Consumer Protection Laws !

A new punishment for what is termed "unfair conduct "is about to be introduced in a revamp of this nation's consumer protection laws.  It is specifically aimed at advertising designed to induce kids to "pester "their parents to buy the advertised item for them.   Just how that is interpreted will be a matter of great concern to the advertising industry because a breach will impose a fine of up to a million dollars.

Merely showing kids enthusiastically eating a breakfast cereal is not a blatant breach but the obvious intention is to get the customer to consider buying the product when they go grocery shopping. The producer will no doubt claim that the advertisement is intended to influence the shopper but it would have equal impact on child viewers - and if it looks tasty or fun to eat it is reasonable that kids would suggest buying it to their parent.

Last Christmas the big item on wish lists was the Hoverboard.  Advertising depicted kids zooming about on them and no doubt numerous kids made their wishes clear to parents and grandparents. Just what constitutes that "pester "intent is not clear.  Deciding between the subtle and the blatant will be a nightmare for the advertising industry.

What many hope for is help in sorting out unexpected bills getting tacked on to the mobile phones that kids use.    These days kids of kindergarten age seem to have a personal mobile phone and the world is full of apps that are very attractive to young minds. In many cases, apps downloaded without parental permission result in unexpected charges, and as the phones are usually paid for by a monthly direct debit, cancelling that app and getting a refund is usually a slow and tedious business.

Of particular concern are apps that provide games that are claimed to be "free ".  Usually the level of play is pretty basic and the user is invited to move to a higher level, but in doing so a fee comes into play.  There is a requirement that the user be eighteen years of age but many kids ignore that condition and consequently there is a case of "bill shock ".   A little clarity on app procedures would be appreciated by many people.

Different states have different consumer protection laws and uniformity under a Federal code would be helpful.    Here in New South Wales the procedure for defective goods that fail within the warranty period is known as the "Three R's ".   The customer should return the item to the point of sale and make a personal choice between -  Repair.  Replacement or Refund.

Unfortunately, many retailers refuse this legal commitment and insist that the faulty goods be negotiated directly with the manufacturer.   It would be helpful if this legal responsibility was more widely advertised because many shoppers are unaware of their rights.   In this age of Internet shopping we have a law designed in the bricks and mortar age and it obviously needs to be updated.

It is also strange that consumer protection laws seem to fail in applying to big ticket items - such as automobiles.  We have no trouble seeking redress for a faulty electric toaster, but if we get a "lemon "when we buy a new car the law fails us.

The politicians have constantly promised to address this concern, and yet it never seems to proceed to legislation. A car is usually the biggest purchase we make in a lifetime, except for the family home, and subjecting cars to that same "Three R's " would seem a reasonable option.

This revision of consumer protection laws would seem an opportunity for change !