Search

"Misconceived": Coles and Woolies fight allegations of price gouging

Coles and Woolworths are set to fight the allegations that they have been inflating prices, as they begin their cases against the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). The lawyers for both supermarket giants appeared in the Federal Court on Wednesday after the ACCC claims the companies violated consumer law by intentionally misleading shoppers. The ACCC claim both Coles and Woolworths inflated the prices on hundred of items before placing them on sale with their "Down Down" and "Prices Dropped" campaigns. The products - including dairy, pet food and personal care - sold for less than the inflated prices, but still more than the regular price that applied before the price spike. Cameron Moore SC, representing Woolworths, told the court the supermarket had not initiated the temporary spikes in prices and would be fighting the ACCC's allegations. "The suggestion is that Woolworths initiated temporary price spikes and that's not correct factually," Moore said. "We say factually, the ACCC's case is misconceived." Both Coles and Woolworths said their increase in prices came at the demand of suppliers, who pushed for the increase due to their rising costs. John Sheahan KC, representing Coles, said the case was not as simple as alleged by the ACCC and any outcome could have significant implications for the whole industry. Coles and Woolworths have until November 29th to file a written response to the ACCC's allegations, before both parties return to the Federal Court in December for another case management hearing. Image credits: Shutterstock

Legal

Qantas faces the music for selling seats on cancelled flights

Qantas has been fined a whopping $120 million for purposefully misleading customers on flight bookings for several years. After being sued by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) over dishonest conduct relating to the sale of tickets on cancelled flights, the airline admitted they were deceiving travellers by continuing to sell tickets on flights that had already been cancelled. On Tuesday, Justice Helen Rofe formally ordered Qantas to pay a $100 million fine for their conduct, and another $20 million to travellers who were affected. Qantas agreed to pay $225 to affected customers on domestic flights and $450 on international flights. "This is a substantial penalty, which sets a strong signal to all businesses, big or small, that they will face serious consequences if they mislead their customers," ACCC chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said in a statement following the court orders. Earlier this year, Cass-Gottlieb described Qantas’ conduct as “egregious and unacceptable”, after data showed that between May 2021 and August 2023, the airline sold tickets on cancelled flights to more than 86,000 customers. In addition to cancelling the flights, the airline also failed to inform travellers that their flights were no longer going ahead as scheduled. ACCC barrister Christopher Caleo claimed that some senior airline managers knew about different aspects of the issue, including the fact that cancelled flights were not removed from booking pages or that customers could still book those flights, but no single manager was aware of the severity of the issue. "Qantas was aware of deficiencies in their systems," Caleo said. "Despite their awareness, it persisted over an extended period of time and affected a large number of consumers." Caleo added that the sizable fine presented to Qantas was required in order to deter them from any further devious conduct. "A penalty must send a signal to other companies in Australia, particularly to other large companies, that contraventions of Australian consumer law will not be tolerated," he said. "It must sting and must not be an acceptable cost for Qantas for failing to have systems in place." Qantas said it has made changes to its systems and agreed to notify customers of cancelled flights no longer than 48 hours from cancelling a flight and stop selling tickets for those journeys within 24 hours, with these changes also taking effect with subsidiary Jetstar. "The fact that Qantas made these changes makes it clear that Qantas wants to avoid the matter from occurring again," barrister Ruth Higgins said. Image credits: Shutterstock

Travel Trouble

"Treated as fools": Prime Minister hits out at supermarkets

On Thursday night the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) released an interim report on its supermarket inquiry, and found the price of a typical basket of groceries has increased by more than 20 per cent since 2019. The report found that low-income households spent more than a fifth of their income on food. While prices across all grocery products have increased, the most considerable hikes were in staples such as dairy products by 32 per cent, bread and cereal items by 28 per cent and meat and seafood prices have increased by a fifth. The price of fruit and vegetables has increased by 19 per cent between the March 2019 quarter to the June 2024 quarter. The ACCC released the interim report after examining whether supermarket giants were dudding suppliers and ripping off customers due to a lack of competition. In a statement on Friday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has condemned major supermarkets. “Customers don’t deserve to be treated as fools by the supermarkets. They deserve better than that,” he said. “This is an important piece of work and we will study it closely. “My government is taking a range of actions to make sure Australians are paying a fair price at the checkout and Australian suppliers are getting a fair price for their goods.” Assistant Minister for Competition Andrew Leigh said this was the most comprehensive inquiry they've had in 15 years. “Businesses need to do the right thing by Australians,” he said. “Greater competition is critical for lifting dynamism, productivity and wages growth, putting downward pressure on prices and delivering more choice for Australians dealing with cost-of-living pressures.” The report also found that due to "excessive" prices, many shoppers were buying less food and focusing on cheaper products to stay within their budgets. Others were eating less frequently and have smaller meals, or changing their shopping habits by comparing online prices before going in store. As a result, ACCC deputy chair Mick Keogh said Australians were “losing trust in the sale price claims by supermarkets”. “These difficulties reportedly arise from some of the pricing practices of some supermarkets, such as frequent specials, short-term lowered prices, bulk-buy promotions, member-only prices and bundled prices,” he said. In Australia, Woolworths and Coles contribute to 67 per cent of supermarket sales, with Aldi accounting for 9 per cent and IGA contributing 7 per cent. The ACCC will release their recommendations in their final report due in February 2025. This follows the ACCC launching <a href="https://o60.me/2ssagq" target="_blank" rel="noopener">legal action</a> against Coles and Woolworths over allegations of misleading customers with fake discount prices. Image: Daria Nipot / Shutterstock.com/ MICK TSIKAS/EPA-EFE/ Shutterstock Editorial

