|
|
The origin of goods must not be misrepresented
Woolworths published several ads, titled 'WOOLWORTHS. Beefing up the Local
Economy', which included the statement 'All the cattle we use come from 150
local suppliers' and a reference to the meat arriving 'fresh'.
Woolworths, however, did not source all of its beef products from local
producers.
The ACCC brought an action for breach of the TPA.
The Court found (ACCC v Woolworths Limited [2002]):
- the ads were misleading and deceptive and therefore in breach of section
52 of the TPA as they represented all Woolworths beef was sourced locally
and took advantage of consumers' desire to support their local economy,
and
- the use of the word 'fresh' amounted to false and misleading
representation that the meat had not travelled from outside the local
region.
The Court also commented:
- Woolworths had made false or misleading representations in relation to
the origin of its cattle in breach of s53(e) of the TPA
- the fact some aspects of the ad were correct did not alter the finding
that the ad was misleading, and
- selected aspects or parts of ads should not be individually analysed if
they do not have an independent effect. Analysis of the larger context may
correct any misleading aspects of selected parts.
The Court did not order publication of corrective ads because the misleading
effect of the ad had diminished since the time of publication 18 months ago.
Future representations: crystal ball gazing
In the Woolworths case, the Court found the statement that all beef was from
local producers implied it was a 'policy' of Woolworths to purchase beef
locally which would not change in the short term. Because the advertisement
intended to induce readers to purchase from its stores in the future, it
needed to remain true for a reasonable time. The Court did not specify what
was a 'reasonable' time but did note that in the present case it meant for
some unidentified time in the future but not 'at any time in the future'.
|
