Viet Nam Competition Commission signs new Memorandum of Understanding with ACCC

Source: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

The ACCC and its Vietnamese counterpart, the Viet Nam Competition Commission (VCC), have committed to even closer collaboration in securing strong regulatory and economic outcomes by signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

The new agreement will facilitate cooperation and information sharing between the two competition and consumer protection authorities, as well as promoting the delivery of technical assistance activities.

ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb and VCC Chair Le Trieu Dung signed the MOU on 6 March 2023, before it was exchanged by the two governments on 7 March during H.E. Mr Pham Minh Chinh, Prime Minister of Vietnam’s official visit to Canberra. Prime Minister Chinh was hosted for his visit by the Hon Anthony Albanese MP, Prime Minister of Australia.

The visit took place during the week of the 2024 ASEAN-Australia Special Summit. The Summit, hosted by Prime Minister Albanese in Melbourne, celebrated 50 years since Australia became the first Dialogue Partner of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

“The ACCC’s relationship with the Viet Nam Competition Commission is a key element in co-operation across the ASEAN region in the implementation of competition and consumer law,” ACCC Chair Cass-Gottlieb said.

“We welcome this latest achievement and the opportunity it provides for further cooperation, consultation, and coordination between our two agencies.

The ACCC looks forward to continuing its close work with the VCC in our joint purpose to protect competition and consumers, both at home and in our shared regions.”

The new MOU articulates the common objectives and approaches shared between the two agencies and includes arrangements to collaborate on bilateral activities, such as:

  • sharing best practices through the exchange of officials, non-confidential information, and experiences on matters of mutual interest
  • conducting periodic study visits, workshops, or training courses for staff of the ACCC and VCC, as well as other officials.

“Both the ACCC and VCC remain steadfast in our mutual commitment to champion competition and consumer protection in the ASEAN region,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

“We are eager to embark on this next phase of close interagency collaboration as we continue to deliver better regulatory and enforcement outcomes for our increasingly connected economic markets.”

Background

In April 2023 the VCC formed from an amalgamation of the Vietnam Competition and Consumer Authority (VCCA) and the Vietnam Competition Council and is responsible for implementing the country’s national competition and consumer laws.

The ACCC has collaborated with the VCC in supporting consumer law reform in Vietnam through the Vietnam-Australia Consumer Protection Partnership (VACPP), launched in April 2021.

The VACPP is a bilateral cooperation program supporting consumer advocacy and post-pandemic social and economic recovery in Vietnam. It has facilitated consumer law reform in Vietnam and has strengthened the productive relationship enjoyed by the ACCC and VCC.

The ACCC continues to build strong connections with the VCC and other competition and consumer protection authorities in the ASEAN region and New Zealand through its Competition Law Implementation Program (CLIP) and the Consumer Affairs Program (CAP) which was created pursuant to the agreement establishing the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area (AANZFTA).

Cost of living and digital economy shape 2024-25 compliance and enforcement priorities

Source: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Consumer and competition issues in the supermarket sector and essential services including electricity and financial services are among the ACCC’s compliance and enforcement priorities for the year ahead, ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb announced today.

“Our priorities continue to be shaped by the key challenges facing our economy and the concerns that occupy our community,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said, speaking at a Committee for Economic Development Australia (CEDA) event in Sydney.

“Principal amongst these shaping influences are the existential importance of the net zero transition, the opportunities and disruptions of digital transformation, and the significant impact of cost of living pressures across our community.”

In the digital economy, the ACCC will focus on consumer protection and fair trading issues for small business including misleading or deceptive conduct in influencer marketing, online reviews, price comparison websites and in-app purchases – especially in the video gaming industry.

“The gaming industry has significant size and reach, particularly with younger consumers,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

“Far too often we hear concerns about consumers incurring huge purchases because of in-app offerings that have inadequate safeguards, or in some cases, deliberately target and nudge or confuse consumers.”

Ms Cass-Gottlieb said the ACCC would also continue to prioritise improving business compliance with consumer guarantees, this year especially in the sale of home electronics and delivery times for online purchases.

“A key concern that has recently emerged is the delay in delivery and non-delivery of consumer products. Delivery timeframes are a key consideration for many consumers when choosing a retailer,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

Ms Cass-Gottlieb said because Australian consumers were facing rising costs across a range of products and services, they were more vulnerable to anti-competitive conduct and misleading representations.