Money & Banking

ACCC launches legal action against Coles and Woolworths

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has launched legal action against supermarket giants Woolworths and Coles. The ACCC alleges that they breached consumer law by misleading customers through fake discount pricing on hundreds of products. They also alleged that both companies had sold items at regular prices for up to six months, then increased the prices of those items by at least 15 per cent before placing them in the promotion. The ACCC alleges up to 266 products were involved in the fake discount pricing at Woolworths at different times over an estimated 20 month period, and 245 products for Coles over a 15 month period. “Following many years of marketing campaigns by Woolworths and Coles, Australian consumers have come to understand that the ‘Prices Dropped’ and ‘Down Down’ promotions relate to a sustained reduction in the regular prices of supermarket products,” ACCC chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said. “However, in the case of these products we allege the new ‘Prices Dropped’ and ‘Down Down’ promotional prices were actually higher than, or the same as, the previous regular price.” Some of the Woolworths products reportedly included Tim Tams, Dolmio sauces, Doritos Salsa, Energizer batteries, Kellogg's cereals and more. For Coles, products reportedly included Arnott’s Shapes biscuits, Band-Aids and Cadbury chocolates amongst others. In a statement, Woolworths CEO Amanda Bardwell said they would carefully review the claims and engage with the ACCC on the matter. "Cost-of-living pressures remain a key issue for millions of Australians who shop with us every week,” she said. "Our customers are telling us they want us to work even harder to deliver meaningful value to them and it's important they can trust the value they see when shopping our stores. "Our Prices Dropped program was introduced to provide our customers with great everyday value on their favourite products. "We remain committed to offering many ways for customers to save at the checkout, including thousands of weekly specials, everyday low prices on household essentials, a great value own brand range and through our Everyday Rewards program." Coles said the allegations related to a period of significant cost inflation for the retailer. “Coles’ own costs were rising, which led to an increase in the retail price of many products,” it said. “Coles sought to strike an appropriate balance between managing the impact of cost price increases on retail prices and offering value to customers though the recommencement of promotional activity as soon as possible after the establishment of the new non-promotional prices.” CHOICE Director of Campaigns Rosie Thomas welcomed the ACCC's announcement and call for greater transparency in supermarket pricing. "We know … promotional labels at the major supermarkets often confuse shoppers and the frequent changes in prices make it difficult to tell whether there is a genuine discount or not," she said. The ACCC said it identified the conduct through consumer contacts and social media monitoring. "We're seeking a significant penalty," the ACCC chair said. "This is serious conduct that is of great concern to us, that affected many consumers with millions of products sold, subject to this practice." Image: ABC News

Legal

5 big trends in Australians getting scammed

Greed, desire, wishful thinking and naivety are lucrative markets for scam artists – and their age-old hustles are increasingly being supplemented by digital chicanery. In 2021 Australians lost an estimated $2 billion to fraudsters, more than double that of 2020, according to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The consumer watchdog’s latest <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/publications/targeting-scams-report-on-scam-activity/targeting-scams-report-of-the-accc-on-scams-activity-2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">scam report</a> details more than 20 different scam types, primarily based on reports made to its <a href="https://www.scamwatch.gov.au/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Scamwatch</a> agency. Some scams are perennials. Topping Scamwatch’s list are investment scams, dating and romance scams, remote access scams (convincing you to allow access to your computer or phone), and threats or blackmail. This article is going to focus on the five scam types that have grown most in value from 2020. These aren’t necessarily the scams anyone (including you) is most likely to fall for. But they provide a useful snapshot of how scam techniques that rely on human nature are increasingly being executed via technology. <h2>1. Ransomware and malware</h2> This type of scam has been on the wane due to the use of anti-malware protection. But in 2021 it roared back with a 1,482% rise in reported losses over 2020. This was mostly due to 2020 numbers being much lower than 2019, but the reported costs per incident (about $21,704) are still worrying given how easily such scams can be spread. They typically involve installing malicious software on your computer or phone to make files inaccessible or lock the device. This is done by sending a bogus email, text message or voicemail with an enticing message directing you to a link that automatically installs the malicious software when you open it. The scammer then demands a payment to “unlock” the system. Contributing to ransomware’s resurgence was the Flubot scam, in which tens of thousands of Australians with Android phones received scam text messages about missed calls or deliveries. The malware could harvest banking details as well as use contact lists to spread to other devices. <h2>2. Pyramid schemes</h2> The pyramid scheme promises you riches by recruiting others to the scheme. While such recruitment is also a feature of multi-level marketing (also known as referral selling schemes), in an illegal pyramid scheme financial returns are entirely or substantially reliant on convincing other people to join. In 2021 reported losses from pyramid schemes were 368% higher than in 2020. This was due, as with malware, to losses in 2020 being abnormally low. But even though the total number of reported cases was quite low (fewer than 500) the percentage of of those reports involving people losing money was one of the highest (44%), with an average loss of $6,239. This suggests pyramid scams remain quite alluring to some people. <h2>3. Identity theft</h2> Identity theft – using your personal information to steal money from you or someone else – is one of the most challenging scams to deal with. It may involve stealing money from your own account or using your identity for credit purchases, which you then have to untangle. This is a true growth area. In 2021 there 22,354 identity theft reports, up from 20,939 in 2020. While only 951 of these cases (about 4%) reported losses, average losses more than doubled to about $10,683. The total losses ($10,159,930) were 230% higher than in 2020. <h2>4. Investment scams</h2> Investment scams tempt victims with promises of large profits from share deals and crypto-currency opportunities. In 2021, 4,068 Australians reported losing more than $177 million on such scams – an average loss of about $45,350. While investment scams come in many varieties, the Scamwatch report itemises three main types. Cryptocurrency scams accounted for $99 million of reported losses. The selling of fake high-yield corporate or government bonds accounted for $16 million. Ponzi schemes, which create the charade of investment success by paying dividends from the money of new victims, accounted for $8 million. Ponzi schemes are named after Charles Ponzi, who in the 1920s promised to double people’s money in 45 days. One such scheme doing the rounds in 2021 was the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-26/qld-hope-business-investment-app-scam-pyramid-scheme/100396922" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hope Business</a> app, which promised windfall returns simply by paying money into an account. Interestingly the consumer watchdog’s report says men were almost twice as likely to be victims of investment scams and reported double the losses of female victims. <h2>5. Phishing</h2> Phishing, closely linked to identity theft, was the most reported scam in 2021 – with 71,308 cases, compared to 44,079 in 2020 and 25,168 in 2019. These scams are usually seeking to obtain our credentials (passwords) to various services including email, online banking and government services such as MyGov. That just 861 cases reported a direct financial loss suggests this is one of the most recognised scams. We’ve all had emails or SMS messages asking us to confirm our details or click a link to listen to a voicemail or receive a parcel. Even so, a total of $4.3 million was reported lost from phishing scams in 2021 – 156% more than in 2020. The average loss was slightly more than $5,000. <h2>How to avoid being scammed</h2> If something seems too good to be true, it probably is. If you have any inkling you may be being scammed, the best advice is to stop and think. If you are being asked to move money, make an unexpected payment or send personal information to someone, stop. If you are being asked to provide information or take some action, contact the organisation involved using a number you already have (bank statement, credit card etc) or find the number yourself. This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/5-big-trends-in-australians-getting-scammed-186380" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>. Image: Shutterstock

Money & Banking

Is it legal to have a minimum spend for eftpos?

