Most Recent
Chinese car brand LDV is fighting the consumer regulator's case alleging it misled customers about its vehicles, telling a court that ads showing the vehicles as durable in off-road terrains were not misleading.
Harvey Norman says it should be fined no more than $24 million for running misleading ads, urging a court not to punish it for "intemperate" remarks its founder made in the media about the legal system.
Lander & Rogers has recruited a competition law expert from Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer for its corporate team ahead of the new merger review regime.
ASIC on Thursday pushed for penalties totalling $85 million against Harvey Norman and Latitude Finance, after an appeals court found the retailer’s ads touting interest-free financing were misleading.
A judge has approved a "modest" $8.7 million settlement in a class action against medical device maker Exactech over allegedly defective joint replacements, saying the settlement was fair and reasonable given the limited assets of the company, whose parent has filed for bankruptcy in the US.
John Holland and the CFMEU have voluntarily nixed agreements requiring the construction company to use certain labour hire businesses on two major projects in NSW, after the ACCC raised competition concerns.
Ubiquitous child entertainment group The Wiggles has admitted it likely breached consumer laws by selling Emma light-up headbands without warning consumers the dress-up toy contained button batteries, which can be fatal if swallowed.
Mobil Oil has agreed to pay a $16 million penalty after admitting it ran false ads in far North Queensland claiming it was selling a specific brand of fuel with certain benefits, when in fact it was suppling ordinary fuel.
The High Court has put the brakes on a $650 million case by Mercedes-Benz dealers over the car maker's switch to a fixed-price sales model, despite acknowledging the "important issues" the appeal raised.
In its case accusing Australian Gas Networks of greenwashing with ads promising gas was “becoming renewable”, the consumer regulator is pushing the company to identify who it says had reasonable grounds for the statements.