With this in mind, the ACCC will prioritise competition, fair trading, consumer protection and pricing issues in the supermarket sector, with a focus on food and groceries. This work will include the 12-month price inquiry commenced in January.

“This priority reflects the concerns of many Australian consumers and farmers about supermarket pricing that have been expressed to the ACCC and publicly,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

“We also have a role to ensure that consumers are not misled and that claims about specials, discounts and advertised prices are truthful and accurate.”

Competition, consumer and product safety issues in sustainability and the net zero transition will remain a priority, Ms Cass-Gottlieb said, as will competition and consumer issues in the aviation sector.

Improving compliance with the Australian Consumer Law by National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) providers was newly listed following the ACCC commencing chairing a joint taskforce involving NDIS agencies.

Compliance with unfair contract terms laws will also be a priority in contracts relating to small businesses and consumers, supported by new penalties taking effect in late 2023.

For the first time, the ACCC’s work protecting the small business sector was listed as an enduring priority.

“Small business is a significant contributor to our economy and supports the livelihoods of many Australians,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

Taking action on cartel conduct remains at the heart of the ACCC’s role as a competition enforcement agency. Cartel conduct is and will remain an enduring priority.

“Cartels undermine the competitive process removing competition, restricting output, and increasing price of everyday goods for all Australians,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

“We are proud of our history of cartel enforcement, and will continue to bring cartel proceedings, including criminal cartel proceedings by referring briefs to the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions.”

The ACCC’s work in the National Anti-Scam Centre was also newly listed as an enduring priority, joining anti-competitive conduct, product safety, conduct impacting consumers experiencing vulnerability or disadvantage and conduct impacting First Nations Australians.

“This year we are establishing a dedicated First Nations coordination, outreach and advocacy team that will help inform and align all our activities across the whole agency regarding conduct impacting First Nations Australians,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

Notably, 2024 also marks the 50th anniversary of the Trade Practices Act – now the Competition and Consumer Act – a significant milestone for the legislation which remains the foundation for much of the ACCC’s work.

“We recognise the importance of strong enforcement outcomes in achieving specific and general deterrence of conduct prohibited by the Act and in ensuring that consumers, business and the wider community continue to have confidence in our market economy,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

More information including the full list of the ACCC’s 2024-25 enforcement priorities is available at Compliance and enforcement policy and priorities

A summary is also available at 2024-25 Compliance and Enforcement Priorities.

A transcript of the speech is available.

ACCC update on Tribunal’s decision to authorise ANZ’s acquisition of Suncorp

Source: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

On 20 February 2024, the Australian Competition Tribunal set aside the ACCC’s earlier decision on 4 August 2023 not to grant authorisation for ANZ to acquire Suncorp’s banking business. The Tribunal has now released the full reasons for its decision.

The ACCC does not propose to seek review of the Tribunal’s decision to grant authorisation for ANZ’s proposed acquisition of Suncorp’s banking business.

“While the ACCC reached a different conclusion to the Tribunal, in complex cases that require the assessment of significant volumes of information and data, different decision makers can reasonably arrive at different conclusions. The availability of review of the ACCC’s merger authorisation decisions is an important check and balance for this administrative decision-making process,” ACCC Chair Cass-Gottlieb said.

“The ACCC’s role in the review process is to assist the Tribunal. In reaching its decision, the Tribunal largely adopted the ACCC’s legal and economic framework for assessing the merger and its impacts, although ultimately formed a different view about the significance of the proposed acquisition on competition.” 

“The Tribunal also shared the ACCC’s fundamental concerns that the national home loans market has features which make it currently conducive to coordination. The Tribunal also found that many of the public benefits claimed by ANZ and Suncorp were either not public benefits or were not specific to the proposed acquisition,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

“Banking markets are critical for consumers and businesses. The major banks have, for many decades now, been the same four banks with dominant market shares. For these reasons, the ACCC will continue to closely scrutinise these markets.”

Background

On 2 December 2022, the ACCC received an application for merger authorisation from ANZ in relation to its proposal to acquire Suncorp Bank.

During the period of its review the ACCC gathered and tested a substantial body of evidence including approximately 200,000 documents, analysis of relevant banking data and conducted 10 compulsory interviews with bank executives. That evidence was brought before the Tribunal. The Tribunal commented that it had a very substantial quantity of information, documents and evidence placed before it.