The last thing us Aussies want is to be slugged an extra cost when we’re out. So when we walk into a shop and see a minimum spend for eftpos transactions it stops us in our tracks. Is it legal to have a minimum spend in order to pay for our items? The answer is yes, businesses are allowed to have minimum spend amounts for eftpos purchases. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) said businesses will need to comply with the surcharging rules as well. "Yes, businesses are allowed to set a minimum transaction value for the acceptance of EFTPOS cards (or other cards if they wish)," the watchdog said. "They don't have to offer a card payment option, but they need to comply with the excessive surcharging rules regardless of the cost of the product." This means, businesses are not allowed to charge a surcharge that is deemed “excessive”. However, it should be noted that businesses don’t make a profit from the extra surcharge because it covers the cost of accepting the card. As long as the business has made it clear from the beginning before the transaction is made, then they are not doing anything wrong. Image: Facebook

Money & Banking

Is it legal for businesses to slap on a holiday surcharge?

It’s almost expected that when you walk into a cafe or shop on a public holiday or long weekend there is a sign indicating a certain surcharge on all bills. Have you ever wondered if it's legal? Can shop owners do this on normal weekends? With the cost of living increasing and just recently the minimum wage rising – which will no doubt be passed on immediately to consumers – the last thing anyone wants to be hit with is an unnecessary surcharge. But the surcharge on bills is in fact legal as long – as the customer is aware beforehand. So! That little sign you see at the till of the expected surcharge is your due notice that the extra levy will be in effect. Being open on public holidays and weekends costs business a lot more due to the penalties that apply and it's up to the business on how they want to tackle that extra cost. The surcharge could be placed on the overall bill, or on all items on the menu. Otherwise, the business can just decide to cop the surcharge themselves and not put it on the customer. Regardless, it is always up to the business to decide how much they charge and whether or not prices change, as long as the customer is made aware. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has also made it illegal for businesses to hide those surcharges. "Restaurants, cafes and bistros that charge a surcharge on certain days do not need to provide you a separate menu or price list or have a separate price column with the surcharge included," the watchdog says. "However, the menu must include the words 'a surcharge of [percentage] applies on [the specified day or days]' and these words must be displayed at least as prominently as the most prominent price on the menu." Image: Nine News

Money & Banking

Scam alert: Kmart customers targeted in bargain hunting Facebook groups

Kmart customers have been warned about a new scam circulating in bargain hunting Facebook groups. They have been warned to watch for advertisements offering Nintendo Switches for $2.95. The fake Facebook post has been circulating in parents' groups online and has already fooled a number of Aussies into handing their card details over. The post includes a photograph showing a doctored Kmart price tag displaying that the gaming device has been reduced from $379.86 to $2.95. It also claims that the lower price point is due to a contract dispute between Kmart and Nintendo. Not only is this is factually incorrect, but it is one of the first signs something is obviously fake, as it is too-good-to-be-true. “Kmart broke its contract with Nintendo and is giving away a Nintendo Switch game console to every Australian for $2.95,” the caption on the scam post reads. One shopper claimed her friend had lost $700 after falling for the scam, as the fraudsters took her bank details and withdrew money. “BEWARE. Another scam page going around, also there is a Dyson one,” she said. “Do not fall for it. Friend did and has lost around $700. They just keep taking from your bank. Can't stop it unless you email them and threaten with lawyers.” “Unfortunately I was one of those people who thought it was real,” another woman said. Some believe the advertisement is so fake it's the consumers fault that they fell for it in the first place. “Phishing messages are designed to look genuine, and often copy the format used by the organisation the scammer is pretending to represent, including their branding and logo,” ACCC's Scamwatch website said. Image: Shutterstock

Money & Banking

ACCC says consumers need more choices about what online marketplaces are doing with their data

