VIDEO PRESENTATION Cheng Chun Lok (Mark)

CONSUMER LAW
 INTRODUCTION-
OVERVIEW OF THE
CASE
 Exploring the intersection of marketing
practices and legal compliance in the
Australian retail sector
A crucial lesson in consumer rights and
corporate responsibility

INTRODUCTION
TO THE COLES
BREAD CASE
 COLES
Title: The Core of the Controversy:
Misleading Bread Advertising MISLEADI
Specifics of the case: Coles' use of
phrases like 'Baked Today, Sold
NG
Today' and 'Freshly Baked In-
Store’. ADVERTIS
Reality vs. Advertising: The
ING
discrepancy between marketing
claims and actual practices – bread PRACTICE
S
partially baked and frozen off-site.
https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/coles-to-pay-25m-for-misleading-baked-tod
ay-and-freshly-baked-in-store-bread-promotion
AUSTRALIAN
CONSUMER LAW
AND THE COLES
CASE
Explain how (Misleading and Deceptive
Conduct), 21 (Unconscionable Conduct), and
29 (False Representation) in Focus
- Apply to the Coles case
- Insights into the enforcement of consumer
protection laws and the balance between
marketing strategies and legal obligations
SECTION 18-
MISLEADING AND
DECEPTIVE CONDUCT
‘a person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in
conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely
to mislead or deceive’
 'Engaging in conduct' in business includes making claims,
promises, taking actions, or even choosing not to act
Emphasizes that both active actions and passive omissions
can be considered as 'engaging in conduct' under the
Australian Consumer Law
1: Case reference: Henjo Investments Pty Ltd v Collins
ENGAGIN Marrickville Pty Ltd (No 2) (1989) 40 FCR 76 (James, N.
(2020). Business law. John Wiley and Sons Australia,

G IN Ltd. P.355)

CONDUCT Coles supermarket used phrases such as 'Baked Today, Sold

Today' and 'Freshly Baked In-Store' in their marketing.
These phrases are examples of making positive statements
and claims about product quality and freshness
 'In trade or commerce' involves activities within Australia or between
Australia and international locations

2: This rule underscores that for conduct to be scrutinized under Section

CONDUCT
18 of the Australian Consumer Law, it needs to be part of the broader
commercial or trading activities of a business

IN TRADE
Case reference: Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v
Nelson (1990) 169 CLR 594

OR (James, N. (2020). Business law. John Wiley and Sons Australia,

Ltd. P.355)

COMMER Coles' promotion and sale of bread in their supermarkets represent

commercial activities

CE The misleading advertising of bread products meets the criteria of

being 'in trade or commerce' as it occurred within Australia and was
integral to Coles' business operations
 Misleading or deceptive conduct' means to lead astray

3: or cause to believe what is false.

Under Section 18, conduct is misleading if it deceives
MISLEADI any part of the public, regardless of their varied
backgrounds and understanding
NG OR Case reference: Taco Company of Australia Inc v Taco Bell

DECEPTIV
Pty Ltd (1982) 42 ALR 177 (James, N. (2020). Business
law. John Wiley and Sons Australia, Ltd. P.356)

E Coles claimed their bread was 'Baked Today, Sold

Today' and 'Freshly Baked In-Store’
CONDUCT Reality vs. Claims: In truth, the bread was partially
baked and frozen off-site, then finished in-store,
misleading consumers about the freshness.
 Consumer Impact: Misleading claims led to
consumer decisions based on incorrect
THE information, causing potential disappointment
or feelings of deception.
IMPACT Market Implications: Such conduct could
AND unfairly disadvantage competitors, especially
local bakeries that truly bake fresh daily.
LEGAL Legal Perspective: The case underscores the
OUTCOME effectiveness of Section 18 of the Australian
Consumer Law (ACL) in safeguarding
consumer interests and ensuring fair market
practices.
SECTION 21-
UNCONSCIONABLE CONDUCT
UNDER THE ACL
Unconscionable conduct refers to actions that are especially unfair or unreasonable
to a degree that goes against good conscience.

A person [or business] must not, in trade or commerce, in connection with:

a.The supply of goods or services, or
b.The acquisition of goods or services engage in conduct that is unconscionable
 1:THE This rule highlights the key elements of the case, where
Coles' conduct was found to be unconscionable due to its
CONDUCT WAS misuse of bargaining power, unfair treatment of suppliers,
IN and the imposition of economic threats, all in the context
CONNECTION of the supply of goods.

WITH THE Case reference :ACCC v Coles [2014] FCA 1405(James, N.