The ACCC issued a statement of preliminary views on 4 April 2023.

On 4 August 2023, the ACCC denied authorisation for ANZ to acquire Suncorp Bank.

On 25 August 2023, ANZ and Suncorp applied to The Australian Competition Tribunal for review of the ACCC’s determination under section 101 of the Competition and Consumer Act.

In such a review, the Tribunal may affirm, vary or set aside the ACCC’s determination. The role of the ACCC in this review was to assist the Tribunal.

The Tribunal is a review body. A review by the Tribunal is a re-consideration of a matter.

The Tribunal has jurisdiction under the Competition and Consumer Act to hear a variety of applications, including reviews of determinations of the ACCC granting or refusing authorisation for company mergers and acquisitions.

In conducting its review, the Tribunal applies the same ‘authorisation test’ as the ACCC and is generally limited to the information which was before the ACCC.

Under the Competition and Consumer Act, the Tribunal must not grant authorisation unless it is satisfied, in all the circumstances, that either (1) the conduct would not have the effect or be likely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition; or (2) the conduct would result or be likely to result in a benefit to the public, and the benefit would outweigh the detriment to the public that would result or be likely to result. 

Authorisation provides statutory protection from court action for conduct that might otherwise be in breach of the competition provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act, including section 50 which prohibits acquisitions which are likely to substantially lessen competition.

Noni B, Rivers, Katies owner Mosaic Brands in court for allegedly failing to meet advertised delivery times

Source: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

The ACCC today commenced proceedings in the Federal Court, alleging that national fashion retailer Mosaic Brands Limited breached the Australian Consumer Law by failing to deliver several hundred thousand products to customers within the delivery timeframes advertised on its websites.  

Mosaic Brands owns a number of popular brands, including Noni B, Rivers, Katies, Rockmans, Millers, Autograph, Beme, Crossroads and W. Lane.

Mosaic Brands advertised on its brand websites that items would be delivered within certain timeframes. The timeframes varied between the websites, but were generally two to 17 business days from the purchase date.

The ACCC alleges that, between 23 September 2021 and 31 March 2022, Mosaic Brands made false or misleading representations to consumers that it would deliver products purchased online within the advertised delivery timeframes. It is also alleged that Mosaic Brands wrongly accepted payment for goods during the same period, when it failed to deliver orders within the advertised timeframes, or within a reasonable timeframe, or not at all.

Customers experienced excessive and lengthy delays during this time, where over 26 per cent of items ordered were dispatched from Mosaic Brands’ warehouses at least 20 days, and in some cases more than 40 days, after the purchase date.

“The ACCC has received hundreds of complaints about Mosaic Brands in relation to delivery delays,” ACCC Commissioner Liza Carver said.

“Excessively late deliveries can be incredibly frustrating and inconvenient for consumers, especially if they decided to buy goods for a special occasion, such as Christmas, based on the advertised delivery times which were not met,” Ms Carver said.  

“Consumer issues in domestic supply chains is a current ACCC enforcement priority.”

The ACCC also alleges that between 23 September 2021 and at least 23 October 2022, Mosaic Brands misrepresented consumer guarantee rights in the terms and conditions published on eight of its brands websites, when it stated that consumers were only eligible for a refund for a faulty product if they sought the refund within six months of the purchase date.

“If you buy a product or service and discover it is faulty, not of acceptable quality or does not match its description, you are entitled to a free repair and may also be entitled to a refund or replacement. These legal rights are called ‘consumer guarantees’ under the Australian Consumer Law and they don’t have a specific expiry date,” Ms Carver said.  

Under the Australian Consumer Law, consumer guarantees apply for a period of time that is considered reasonable having regard to the nature of the products or services, including the price paid.

The ACCC is seeking declarations, injunctions and penalties, as well as costs and other orders, including that Mosaic Brands implement a consumer law compliance program.  

Background

Mosaic Brands is a publicly listed company that specialises in women’s fashion. It has approximately 7.8 million online members and operates around 804 stores across the country. 

Mosaic Brands has previously paid a total of $896,400 in penalties following the ACCC issuing it with infringement notices in May 2021 and September 2022.

It’s a scam! Celebrities are not getting rich from online investment trading platforms

Source: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

The National Anti-Scam Centre is warning consumers to beware of fake news articles and deepfake videos of public figures that endorse and link to online investment trading platform scams, particularly on social media.