Consumers using online retail marketplaces such as eBay and Amazon “have little effective choice in the amount of data they share”, according to the <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/publications/serial-publications/digital-platform-services-inquiry-2020-2025/digital-platform-services-inquiry-march-2022-interim-report" target="_blank" rel="noopener">latest report</a> of the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) Digital Platform Services Inquiry. Consumers may benefit from personalisation and recommendations in these marketplaces based on their data, but many are in the dark about how much personal information these companies collect and share for other purposes. <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/concerning-issues-for-consumers-and-sellers-on-online-marketplaces" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ACCC chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb</a> said: <blockquote> We believe consumers should be given more information about, and control over, how online marketplaces collect and use their data. </blockquote> The report reiterates the ACCC’s earlier calls for amendments to the Australian Consumer Law to address unfair data terms and practices. It also points out that the government is considering <a href="https://www.ag.gov.au/integrity/consultations/review-privacy-act-1988" target="_blank" rel="noopener">proposals for major changes to privacy law</a>. However, none of these proposals is likely to come into effect in the near future. In the meantime, we should also consider whether practices such as obtaining information about users from third-party data brokers are fully compliant with existing privacy law. Why did the ACCC examine online marketplaces? The ACCC examined competition and consumer issues associated with “general online retail marketplaces” as part of its <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/inquiries-ongoing/digital-platform-services-inquiry-2020-2025" target="_blank" rel="noopener">five-year Digital Platform Services Inquiry</a>. These marketplaces facilitate transactions between third-party sellers and consumers on a common platform. They do not include retailers that don’t operate marketplaces, such as Kmart, or platforms such as Gumtree that carry classified ads but don’t allow transactions. The ACCC report focuses on the four largest online marketplaces in Australia: Amazon Australia, Catch, eBay Australia and Kogan. In 2020–21, these four carried sales totalling $8.4 billion. <figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460716/original/file-20220502-18-4pvx0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460716/original/file-20220502-18-4pvx0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460716/original/file-20220502-18-4pvx0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460716/original/file-20220502-18-4pvx0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460716/original/file-20220502-18-4pvx0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460716/original/file-20220502-18-4pvx0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460716/original/file-20220502-18-4pvx0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /><figcaption>Online marketplaces such as Amazon, eBay, Catch and Kogan facilitate transactions between third-party buyers and sellers. <a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/new-york-usa-november-1-2018-1219079038" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Shutterstock</a></figcaption></figure> According to the report, eBay has the largest sales of these companies. Amazon Australia is the second-largest and the fastest-growing, with an 87% increase in sales over the past two years. The ACCC examined: <ul> <li>the state of competition in the relevant markets</li> <li>issues facing sellers who depend on selling their products through these marketplaces</li> <li>consumer issues including concerns about personal information collection, use and sharing.</li> </ul> Consumers don’t want their data used for other purposes The ACCC expressed concern that in online marketplaces, “the extent of data collection, use and disclosure … often does not align with consumer preferences”. The Commission pointed to surveys about <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Consumer%20Policy%20Research%20Centre%20%28CPRC%29%20%2818%20August%202021%29.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Australian consumer attitudes to privacy</a> which indicate: <ul> <li>94% did not feel comfortable with how digital platforms including online marketplaces collect their personal information</li> <li>92% agreed that companies should only collect information they need for providing their product or service</li> <li>60% considered it very or somewhat unacceptable for their online behaviour to be monitored for targeted ads and offers.</li> </ul> However, the four online marketplaces analysed: <ul> <li>do not proactively present privacy terms to consumers “throughout the purchasing journey”</li> <li>may allow advertisers or other third parties to place tracking cookies on users’ devices</li> <li>do not clearly identify how consumers can opt out of cookies while still using the marketplace.</li> </ul> Some of the marketplaces also obtain extra data about individuals from third-party data brokers or advertisers. The <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3432769" target="_blank" rel="noopener">harms from increased tracking and profiling</a> of consumers include decreased privacy; manipulation based on detailed profiling of traits and weaknesses; and discrimination or exclusion from opportunities. Limited choices: you can’t just ‘walk out of a store’ Some might argue that consumers must not actually care that much about privacy if they keep using these companies, but the choice is not so simple. The ACCC notes the relevant privacy terms are often spread across multiple web pages and offered on a “take it or leave it” basis. The terms also use “bundled consents”. This means that agreeing to the company using your data to fill your order, for example, may be bundled together with agreeing for the company to use your data for its separate advertising business. Further, as my research has shown, there is <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3905693" target="_blank" rel="noopener">so little competition on privacy</a> between these marketplaces that consumers can’t just find a better offer. The ACCC agrees: <blockquote> While consumers in Australia can choose between a number of online marketplaces, the common approaches and practices of the major online marketplaces to data collection and use mean that consumers have little effective choice in the amount of data they share. </blockquote> Consumers also seem unable to require these companies to delete their data. The situation is quite different from conventional retail interactions where a consumer can select “unsubscribe” or walk out of a store. Does our privacy law currently permit all these practices? The ACCC has reiterated its earlier calls to amend the Australian Consumer Law to prohibit unfair practices and make unfair contract terms illegal. (At present unfair contract terms are just void, or unenforceable.) The report also points out that the government is considering proposals for major changes to privacy law, but <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-new-proposed-privacy-code-promises-tough-rules-and-10-million-penalties-for-tech-giants-170711" target="_blank" rel="noopener">these changes</a> are uncertain and may take more than a year to come into effect. In the meantime, we should look more closely at the practices of these marketplaces under current privacy law. For example, under the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2004A03712" target="_blank" rel="noopener">federal Privacy Act</a> the four marketplaces <blockquote> must collect personal information about an individual only from the individual unless … it is unreasonable or impracticable to do so. </blockquote> However, <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3905693" target="_blank" rel="noopener">some online marketplaces</a> say they collect information about individual consumers’ interests and demographics from “<a href="https://www.ebay.com.au/help/policies/member-behaviour-policies/user-privacy-notice-privacy-policy?id=4260&mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=705-53470-19255-0&campid=5338596835&customid=&toolid=10001#section4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">data providers</a>” and <a href="https://www.amazon.com.au/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=202075050&ref_=footer_iba" target="_blank" rel="noopener">other third parties</a>. We don’t know the full detail of what’s collected, but demographic information might include our age range, income, or family details. How is it “unreasonable or impracticable” to obtain information about our demographics and interests directly from us? Consumers could ask online marketplaces this question, and complain to the <a href="https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-complaints" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Office of the Australian Information Commissioner</a> if there is no reasonable answer.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/182134/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/katharine-kemp-402096" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Katharine Kemp</a>, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law & Justice, UNSW, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-sydney-1414" target="_blank" rel="noopener">UNSW Sydney</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/accc-says-consumers-need-more-choices-about-what-online-marketplaces-are-doing-with-their-data-182134" target="_blank" rel="noopener">original article</a>. Image: Getty Images

Technology

I scream, you scream we all scream for ice-cream

Peters Ice Cream has been slapped with a massive $12 million fine after it was caught preventing competitors from selling their products at petrol stations and convenience stores. The Federal Court found that Peters, from November 2014 to December 2019, made a sketchy deal with their transport partner PFD Food Services to not sell competitor’s ice cream without prior consent. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), who prosecuted Peters in court, said the deal very clearly reduced competition and reduced options for consumers. “This is an important competition law case involving products enjoyed by many Australians,” ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said. “We took this action because we were concerned that Peters Ice Cream’s conduct could reduce competition in this market and impact on the choice of single-serve ice-creams available to consumers.” Other ice cream manufacturers who make Bulla, Gelativo and Pure Pops had approached PFD asking them to distribute their product. However, PFD said they were unable to distribute the ice creams due to its exclusive deal with Peters. "Peters Ice Cream admitted that if PFD had not been restricted from distributing other manufacturers' ice cream products, it was likely that one or more potential competitors would have entered or expanded in this market,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb continued. “This case is a reminder to all businesses of the serious and costly consequences of engaging in anti-competitive conduct. “The ACCC is targeting exclusive arrangements by firms with market power that impact competition as one of our compliance and enforcement priorities for 2022/23.” Peters Ice Cream was ordered to establish a compliance program for three years and pay a contribution to the ACCC’s legal costs. Image: Instagram

Money & Banking

Record losses to scammers during COVID-19 pandemic

Australians have lost a whopping $851 million to scams in 2020, according to new data released from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). Having analysed 444,000 reports from scam victims provided by banks, government agencies, and financial intermediaries, the ACCC found that investment scams and romance scams were two of the most financially damaging, costing Aussies $328 million and $131 million respectively. Payment redirection scams came a close third, resulting in $128 million of losses. ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said the most shocking fact was that the total figure only included the scams that were reported by victims. “Last year, scam victims reported the biggest losses we have seen, but worse, we expect the real losses will be even higher, as many people don’t report these scams,” Ms Rickard said. “Unfortunately scammers continue to become more sophisticated and last year used the COVID-19 pandemic to scam and take advantage of people from all walks of life during the crisis.” Kate Browne, personal finance expert at Finder, said scammers have also had greater opportunities to target Australians at their most vulnerable during the current financial crisis. “Fraudsters are increasingly seeking to take advantage of those experiencing uncertainty and financial instability,” she said. “Scammers are quick to capitalise on major events such as a pandemic so it’s important to be extra vigilant over the coming years.” In the ACCC’s analysis of the demographics of scam victims, it found those aged 65 or older accounted for 18 percent of reports and 23 percent of the losses. COVID-19 scams Since the start of the pandemic, Scamwatch has received over 6400 scam reports mentioning coronavirus with more than $9.8 million in reported losses. Some of these include vaccination scams, where scammers may try to obtain personal or financial information by claiming you will need to provide it in order to get the COVID-19 vaccine. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> Be sure to book your <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/COVID19?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#COVID19</a> vaccine through the Eligibility Checker on the Australian Government website. We will never ask you for bank, credit card or other payment details. Vaccination is FREE and voluntary. To book safely and securely, visit: <a href="https://t.co/62OZ8zWiK3">https://t.co/62OZ8zWiK3</a> <a href="https://t.co/ZZ8Cefv9Xm">pic.twitter.com/ZZ8Cefv9Xm</a> — NSW Health (@NSWHealth) <a href="https://twitter.com/NSWHealth/status/1410382464044789760?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 30, 2021</a></blockquote> Some scammers include links in emails or texts they send, which can contain malware that could give your personal information to the scammer. Scamwatch recommends not clicking on any links in emails or texts you receive about the vaccine that you aren’t expecting. Scamwatch is also aware of other vaccine scams that include offers to pay money as an investment opportunity in the Pfizer vaccine, as well as fake surveys that offer a prize or early access to the vaccine when completed. In reality, these surveys are used to obtain your personal or financial information. Outside of Australia, scammers have been selling fake vaccine appointments, administering fake vaccines door-to-door for money, and asking for payment to ship vaccines to consumers, among other scams.

