Naomi Sharp

Select AFSL, its related entities and its director have been slapped with $13.6 million in penalties after a judge found that the life insurer used unconscionable phone sales tactics to “wear down” often vulnerable consumers, including migrants and Indigenous communities.

A judge has imposed a $21 million penalty on Uber for misleading customers through platform-wide cancellation messages and estimated fares on its Uber Taxi option, $5 million short of the “very substantial” sum jointly agreed by the parties.

A judge has ordered Smile Direct Club and its Australian unit to pay a $3.5 million penalty and reimburse customers for misleading them into believing they would be reimbursed by their insurers for the dental care company’s costly teeth straighteners.

Facebook owner Meta has filed a bid to pause a case by the consumer regulator over scam cryptocurrency advertisements until the determination of a private criminal action brought by mining magnate Andrew Forrest.

Facebook-owner Meta has lost its bid for broad non-publication orders in its battle with the ACCC over material it says could prejudice jury members in criminal proceedings by mining magnate Andrew Forrest. 

A judge has slammed a $26 million penalty agreed to by Uber and the ACCC as “not within the range”, saying the impact of the rideshare giant’s misleading conduct appeared to be “trivial”.

A judge has shot down ASIC’s bid for declarations against life insurer Select AFSL before a penalty hearing after finding that the insurer acted unconscionably when selling insurance over the phone.

Insurer Select AFSL acted unconscionably when selling life, funeral and accidental injury insurance over the phone, a court has found in a case brought by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.

Facebook owner Meta is fighting for broad non-publication orders in its battle with the ACCC over material it says could prejudice jury members in criminal proceedings by mining magnate Andrew Forrest.

The Full Federal Court has ruled that unconscionable conduct under the Australian Consumer Law is not confined to exploitation of vulnerable parties, in an “extremely significant” judgment that will extend the reach of the unconscionable conduct provisions and protect a wider swathe of consumers.