Last year, Australians reported losing more than $8 million to online investment trading platform scams, with 400 reports made to Scamwatch.

“We are urging Australians to take their time and do their research before taking up an investment opportunity – particularly those seen on social media,” ACCC Deputy Chair Catriona Lowe said.

“Scammers are creating fake news articles and deepfake videos to convince people that celebrities and well-known public figures are making huge sums of money using online investment trading platforms, when in fact it is a scam.”

“These fake videos and news articles circulating on social media and video sharing platforms, often claim that the online trading platform uses artificial intelligence or other emerging technologies such as quantum computing to generate high returns for investors, but it is not true,” Ms Lowe said.

“We know of an Australian man who lost $80,000 in cryptocurrency after seeing a deepfake Elon Musk video interview on social media, clicking the link and registering his details through an online form. He was provided with an account manager and an online dashboard where he could see his investment supposedly making huge returns. But when he tried to withdraw the money – he was locked out of his account.”

Reports to Scamwatch indicate the most prolific online investment trading platform scam appears under the brand ‘Quantum AI’. Others include ‘Immediate Edge’, ‘Immediate Connect’, ‘Immediate X3’, and ‘Quantum Trade Wave’.

The National Anti-Scam Centre’s investment scam fusion cell, co-led by the ACCC and ASIC, has been active in disrupting investment scams such as online investment trading platform scams.

“In addition to referring these scam ads to social media platforms for removal, the fusion cell has developed a trial method for blocking payments to these scams,” Ms Lowe said.

“It has been encouraging to see an overall downward trend in losses reported to Scamwatch to investment scams since the establishment of the fusion cell in July 2023.”

“The ACCC and ASIC will continue to work together as part of the National Anti-Scam Centre’s efforts to stop scammers from harming Australians.”

How online investment trading platform scams work

  • Scammers entice victims through social media advertisements, deepfake videos on video sharing platforms and fake online news articles about celebrities and well-known public figures claiming to make substantial money from online trading platforms.
  • This fake click bait will link to a scam website where victims are prompted to enter their details. This is the gateway for communication between the scammer and victim.
  • Scammers ask for a small investment of around $250 via credit card to provide access to the trading platform.
  • Scammers will often ask the new investor to download a third-party trading platform via the relevant app store or provide the investor with login details for an online dashboard.
  • After showing profits through a dedicated online dashboard, scammers persuade their victims to invest more. Sometimes scammers will allow victims to make a small withdrawal early in the scam to build trust.
  • When the victim eventually tries to withdraw their funds, scammers will ask for withdrawal fees or cite tax implications to obtain more money. Some victims have reported being locked out of their account.

Protect yourself

STOP – Don’t give personal information or act on investment advice you have come across on social media. Don’t feel pressured to invest. If you have any doubts, stop communicating with them.

THINK – Ask yourself if you really know what you are investing in? Scammers can create fake news to make it seem legitimate. Do an internet search to see if there are warnings about this investment trading platform scam, including if the well-known public figure has warned about being impersonated. 

PROTECT – Act quickly if something feels wrong. If you have shared financial information or transferred money, contact your bank immediately. Help others by reporting scams to Scamwatch.

Investor information

Before investing, Australians can make these simple practical checks to help reduce the risk of investment scams:

  • check ASIC’s investor alert list to help keep you informed about investments that could be fraudulent, a scam or unlicensed.
  • go to ASIC’s Check before you invest page to see how you can check if the company or person is licensed or authorised to offer the investment. Be sure to check ASIC’s professional register to see if the licensee is authorised to provide services to retail clients. Sometimes licensees are impersonated so check you are dealing with the correct entity by independently verifying contact details on AFCA’s financial firms directory.  Does the website domain and contact details match those on the list? For more information about how to spot an investment scam, visit ASIC’s Moneysmart website.

Background

If you think you may have been targeted by an investment scam or have experienced cybercrime and lost money online, contact your bank immediately. 

For crisis support to help with emotional distress about scams contact Lifeline on 13 11 14 or access support via the online chat. Beyond Blue also provides support for anxiety and depression 1300 22 4636 or chat online at Beyond Blue.

Help others by reporting to Scamwatch. Reports can be made anonymously.

Ultra Tune fined $1.5 million for contempt of court

Source: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

The Federal Court of Australia has fined Ultra Tune Australia Pty Ltd (Ultra Tune) $1.5 million for contempt of court.