Retirement Income

Check your super balance: Aussies scammed out of thousands of dollars

At least 150 Australians have had parts of their retirement savings siphoned off by fraudsters in a scam exploiting security holes in the Government’s early release super scheme. Earlier this year, the Federal Government announced eligible individuals affected by the COVID-19 economic crisis can apply to access up to $10,000 of their super. But last month the Government was forced to suspend withdrawals for two days after attackers allegedly lodged fraudulent applications using fake myGov accounts in their victims’ names. Angelee Basset and her husband are among the people being targeted by the scammers. Basset said duplicate myGov accounts were set up in their names and then used to apply for nearly $20,000 in their ATO portals. “Until then I had no idea it was even possible to have more than one myGov account in your name,” she told the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-01/scammers-stealing-thousands-through-coronavirus-super-scheme/12301010">ABC</a>. “In order to stop this happening to others, one of the things that should be put in place is a limit on the number of myGov accounts an individual is allowed to have.” Basset said the applications were approved in “less than 12 hours” despite the couple not fulfilling the criteria for accessing their super savings early, but they managed to prevent the money from leaving their accounts. Australian citizens and permanent residents must be unemployed, made redundant or have their working hours or turnover reduced by 20 per cent to be eligible for the scheme. The Government claimed the scheme’s security has been improved and there has been no more fraud since. “The ATO constantly recalibrates its systems so that they’re secure, and the system has been working very well since,” Assistant Minister for Superannuation Jane Hume told the outlet. The Australian Federal Police are currently investigating at least 150 cases of identity fraud. As of early May, 1.2 million Australians had used the early release scheme to cash out more than $10 billion. The <a href="https://www.scamwatch.gov.au/types-of-scams/current-covid-19-coronavirus-scams">Australian Competition & Consumer Commission’s (ACCC) Scamwatch</a> has received more than 2,700 reports of coronavirus-related scams since the outbreak – including early access super frauds – with over $1.1 million in reported losses. “Never give any information about your superannuation to someone who has contacted you,” the ACCC advised. “This includes offers to help you access your superannuation early under the government’s new arrangements.”

Money & Banking

Warnings over coronavirus-related scams

Australia’s competition watchdog has urged people to be wary of coronavirus-related scams as the government escalates its efforts to limit the spread of COVID-19. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission said its Scamwatch website has received 45 reports of alleged coronavirus-related fraud since the beginning of the year. “Unfortunately, scammers are using the spread of coronavirus to exploit and play on the fears of consumers across Australia,” an ACCC spokesperson said. “Scammers are using tactics such as falsely selling coronavirus related products online, and using fake emails or text messages to try and obtain personal data.” Some known scams included phishing emails and text messages claiming to be the World Health Organisation, the Australian government, travel companies or other official entities, with links designed to steal personal information. “Be very wary of any communication, whether it comes by email or phone call, in relation to anything to do with coronavirus,” Nick Savvides, the chief information security officer for Asia Pacific at Forcepoint told <a href="https://9now.nine.com.au/a-current-affair/coronavirus-scams-and-bogus-products-targeting-australian-shoppers-during-covid19-pandemic/0a14863d-6467-436f-9c9c-2cf00e277603">A Current Affair</a>. “We are extra vulnerable during times of crisis because people are at a heightened state of urgency.” Also among the reported scams were fake traders and shops. “Be careful of online shopping sites requesting unusual payment methods such as up-front payment via money order, wire transfer, international funds transfer, pre-loaded card or electronic currency, like Bitcoin,” the ACCC spokesperson said. “Always keep your computer security up to date with anti-virus and anti-spyware software, and a good firewall [and] do not open attachments or click on links in emails, text messages or social media messages you’ve received from strangers – just press delete.” The Australian watchdog’s warning came as a UK police force issued an alert on a scam targeting seniors. Camden Police said a “small number of reports” were made about a shopping scam exploiting self-isolating elders. “We have recently received a small number of reports of individuals offering to go shopping for the elderly within our community as a means to then keep their money,” the force said in a <a href="https://twitter.com/MPSCamden/status/1239833098449190913">Twitter post</a>. “As ever, please ensure you or those more vulnerable in your circles treat such invitations with caution.”

Money & Banking

Online romance scammers cost Aussies more than $28.6 million

Australians lost more than $28.6 million to romance scams in 2019 – and these numbers are expected to be “just the tip of the iceberg”, according to <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/romance-scammers-move-to-new-apps-costing-aussies-more-than-286-million" target="_blank">the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission</a> (ACCC). Nearly 4,000 dating and romance scams were reported in 2019, with 37.5 per cent of them resulting in financial losses. The victims lost an average of $19,000 from scams on various online platforms, including dating platforms Plenty of Fish and Match.com, social media sites Google Hangouts and Facebook, and online games Words with Friends and Scrabble. “We’ve seen an increase in reports from people who did not originally seek an online relationship but have been caught up in a dating and romance scam,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said. “No longer are dating websites the only contact method for dating and romance scams, with an increasing number of reports coming from these emerging websites and apps.” The most affected demographic was people aged 45 to 64, with 1,470 reports and more than $18 million in losses. More than a third of the losses (33.8 per cent or almost $9.7 million) occurred through bank transfer, followed by other payment methods such as iTunes and Google Play gift cards, which 30.8 per cent ($8.8 million) of all losses. Scammers would generally ask the victim to send money or provide financial aid so they can purportedly meet each other in person, the ACCC warned. The con artist would guilt-trip the victim if they refuse, or ask for more money if they comply. “Don’t give out personal information, including your financial details, to anybody you haven’t met in person, no matter who they say they are, and don’t share intimate photos or use webcams in an intimate setting,” Rickard said. “Don’t agree to carry packages internationally or agree to transfer money for someone else as you may be inadvertently committing a crime.” “If you become concerned by the conversation, such as if the person is asking for ‘favours’ or money, cease communication.”

