Graeme Samuel thinks it's a good idea.
I think this is a valid point - there are grounds for criminal
sanctions for certain misleading and deceptive and misleading conduct
under s 75AZC - but no general ground akin to s52.
Although from the article above, it seems the alleged Dodo
misrepresentations relate to price and would, on the face of it,
likely be caught by s75AZC(1)(g), covering conduct that amounts to a
false or misleading representation about the price of goods or services.
Maximum 10,000 penalty unit ($1,100,000) for a breach of these
provisions.
No comments:
Post a Comment