

The report was focussed on consumer rights when purchasing jewellery and the action being taken by regulators in relation to non-compliance...

[...]

The statement ‘We’ve had seven penalties in the last 12 to 18 months of over one million dollars’ was made by ACCC Chairman [the ACCC Chairman].

We understand that the complainant is not challenging the literal truth or accuracy of the statement that there have been seven penalties of that amount. Rather, the complainant is concerned that the inclusion of this statement in a report that centred on jewellers could have been misinterpreted by some viewers as meaning that all of those seven breaches related specifically to jewellery. However, where a statement is broadcast that is literally true, we do not believe it can be a failure to ‘broadcast factual matters accurately’, because a viewer could have ascribed some other meaning to the statement.

ACMA Investigation Report – Today Tonight broadcast by ATN on 14/2/13 13 Further, we consider that an average viewer would be aware that the ACCC regulates all companies, not just jewellers, and that therefore the penalties referred to did not necessarily relate specifically to breaches by jewellery stores. Rather, the statement was included to illustrate that the ACCC does have significant powers to regulate the types of misleading conduct being discussed and to punish infringers (whether in the jewellery industry or otherwise).

The relevant statement was made by [the ACCC Chairman] specifically in the context of an interview with him about the actions of jewellery retailers. It was not in any way used out of context or intended to be misleading. An excerpt from the transcript of the unedited interview is set out below:

There is a lot of discounting going on in the jewellery sector and this is where this practice does come up a lot it is of concern to us which is why we have taken action and taken a company to court in relation to this sort of pricing.

It can cause consumer harm because consumers might buy something they wouldn’t of otherwise bought because they might buy it then and there without shopping around.

It happens in the jewellery area particularly because of the prevalence of discounting so people go along into these stores they have got an eye to a discount because people know that that’s where you can run into this problem of a false discount where someone will say the price is a hundred dollars and now it is fifty dollars and in fact that is not the case it was never on sale for that higher price.

I think consumers these days need to particularly need to be aware that they have guarantee rights with their consumer guarantees if they buy a good and it is not what it is meant to be not what it was said to be or it breaks down well within what would be considered a considerable time they can actually take that good back they can get a refund if it is not capable of simple repair they can get a replacement good. They just need to use common sense I am afraid just be a little bit sceptical a little bit questioning.

The usual rule with scams if something sounds too good to be true it usually is too good to be true. The penalties under the Australian consumer law are one point one million dollars per offence that is the maximum of course. The case that has come down in the last week in relation to [Z] jewellery store they suffered a penalty of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars for advertising a price that was a discount offer.

The penalties are significant we have had seven penalties in the last 12 to 18 months of over a million dollars and the beauty of that is large companies now are taking notice of these penalties.

In relation to the two hundred thousand fine against [Z] the judge went out of his way to say this was a penalty that was there for others to take notice and to deter them from inappropriate behaviour as well.

[...]

...The interview with [the ACCC Chairman] had been requested by Today Tonight specifically to discuss matters relating to jewellery stores. It is only after contacting [the ACCC Chairman] again following receipt of the complaint that [he] clarified that his comment was referring to the number of penalties in total.

ACMA Investigation Report – Today Tonight broadcast by ATN on 14/2/13 14 ... The statement was included to illustrate that breaches of the consumer law are serious and very significant penalties can result.

[...]

The complainant has expressed concern that this statement could have been misinterpreted by some viewers as meaning the prosecution involving Prouds was a recent case.

Seven submits that the statement is factually accurate, as it is true that Prouds was found to be in breach of the Trades Practices Act (now the ACL)... the date of the penalty was not referred to and was immaterial to the point of the statement, which was to provide examples of recognised jewellery retailers that had been penalised for unfair practices.

ACMA Investigation Report – Today Tonight broadcast by ATN on 14/2/13 15