Retirement Income

Christmas shoppers warned of online scam in the leadup to holiday season

Online shoppers are being warned of scams in the lead up to the Christmas holiday season. As Australians turn to online stores and marketplaces for their Christmas shopping, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (<a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/tis-the-season-for-online-shopping-scams">ACCC</a>) warns that the convenience might come with risks. “Scammers often try to take advantage of people doing their Christmas shopping including in the upcoming Black Friday and Cyber Monday sales,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said. Some of the common scams include fake websites or stores, where scammers set up fake online stores disguised to look like genuine online retailers. The stores could be set up on websites or social media. Fake sellers could also be found on classifieds websites and buy-swap-sell groups. The scammer may claim they are travelling and will have someone deliver the goods on their behalf once the shopper has paid. Rickard said some of the most commonly reported products that scammers attempt to sell online this year include shoes, smartphones and event tickets. A couple of shoppers previously shared on <a href="https://www.scamwatch.gov.au/get-help/real-life-stories/scam-victims-tell-us-their-stories/online-shopping-scam-we-lost-160-on-a-fake-bbq">Scamwatch</a> that they lost $160 on a fake website claiming to sell barbeques. “Payment was via credit card with a 2.99 per cent fee, or direct transfer with a 5 per cent discount. Then we received an email saying that due to logistic emails our order was cancelled and being refunded. Not surprisingly, the money has not been refunded. Very clever approach,” they said. Rickard advised shoppers to be wary of extremely low prices and requests to pay through direct bank transfer or cryptocurrency. Scamwatch also recommends researching the seller and using secure payment methods such as credit card or PayPal. According to the consumer watchdog, the reported losses from online shopping scams this year have reached more than $4 million so far, exceeding 2018’s record of $3.28 million. “Reported losses have tripled over the last three years and it is concerning that losses from this year are already so high,” Rickard said. “If you do think you have been scammed, contact your bank as soon as possible.”

Money & Banking

Why Telstra's high-tech phones are meeting resistance from councils

Australia is witnessing the first major redesign of the payphone booth since 1983. But Telstra’s new vision is meeting resistance from some councils, and the matter is in the courts. In an effort to make payphones relevant to the needs of modern Australians, Telstra’s revamped payphones feature mobile charging, Wi-Fi access through <a href="https://www.telstra.com.au/telstra-air">Telstra Air</a> (free or via a Telstra broadband plan, depending on the area), and large digital advertising displays. Sydney’s Lord Mayor Clover Moore <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/20/telstra-and-city-councils-head-to-court-over-new-3m-tall-phone-booths">described</a> the new booths as “a craven attempt” to profit from “already crowded CBD footpaths”, and a “Trojan horse for advertising”.<a href="http://theconversation.com/will-australias-digital-divide-fast-for-the-city-slow-in-the-country-ever-be-bridged-60635"></a> Under existing Universal Service Obligation (USO) agreements, Telstra has to provide payphones as part of its standard telephone service. The USO is a consumer protection measure that ensures everyone has access to landline telephones and payphones, regardless of where they live or work. Telstra is the sole provider of USO services in Australia. The USO is funded through an industry levy administered by the <a href="https://acma.gov.au/Industry/Telco/Carriers-and-service-providers/Universal-service-obligation/payphones-universal-service-obligation-acma">Australian Communications and Media Authority</a>. This means registered carriers with revenues over A$25 million per year contribute to the levy, including Telstra. The face of the new Aussie payphone In a <a href="https://exchange.telstra.com.au/modernising-payphones/">blog post</a> last March, a Telstra employee said the new “<a href="https://www.telstra.com.au/consumer-advice/payphones/smart-payphone">smart payphones</a>” provided emergency alerts, multilingual services, and content services including public transport information, city maps, weather, tourist advice, and information on cultural attractions. The booths are 2.64m tall, 1.09m wide, and are fitted with 75-inch LCD screens on one side. In 2016, 40 payphones were approved by City of Melbourne planners and installed over the following year, marking the start of Telstra’s plans for a nationwide rollout. Telstra’s submission to the city claimed the booths were “low-impact” infrastructure and therefore planning approval was not required, in accordance with the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2004A05145">Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth)</a>. In 2017, Telstra and outdoor advertising company JC Decaux <a href="https://www.jcdecaux.com.au/press-releases/jcdecaux-renews-long-term-partnership-telstra-reinvent-payphone-australia">announced</a> a partnership to “bring the phone box into the 21st century”. It would initially have 1,860 payphones upgraded in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth. These five cities represent 64% of the country’s population and 77% of advertising spend. Taking matters to court Earlier this year, Telstra’s application for 81 new booths was blocked by the City of Melbourne, and the city commenced proceedings in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to have the booths redefined as not being low-impact. Given the council allowed 40 booths to be installed in 2017, it’s unclear why its position has since changed. In May, Telstra hit back by starting federal court proceedings against the council in an effort to overturn prior proceedings. In June, the Brisbane and Sydney city councils joined the City of Melbourne as co-respondents. Melbourne Councillor and Chair of Planning Nicholas Reece said the new payphones would create congestion on busy footpaths, describing them as “monstrous electric billboards masquerading as payphones”. He said the booths were “part of a revenue strategy for Telstra”. But Telstra <a href="https://exchange.telstra.com.au/modernising-payphones/">claims</a> the new payphones are only 15cm wider than previous ones. A company spokesperson said the extra size was necessary to accommodate fibre connections and other equipment needed to operate the booth’s services. Who pays for, and profits from, payphones? In 2017, a Productivity Commission inquiry into the USO <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/telecommunications/report">reported</a> an average annual subsidy of A$2,600-50,000 per payphone, funded through the industry levy. But the levy doesn’t cover the cost of installing and providing advertising on booths. Also, Telstra’s advertising-generated revenue doesn’t directly offset the cost of installing and operating the payphones. Telstra has advertised on its payphones for the past 30 years. But display screens for advertising on new booths are <a href="https://participate.melbourne.vic.gov.au/advertising-payphones">60% larger</a> than previous ones. The City of Melbourne is concerned because <a href="https://www.sgsep.com.au/publications/insights/the-economics-of-walking-deserves-far-more-attention">commissioned research</a> by SGS Economics and Planning estimates a 10% reduction in pedestrian flow because of the new booths. This would happen as a result of people getting distracted by the payphone advertising, and would cost the city A$2.1 billion in lost productivity. That said, federal legislation doesn’t prevent Telstra from placing advertising on payphones. So the existing court case could hinge on Melbourne city council’s argument that by increasing the size of digital displays, Telstra’s new payphones are no longer low-impact. The outcome should be known early next year. Do we still need payphones? At a time when consumers and businesses use about <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/new-report-tracks-internet-activity-on-mobile-and-fixed-lines">24.3 million mobile handsets</a>, it’s reasonable to <a href="https://theconversation.com/will-australias-digital-divide-fast-for-the-city-slow-in-the-country-ever-be-bridged-60635">question whether</a> payphones are still required. The number of payphones in operation today is sharply down compared with the payphone’s heyday in the early 1990s, when more than 80,000 could be found across Australia. But there’s strong evidence they continue to supply a vital public service. <a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298804/original/file-20191027-113991-16vo5j8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298804/original/file-20191027-113991-16vo5j8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" alt="" /></a> Telstra’s payphones operate in many small regional communities such as Woomera, South Australia. It has a population of less than 200 people. georgiesharp/flickr Currently, Telstra provides more than 16,000 public payphones. Last year, these were used to make about 13 million phone calls, of which about 200,000 were emergency calls to 000. So regardless of the verdict on the Telstra case, the public payphone is and will continue to be an iconic and integral part of our telecommunications landscape.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/125815/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/mark-a-gregory-619">Mark A Gregory</a>, Associate professor, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a> This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/telstras-new-high-tech-payphones-are-meeting-resistance-from-councils-but-why-125815">original article</a>.