(2020). Business law. John Wiley and Sons Australia,
SUPPLY OF Ltd. P.360)
GOODS OR
SERVICE TO OR
In the Coles case, the conduct was directly related to the
ACQUISITION supply of bread products.
OF GOODS OR Coles used promotional phrases like 'Baked Today, Sold
SERVICE FROM, Today' and 'Freshly Baked In-Store' as part of their strategy
ANOTHER to sell bread to consumers.
PERSON
 This rule captures the essence of the Coles case,
highlighting the critical aspects of unconscionable
conduct
Case reference: ACCC v Coles [2014] FCA
1405(James, N. (2020). Business law. John Wiley and
Sons Australia, Ltd. P.360)
2:UNCONSCI Misleading promotion in the Coles case could be seen
ONABLE as exploiting consumer trust and unfairly
CONDUCT disadvantaging competitors, like local bakeries
The Federal Court's imposition of a $2.5 million
penalty on Coles signifies the severity of the breach.
Coles' actions, as a major supermarket chain, used
market power in a way that potentially misled
consumers and impacted smaller businesses.
 The Coles case extends beyond misleading conduct to
touch on the notion of unconscionability in the
marketplace.

BROADER Coles’ actions potentially distorted consumer choice

and impacted fair competition.

IMPLICAT Section 21 of the ACL serves as a critical safeguard

ION against the exploitation of market power and practices

that undermine commercial morality and fairness.

Emphasizes the importance of maintaining a level

playing field in business practices for the protection of
consumers and smaller competitors.
SPECIFIC PROTECTIONS UNDER THE
ACL
SECTION 29-FALSE REPRESENTATIONS
ACL provides various specific protections for consumers against unfair business
practices.
Section 29(False representation) is one of the specific protection
A business (in trade and commerce) must not make false representations in relation
to the provision of goods or services

A:That goods are of a particular
standard, quality, composition etc
This rule is tailored to the specifics of the Cadbury
Schweppes case, where the imagery and labeling on the
product misleadingly suggested a composition that was
not true, thereby constituting a false representation about
the product's actual ingredients.
Case reference: ACCC v Cadbury Schweppes
Pty Ltd (2004) ATPR 42–001(James,
N. (2020). Business law. John Wiley and Sons
Australia, Ltd. P.366)
Coles used terms like 'Baked Today, Sold Today' and
'Freshly Baked In-Store', suggesting a high standard
and freshness of their bread.
These terms implied that the bread was entirely
prepared and baked on-site daily.
 Under Section 29, implying false
B: THAT product characteristics through packaging or
marketing is as misleading as explicit
THE false statements.

GOODS Case reference: ACCC v Cadbury Schweppes

Pty Ltd (2004) ATPR 42–001(James,
OR N. (2020). Business law. John Wiley and Sons
Australia, Ltd. P.366)
SERVICE Such misrepresentations could mislead consumers
into believing the bread was fresher and of higher
HAVE quality than it actually was.

SPONSOR Highlights the necessity of truthful representation for

consumer protection and informed decision-making.
SHIP, ETC
CONCLUSION
Section 18,21,29 of the Australian Consumer Law
-Highlighting crucial aspects of misleading conduct,
unconscionability and false representation
-Underscores the importance of truthful advertising,
fair market practices and protecting consumer rights
against powerful market entities.
LEGAL AND ETHICAL
CONSIDERATIONS
Ethically, the imperative for truthful advertising in business
Emphasizing the responsibility to convey accurate information to consumers
Fostering trust and integrity in the marketplace

Crucial for sustaining consumer confidence and fair competition!!!

 o Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. (2015, April 10).
Coles to pay $2.5m for misleading “baked today” and “freshly baked
in-store” Bread promotion.
https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/coles-to-pay-25m-for-misleadin
g-baked-today-and-freshly-baked-in-store-bread-promotion
o ACCC v Coles [2014] FCA 1405(James, N. (2020). Business law.
John Wiley and Sons Australia, Ltd. P.360)
o ACCC v Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd (2004) ATPR 42–

REFEREN 001(James, N. (2020). Business law. John

Wiley and Sons Australia, Ltd. P.366)
o Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson (1990) 169

CE LIST: CLR 594(James, N. (2020). Business law. John Wiley and

Sons Australia, Ltd. P.355)
o Henjo Investments Pty Ltd v Collins Marrickville Pty Ltd (No
2) (1989) 40 FCR 76 (James, N. (2020). Business law. John Wiley and
Sons Australia, Ltd. P.354)
o James, N. (2020). Business law. John Wiley and Sons Australia, Ltd.
o Taco Company of Australia Inc v Taco Bell Pty Ltd (1982) 42
ALR 177 (James, N. (2020). Business law. John Wiley and Sons
Australia, Ltd. P.356)