The $1.5 million fine sets a record as the highest for a contempt of court proceeding brought by the ACCC.

In 2019, Ultra Tune was found to have breached a number of provisions of the Australian Consumer Law and the Franchising Code of Conduct. The Court made orders that required Ultra Tune to provide disclosure documents and marketing fund statements to franchisees in compliance with the Franchising Code. The Court also ordered Ultra Tune to implement a compliance program designed to reduce the risk of any future breaches.

In breach of these orders, on one occasion Ultra Tune failed to update its disclosure document on time, and it twice failed to prepare its marketing fund statement on time. In one of these instances, Ultra Tune prepared its marketing fund statement almost eight months late.

The compliance program order made by the Court following these findings required Ultra Tune’s compliance officer to provide quarterly reports on the effectiveness of the compliance program.

In his decision, Justice Bromwich found that “…the evidence shows that the contempts that were charged were not out of character for Ultra Tune, but in fact a reflection of its corporate character which was insufficiently concerned with, and with effecting, compliance, even when it came to Court orders.”

“It is vital that franchisors prepare marketing fund statements in the timeframe stipulated by the Franchising Code, so that franchisees receive this important information when it is of most use to them,” ACCC Commissioner Liza Carver said.

“The ACCC took this action because it was concerned that Ultra Tune had failed to improve its compliance with the requirements of the Franchising Code despite previous ACCC action and court-imposed penalties. These fines for contempt demonstrate the importance of compliance with court orders.”

In the previous civil penalty proceedings, the Court found that Ultra Tune had failed to update its disclosure document on time on two occasions and failed to prepare its marketing fund statement on time on three occasions.

The compliance program order made by the Court following these findings required Ultra Tune’s compliance officer to provide quarterly reports on the effectiveness of the compliance program to the company. Ultra Tune failed to ensure this reporting occurred for three consecutive quarters.

The Court also awarded the ACCC its costs on an indemnity basis, because this was a contempt of court action.

Background

Ultra Tune is a car servicing franchisor with operations in every mainland state and territory and over 260 centres across Australia.

In 2017, the ACCC instituted proceedings against Ultra Tune in relation to alleged contraventions of the ACL and the Franchising Code. In January 2019, the Federal Court imposed total pecuniary penalties of $2.604 million against Ultra Tune (reduced to $2.014 million on appeal) for its contravening conduct.

The penalties related to Ultra Tune’s:

  • late production and dissemination (by over six months in some instances) of marketing fund statements and disclosure documents mandated by the Franchising Code; and
  • treatment of a prospective franchisee, whom the court found Ultra Tune had misled.

In March 2019, the Court ordered Ultra Tune to implement a compliance program and made injunctions restraining Ultra Tune from contravening certain provisions of the ACL and the Franchising Code. In June 2022, the ACCC instituted proceedings alleging Ultra Tune had failed to comply with the orders and was in contempt of court.

CFMEU and Hutchinson appeals against boycott finding upheld

Source: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

The Full Federal Court has upheld appeals by the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU) and construction company J Hutchinson Pty Ltd against an earlier judgment in favour of the ACCC.

The trial judge had found that the CFMEU and Hutchinson entered into an agreement to boycott a waterproofing subcontractor at the Brisbane Southpoint A apartments construction site in 2016, meaning the subcontractor could no longer perform the work.

The decision by the Full Federal Court overturns the trial judge’s decision that the CFMEU and Hutchinson entered into and gave effect to a boycott agreement. The Full Court found that there was insufficient evidence to support the inference that there had been an agreement between CFMEU and Hutchinson to terminate the waterproofing contractor to avoid conflict with, or industrial action by, the CFMEU at the site.

“We brought these enforcement proceedings because we believed that the arrangement between the union and the builder prevented a waterproofing subcontractor from supplying its services,” ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said.

“Boycott conduct is a type of anti-competitive arrangement, which is a serious matter. This type of conduct can stifle competition, including in the construction industry where it can lead to inflated construction costs.”

“All businesses and trade unions should be aware that boycott conduct is illegal, and that the ACCC will take appropriate enforcement action against this type of anti-competitive conduct,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

The ACCC is carefully considering the Full Court’s judgment. 

Background

Hutchinson is one of Australia’s largest privately owned construction companies.

The Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union is a trade union organisation that represents members in a number of industries including the construction industry. At the time of the proceedings it was known as the ‘CFMMEU’, and today as the ‘CFMEU’.