Technology

Inventor promising rain to farmers for 50k denies "preying" on the desperate

An inventor has been accused of “preying” on vulnerable farmers by promising his device can change the weather and make it rain to where they need it most. However, David Miles from <a rel="noopener" href="http://www.milesresearch.co/" target="_blank">Miles Research</a> has insisted “there’s no way we want to con anyone”. Miles is currently offering a three-month rain contract to farmers in Victoria’s grain belt for $50,000 on a “success basis”. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has slammed this, saying that farmers should not do business with Miles, but they are powerless to stop him. “It’s preying on people’s desperation,” Australian Competition and Consumer Commission deputy chairman Mick Keogh <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/am/farmers-desperately-turn-to-a-man-who-can-make-it-rain/11630332" target="_blank">told ABC Radio on Wednesday</a>. “If you wanted to prosecute a court requires you to prove essentially that there’s no basis for the claims being made and that is a very difficult thing to do. By far the very best defence against them is widespread consumer education. It’s up to individuals obviously to make their own mind up. If it sounds too good to be true it probably is.” Miles has denied the allegations, saying that the ACCC are defaming him. “How can they do that without looking at our contracts? We’re success based, if we don’t deliver rain we don’t get paid,” he said to <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/other-industries/we-dont-want-to-con-anyone-inventor-charging-50000-for-rain-denies-preying-on-farmers/news-story/4a253e71686cf66c41b8bab257921cd8" target="_blank">news.com.au</a>. “I think the ACCC probably jumped the gun in making that comment. They’ve never seen the contracts, they haven’t spoken with me. We don’t mind scepticism, but the Government needs to be careful not to defame us as they did in 2006.” What Miles is referring to is that he has been operating weather modification technology for nearly two decades under a different business name of Aquiess. The Victorian Government highly criticised the business back in 2006. Miles has said a “small private group” of farmers has seen results from the program. “They signed the agreement that if by the end of June they’d received 100mm, they pay $50,000, if they only receive 50mm, they would only pay $25,000. Anything under half we don’t want to be paid,” he said. One farmer vouched for the device, saying that he’s seen results. “I got involved because it sounded good, the fact you can control weather, because as a farmer rainfall is everything,” he told the broadcaster. “I think the evidence is out there, you look at the forecast what’s meant to come and all of a sudden it increases dramatically. You know that he’s behind it and I reckon I haven’t seen such good crops in this district ever, everywhere.” <img style="width: 500px; height: 281.25px;" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7832009/water-thing.jpg" alt="" data-udi="umb://media/3c0f74f296be4a5b9ce6f2b76932f4a7" /> Image credit: Miles Research Whitepaper Miles is keeping his technology under wraps as he fears it could be stolen by competitors or “weaponised” by the government. “There’s no way we want to con anyone,” he said. “Our best approach at the moment is to put up a risk-free model, so the farmers can get some rain and we can get some income to get a facility. We’ve been able to make adjustments to approaching weather and we want to be able to offer that to the rest of Australia.” On Miles’ website, since deleted, he claimed the technology uses “electromagnetic scalar waves”. “Electromagnetic scalar waves don’t exist,” University of Melbourne associate professor of physics Martin Sevior told ABC Radio. “There’s no such thing. He’s taken a few words and put them together and made them sound somewhat scientific but it’s meaningless.” Miles has also not patented the technology, as this would involve exposing how it works. “We were advised against patenting because it’s basically exposing how it works. There are a lot of big companies that invest in trawling through patents. We thought it’s probably right to go down the lines of Coca-Cola,” he said. “I understand the scepticism, the only other way is to fully prove up our science and physics and peer review. If we did that, we’ll lose it, it will be taken up as a national security interest and it’ll then be weaponised.”

Home & Garden

“People are fed up”: Treasurer Josh Frydenberg asks ACCC to investigate banks who fail to pass on rate cuts

Australian Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has asked the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to investigate the banking sector for failing to pass on interest rate cuts to customers in full. This comes after three official rate cuts since January, meaning that the new rate is a record low of 0.75 per cent. Frydenberg has said that the big four banks, ANZ, NAB, Commonwealth Bank and Westpac have failed to pass on the rate changes in full to their customers. "It's costing someone with a $400,000 mortgage around $500 in higher interest payments than they otherwise should have to pay if these last three rate cuts were passed on in full," Frydenberg told Channel 9, according to <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-14/josh-frydenberg-asks-accc-to-investigate-banking-sector/11598614">The ABC</a>. "But it's not just these last three rate cuts where the banks have failed to pass them on, it's actually what's happened previously under the Labor government, there were 14 different rate cuts and only five of them were passed on in full. "So clearly there's a structural challenge here, there's a pattern of behaviour and the Australian people are fed up." Frydenberg has said that the ACCC needs to use its “particular powers to compel documentation to lift the hood and get to the bottom of this issue”. Labor also welcomes the inquiry by the ACCC in principle, but is asking to see the details of the plan. "Labor has been calling for the ACCC to play a bigger role here," Shadow Treasurer Jim Chalmers told AM. "With record household debt and stagnant debt under the Liberals you can see why customers are frustrated at the banks for not passing through interest rate cuts. "The big banks are still very profitable by international standards so they shouldn't be doing the wrong thing by borrowers. "We want to make sure that those interest rate cuts can do good in the economy, that means having them passed onto consumers." ANZ chief executive Shayne Elliot welcomes the inquiry. "Despite intense competition, there is cynicism in the broader community about interest rates for home loans," he said. "We know we have not done a good job in explaining our position and we will be working hard to ensure this process delivers results." Mike Baird, chief customer officer for consumer banking at NAB agrees, saying that the inquiry is “an important opportunity to discuss the challenges of an increasingly low interest rate environment and engage in a broader discussion about how we support all our customers— both depositors and borrowers". Westpac has said it’s “too early to comment” and a spokesman for Commonwealth Bank has said that it was “currently digesting the implications”.

