Consumer Protection Downgraded !

We look to the law for protection but the law is never a certainty.   It all depends on the interpretation placed on the wording of that law by the individual judge hearing the case.  Such a decision handed down in the Federal Court seems to diminish the protection of consumer rights under Consumer Law.

Consumer law in Australia is quite unequivocal on the procedure when somebody buys an item that fails to perform correctly within the warranty period.   They are entitled to select from their choice of what are often referred to as the " three R's  " -  Refund - Replacement or Repair.

Where that takes place is also abundantly clear.  The faulty goods need to be returned to where the original sale took place.  Some merchants try to fob off customers by claiming that they need to return the faulty item to the manufacturer and often literature packed with the item also makes this claim, but that only applies when the sale is in a state or country which lacks any form of consumer law.   In New South Wales, if the goods were sold in this state, the return is to the place of purchase.

A ruling handed down in the Federal court will surprise many people.  The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ( ACCC ) took the Korean LG behemoth to task because it was claimed that LG charged customers for parts and labour when they returned faulty television sets that were covered under warranty.

The ACCC also  argued that information on LG's website about manufacturers warranties was misleading.  Information about Australian Consumer Rights  at the bottom of the site was in " small and closely spaced text ".

This ACCC case was dismissed by Justice John Middleton on the grounds that LG received a request for repair, made an offer and that offer was accepted by the customer.  The finding was that " LG was entitled to so conduct itself ".   Justice Middleton then went on to say that there is no allegation that LG acted in bad faith, deliberate falsehood going to ultimate liability or other unconscionable conduct.   The issue of Australian Consumer rights being in small and closely spaced text was also rejected on the grounds that LG had no obligation to tell consumers their rights under Australian consumer law.

These findings certainly open an interesting can of worms.  It seems that if a customer returns faulty goods there is no expectation that the warranty will  automatically come into play.  The customer must specifically demand access to one of those " Three R's " or the merchant may legally make an offer for a lesser course of action to settle the matter - and if that is accepted - no law has been breached.

The ACCC has the right to appeal those decisions and that is now under consideration. The whole purpose of consumer law is to protect vulnerable people from suffering loss where goods do not meet the standards expected of a new item.   What is being brought into question is the right of merchants to offer less than what is mandated by law and having such arrangements accepted by those who lack knowledge of their rights or who are intimidated by any form of authority.   It legitimises a lesser settling of the entitlement of the buyer by imposition of charges that they are not liable to pay.

Consumer rights groups will certainly urge the ACCC to expedite that appeal.