On 4 December 2020 the ACCC instituted proceedings against Hutchinson and the CFMEU.

On 14 February 2022 the Federal Court found that by making and acting on the agreement, Hutchinson contravened the Competition and Consumer Act, which prohibit contracts, arrangements or understandings containing a provision included for the purpose of preventing or hindering the acquisition of goods or services from a supplier, which is also referred to as a boycott.

The CFMEU was found to have been knowingly concerned in, or party to, the contraventions by Hutchinson.

The Court also found that the CFMEU induced Hutchinson’s contraventions by threatening or implying that there would be conflict with, or industrial action by, the CFMEU if Hutchinson did not stop using the particular subcontractor.

On 30 August 2022 the Federal Court ordered Hutchinson and the CFMEU to pay penalties of $600,000 and $750,000 respectively, which have been paid.

ACCC and Philippine Competition Commission sign new Memorandum of Understanding

Source: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

A new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), signed by the ACCC and its Filipino counterpart, the Philippine Competition Commission (PCC), will continue to strengthen cooperation between the two competition regulators.

Interagency collaboration fostered by the MOU, will enhance the effective administration of competition law and policy in Australia, the Philippines and the broader ASEAN region, providing better economic outcomes for businesses and consumers.

The MOU was signed by ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb and PCC Chair Michael Aguinaldo in Canberra on Wednesday.

“We welcome this new commitment and the opportunity it provides the ACCC to work even more closely with its counterpart in the Philippines,” ACCC Chair Cass-Gottlieb said.

“Robust and effective competition laws foster economic development in both our domestic and global markets.

“This latest achievement is proof of the close and productive connection shared between our two competition regulators and marks the ACCC and the PCC’s next step in our joint effort to champion competition and consumer welfare,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

The new MOU includes arrangements to cooperate on bilateral activities, such as:

  • Sharing best practices through the exchange of officials, non-confidential information, and experiences on matters of mutual interest
  • Conducting workshops or training courses for the ACCC and PCC’s staff and other officials
  • Collaborating on projects of mutual interest, including via international forums
  • Notification of investigations and activities that significantly affect the ACCC’s and PCC’s respective interests.

“Despite our countries’ unique economic contexts, we are able to achieve better regulatory and enforcement outcomes when we work collaboratively”, Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

“The ACCC looks forward to continuing to work with its counterpart in the Philippines to address shared challenges in our countries and the broader ASEAN region.”

Background

The long-standing relationship between Australia and the Philippines was elevated to a Strategic Partnership in September 2023, establishing an enduring framework for closer cooperation between the two countries.

The Philippines is a member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), and the World Trade Organisation, and is a participant to a growing network of economic and free trade agreements with Australia.

Since its inception in 2016, the PCC has worked closely with the ACCC to implement its competition law regime and address anti-competitive practices in the two nations’ increasingly connected markets.

The ACCC has built strong connections with the PCC and other competition authorities in the ASEAN region and New Zealand through the ACCC’s Competition Law Implementation Program (CLIP), which was created pursuant to the agreement establishing the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area (AANZFTA).

ACCC supermarkets inquiry invites consumer, farmer and industry views

Source: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Australian consumers are asked to share information about how they shop and what they experience through an online survey published today as part of the ACCC’s supermarkets inquiry.

The ACCC has also today published an issues paper outlining the topics the supermarkets inquiry will explore, and is calling for submissions from farmers, wholesalers, retailers, and other interested parties.

“We know that consumers and suppliers alike have a range of concerns about Australia’s major supermarkets, and this is their chance to have their say,” ACCC Deputy Chair Mick Keogh said.

“We will be using our legal powers to compulsorily obtain data and documents from the supermarkets themselves, but consultation with consumers and grocery sector participants is an important first step in our inquiry.”

Survey of supermarket customers

The ACCC invites consumers to complete the online survey to improve its understanding of where and how Australians buy groceries, and how price changes, loyalty programs and other factors influence how they shop.

Consumers are also invited to include information about any grocery shopping experiences they believed were confusing or misleading, such as “was/now” pricing or so-called “shrinkflation”, when a product is sold at a smaller size or volume for the same or a higher price.

Consumers can complete the online survey at Supermarkets inquiry consumer survey until 2 April 2024.