Money & Banking

“Too smart to be scammed?”: The question the ACCC is asking regular Aussies

With Australian consumers on track to lose more than half a billion dollars to con artists and scammers this year, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is urging people to refresh their ideas of a scam. As scams increase in sophistication, including emails that impersonate the tax office and communications from your bank, it can be harder to protect yourself against these scams. As part of National Scams Awareness Week (August 12 to August 16), the ACCC says people need to refresh their “scam protection and detection” skills. The campaign’s theme is “too smart to be scammed?” with evidence showing that those who overestimate their ability to detect a scam are putting themselves at risk. “Many people are confident they would never fall for a scam, but often it’s this sense of confidence that scammers target,” ACCC deputy chair Delia Rickard said to <a rel="noopener" href="https://thenewdaily.com.au/money/consumer/2019/08/12/scams-target-australians/" target="_blank">The New Daily.</a> “People need to update their idea of what a scam is so that we are less vulnerable.’’ More research has showed that not only do scams have a significant financial impact on the victim, it can also impact them emotionally. Nearly one in 10 Aussies have been scammed in the last year according to Westpac’s <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.westpac.com.au/about-westpac/media/media-releases/2019/12-august/" target="_blank">State of Scams</a> report that was released last Monday. One in two scam victims were impacted emotionally, which included losing faith and trust in others. Two-thirds of victims were embarrassed to let those close to them know what happened, with victims of dating or romance scams being impacted the worse. “While we’re seeing record levels of financial loss to scams, it’s not just our wallets that are suffering,” Westpac head of fraud Ben Young said. “Our data shows that scammers are taxing our time, creating stress and taking a toll on our relationships.” Deakin University consumer behaviour expert Paul Harrison says that modern consumers are “conditioned” to be aware of “manipulative” marketing tactics. “The main issue is that it is easier to believe than not to believe,” Dr Harrison said. “You actually do have to exist in a world where you can trust institutions and trust brand. It’s quite rough on people to say you shouldn’t fall for scams – everyone falls for scams all the time.” “We like to think that if it happened to me, I wouldn’t fall for it,” he said. “But everybody is potentially a victim.” How to keep yourself safe from scammers <ul> <li>Don’t click on links or open attachments from email addresses you don’t recognise</li> <li>Never provide your credit card or banking details over email</li> <li>Set up two-factor authentication</li> <li>Check the email addresses the suspicious email has been sent for</li> <li>Look out for obvious spelling mistakes in the email or text message</li> <li>Utilise Google to check that the number or email you’ve been provided is correct (for example, if the ATO is asking you to call them on a specific number, Googling the number could prove that the number is not from the ATO)</li> <li>Review your financial statements and report suspicious activity as soon as it’s noticed</li> </ul>

Technology

Woolworths scam: Customers warned of emails offering gift cards

A warning has been issued over a fake Woolworths email claiming to hold a customer survey. The email, which is sent from WoolworthsSurvey, says it is giving out “a limited number of Woolworths Gift Cards”. It includes a link to a purported one-minute survey, which the recipient is asked to complete. Woolworths confirmed the email is a scam and said it has been reported to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s (ACCC) Scamwatch. <img style="width: 500px; height: 409.091px; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7829471/scam-3-1.jpg" alt="" data-udi="umb://media/42a23b6bd5b845259e3c17bb4804d208" /> “Please note, that Woolworths will never email, message, or call you to ask for your personal or financial information including your password, credit card details or account information,” the supermarket giant said on its Scam Alerts page. “Our correspondence will prompt customers to log-in to their Woolworths account if we require you to update your personal information.” <img style="width: 500px; height: 281.25px; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7829465/scam-1.jpg" alt="" data-udi="umb://media/fee7e3445d41427ba174c56a1a34c391" /><img style="width: 500px; height: 281.25px; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7829464/scam-2.jpg" alt="" data-udi="umb://media/711fc4cfc4e54ee18a0b8c2355938e12" /> In June, the supermarket issued a warning over a fake Facebook page named “Woolworths Fans” which promoted giveaways of “free groceries” in exchange for shares and likes. “We have contacted Facebook to ask for the page to be taken down promptly,” Woolworths told <a rel="noopener" href="https://au.news.yahoo.com/scam-alert-woolworths-warning-over-phishing-scam-facebook-page-offering-free-groceries-102648115.html" target="_blank">Yahoo News Australia</a> at the time. Monday marks the beginning of this year’s National Scams Awareness Week. ACCC said Australians are expected to lose more than $532 million to scams by the end of 2019, exceeding half a billion dollars for the first time. “Many people are confident they would never fall for a scam but often it’s this sense of confidence that scammers target,” ACCC Deputy Chair Delia Rickard said. “Scammers are professional businesses dedicated to ripping us off. They have call centres with convincing scripts, staff training programs, and corporate performance indicators their ‘employees’ need to meet.” Rickard advised being wary of anyone who made a contact out of the blue to solicit personal or banking details. “Remember, anyone could fall victim and no one is ‘too smart to be scammed’. Always ask yourself, ‘could this be a scam?’ and if you’re ever in doubt, decline the contact or hang up the phone – it’s often the safest option.”

Money & Banking

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

"Misconceived": Coles and Woolies fight allegations of price gouging

Qantas faces the music for selling seats on cancelled flights

"Treated as fools": Prime Minister hits out at supermarkets

ACCC launches legal action against Coles and Woolworths

5 big trends in Australians getting scammed

Is it legal to have a minimum spend for eftpos?

Is it legal for businesses to slap on a holiday surcharge?

Scam alert: Kmart customers targeted in bargain hunting Facebook groups

ACCC says consumers need more choices about what online marketplaces are doing with their data

I scream, you scream we all scream for ice-cream

Record losses to scammers during COVID-19 pandemic

Check your super balance: Aussies scammed out of thousands of dollars

Warnings over coronavirus-related scams

Online romance scammers cost Aussies more than $28.6 million

Christmas shoppers warned of online scam in the leadup to holiday season

Why Telstra's high-tech phones are meeting resistance from councils

Inventor promising rain to farmers for 50k denies "preying" on the desperate

“People are fed up”: Treasurer Josh Frydenberg asks ACCC to investigate banks who fail to pass on rate cuts

“Too smart to be scammed?”: The question the ACCC is asking regular Aussies

Woolworths scam: Customers warned of emails offering gift cards

Our Partners