The judge overseeing a case brought by Reckitt Benckiser against Aft Pharmaceuticals over its allegedly deceptive painkiller ads has temporarily blocked Aft from releasing ads that claim its Maxigesic painkiller is stronger than other paracetamol-ibuprofen combination drugs.
A possible challenge to the AT&T, Time Warner mega merger by the DOJ, an explanation for the EU’s fascination with U.S. tech giants, and a win for New Zealand’s consumer regulator. Here’s the big competition and consumer protection news from around the globe this week.
Australian Unity will fork over $620,000 in compensation to policy holders after an investigation by the consumer regulator found the health insurer had moved the goal posts by altering dental benefits in annual policies halfway through the year.
AirAsia has agreed to refund thousands of passengers with children who were wrongly charged an extra $60 fee on flights from Darwin to Bali for seven years.
The ACCC will have another go at its case against electronics giant LG next May, according to an order Thursday, and its appeal gives the full Federal Court a chance to clarify whether companies must inform consumers with faulty products of their rights under the Australian Consumer Law.
The ACCC has launched a public inquiry into the much maligned national broadband network, saying it will enforce new service standard rules if necessary.
CapsĀ on the amount of spectrum available to any single company at the upcoming 5G auction could help prevent big operators from keeping out new players,Ā the competition watchdog said Wednesday.Ā
The competition regulator on Wednesday released updated guidelines for media merger reviews, saying key to its analysis would beĀ competition and media diversity, theĀ impact of new technology and access to premium content.
Having failed to get the competition regulator’s OK to jointly bargain with Apple Pay, three of Australia’s largest banks are banding together to create their own smartphone app.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has won a $1 million penalty against a financial advice firm for breaching the so-called best interest duty, the first ever penalty imposed for such a violation.