Issues paper and stakeholder submissions

The ACCC is also seeking submissions from industry participants involved in grocery supply chains, in response to matters raised in the issues paper.

The issues paper is divided into two sections: competition for consumer retail spending between the supermarkets, and grocery supply chains.

At the retail level, the ACCC will examine competition between supermarkets and the barriers that new or emerging supermarkets face when trying to enter or expand.

The ACCC is also interested in how retail competition differs across Australia, particularly in regional and remote areas.

“One of our major focus areas will be the supermarkets’ approach to setting prices, and whether there is evidence to show that a lack of effective retail competition is contributing to higher prices,” Mr Keogh said.

“We will conduct a detailed comparison of the price suppliers receive for their goods and the price consumers pay at the checkout, and the profits the supermarkets earn.”

“In addition, we will be looking at other issues such as loyalty schemes, discounting practices, the shift to online shopping and the impact of home-brand products,” Mr Keogh said.

In relation to grocery supply chains, the ACCC wants to hear from industry participants about competition within supply chains, trading arrangements, margins and price transparency, and if supermarket buyer power is impacting suppliers’ commercial viability.

“A lack of competition at any stage of a supply chain can result in inefficient or unsustainable prices across the supply chain,” Mr Keogh said.

Grocery supply chain participants and other interested parties are invited to make submissions in response to the issues paper via a guided submissions process on the ACCC’s consultation hub until 2 April 2024.

Parties can claim confidentiality over all or some of their submission, including their identity, if they believe the information being shared publicly could damage their business.

Further information is available at Supermarkets inquiry 2024-25

Background

On 25 January 2024, the Australian Government announced that it will direct the ACCC to conduct an inquiry into Australia’s supermarket sector.

The ACCC received the formal direction from the Australian Government and the terms of the reference for the inquiry on 1 February 2024.

The ACCC last conducted a comprehensive inquiry into the grocery sector in 2008.

The terms of reference require the ACCC to consider matters such as the supermarkets’ approach to setting prices, the role of small and independent retailers (including those in regional and remote areas), and the impact of increased data collection and other technological developments.

Westpac’s proposed acquisition of HealthPoint not opposed

Source: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

The ACCC will not oppose Westpac Banking Corporation’s proposed acquisition of HealthPoint.

HealthPoint is a payment application that enables healthcare providers to process real time private health insurance claims at point of sale through partnerships with banking and other channel partners.

Westpac is currently a very small supplier of banking payment services to health service providers without an ability to process real time private health insurance claims at point of sale.

The ACCC’s review focused on whether the proposed acquisition would provide Westpac with the ability or incentive to inhibit competing banking and channel partners’ use of the HealthPoint application.

The only alternative to HealthPoint is HICAPS, which is wholly owned and exclusive to NAB. HICAPS is by far the largest supplier of private health insurance point of sale claiming services.

“Most market participants were not concerned by the proposed acquisition because HICAPS is the significantly largest supplier of private health insurance claiming and settlement services,” ACCC Commissioner Stephen Ridgeway said.

“As owner of HealthPoint, Westpac is likely to have an incentive to work with existing banking and channel partners to maintain and grow health services provider volumes to compete with HICAPS.”   

“The ACCC carefully examined the arrangements between HealthPoint, Westpac, banking and channel partners and private health insurers. We have concluded that this acquisition is unlikely to result in a substantial lessening of competition,” Mr Ridgeway said.

Notes to editor

In considering the proposed acquisition, the ACCC applies the legal test set out in section 50 of the Competition and Consumer Act.

In general terms, section 50 prohibits acquisitions that would have the effect, or be likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition in any market.

Background

HealthPoint is a business of Dedalus, a global provider of healthcare and diagnostic software.

Westpac (ASX: WBC) is one of four major banking organisations in Australia and provides a broad range of consumer, business, and institutional banking and wealth management services. Westpac is currently the only major Australian bank that does not currently offer an integrated healthcare e-claiming and payment solution.

The proposed acquisition concerns the supply of healthcare payment services. Real time healthcare claiming services at the point of sale are one method for private health insurance members to claim their private health insurance entitlements. Other options include claiming online or manually seeking reimbursement.

HealthPoint’s infrastructure integrates with private health insurers and provides them with a claims settlement service which consolidates payments to healthcare providers. Banks and other payment providers can then access the HealthPoint platform to offer real time private health insurance claiming on their point-of-sale terminals.