It can easily be that a supplier with that attitude eventually goes too far, and the government steps in to legislate against the problematic behaviour. That’s more or less why we have the Australian Consumer Law (formerly Trade Practices Act).
In some markets a supplier may exert monopoly power, and again the authorities might step in. (This does not apply to this case as there are many alternatives to one bad supplier, whether it’s other cinemas in reasonable proximity or other means of watching the same movie.)
I always take a small bottle of tap water into the cinema. I’ve never had a problem but perhaps I’ve never struck a staff member who got out of the wrong side of the bed.
I agree. We were at a live performance once where someone started eating out of noisy packaging. It was very distracting, and unnecessary as there was an interval if they really needed to eat.
As you say, it’s bad enough in the cinema.
This is something that puzzles me a little. When a restaurant has tables out in the middle of a public pedestrian space, it is appropriating that space for private use. Fine, the council says it can use that space - but does the council give it exclusive rights to that space? What about the car parks beside popular takeaway outlets - are they built on the public purse and then ‘appropriated’ by the company?
In Brisbane they do (occupancy fees), as well as obtaing a permit from the Council.
I expect other Councils/state governments will require similar when there is occuption of a public space/footpath by a commercial entity.
The permit I saw a few years ago only allowed the use for/occupation by the permit holder. These permits come with conditions. If one is not patronage of the permit holder or authorised by tge permit holder, then under the permit it could be argued they they are not entitled to use the permit area.
I live in a country town of 25000 people and our only cinema allows you to bring in drinks and food except for hot drinks and food. Plus they have reasonable prices for food items. $2.50 for a chocolate bar or small drink or small popcorn.
I was under the impression that this had been resolved by the restraint of trade provision in the Trade Practices Act in the late seventies or early eighties. The ruling was that restricting people from bringing in snacks and drinks from outside sources was a restraint of trade.
Perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps the Trade Practices Act was changed or have the cinemas found a loop hole in the act?
The Competition and Consumer act as it’s now known focuses on protecting competition. It doesn’t really cover conditions of entry. I mean you could argue not allowing outside food and drinks is restricting competition, but it’s not directly mentioned so you’d have a hard time arguing it.
This is correct, in fact in many cases it’s a huge proportion. Then add further profits that come from on screen advertising. Actual box office profits, once management have deducted an agreed percentage to the distributor, are relatively low.
Would this depend on the interpretation of what business or trade a cinema provides? IE Presentation of Audio Visual content. No restraint evident there.
Are cinemas also in the business of providing a meal service? Possibly not. But even if they were is there a suggestion that I can buy a bucket at KFC and then proceed to Macas to consume it alongside one of Macas equally appealing coffees?
It would seem unlikely the Conditions of Entry to a Cinema set by the proprietors would be contrary to consumer law. Notably given how zealous the entertainment industry is as a whole to uphold the law to the last dotted eye, including regional distribution rights! They would be the last ones to not comply, would they not?
Cinemas could enforce a policy of not allowing any food or drinks to be taken into their venues even if the cinemas did not sell any food or drinks themselves
It is the same as many stores such as fashion shops which display signs at their entrances stating that no food or drinks can be taken into their stores.
Cinemas sell drinks and snacks with significant mark ups on regular retail products. Chips and sweets sold in the “concessionaire” are noticeably more expensive than the same products bought from Woolworths or Coles or other near by stores. To ban products being brought in by patrons is a restraint of trade as I understand it and so it was found in the courts back in the day. So, what has changed?
As for the comment that if the cinemas sold no products and could ban the bringing in of snacks by patrons this is actually an accurate statement. It is not a restraint of trade if they are not competing to supply these products. It is simply a condition of entry.
Perhaps nothing has changed. If there is a legal resolution as you suggest it will be on the record.
Perhaps we could all benefit from seeing a copy of the source court documents and decision. Which State’s Trade Practice Legislation is the reference to?
Otherwise we could spend long hours splitting hairs over something well paid lawyers already know the answer to.
P.S.
The situation is not unique to cinemas. There are variations in conditions of entry at sporting venues, live entertainment venues, galleries, The Sydney Opera House, etc. The exclusion of externally purchased food, alcohol etc appears to be a commonly included condition of entry at venues in several Australian States, including state owned venues. Many of these venues do have facilities to purchase food and beverages inside the venues!
Should consumers object to paying a fortune for cinema popcorn and chips and carbonated sugar drinks? Not at all. There is an option to not bother with them.
Do patrons consider sitting next to others who are consuming food or treats or a meal at a cinema part of the experience? It may be what happens. Perhaps less noticeable to those who do than those who don’t.
Perhaps they can get away with that - on account of Responsible Service of Alcohol, and their legal obligations to comply with the management of the consumption of alcohol generally i.e. as a licensed venue. So maybe food needs to be considered separately from alcohol in this discussion.
That isn’t relevant to the question raised - as long as food can be obtained by buying it from the cinema, your experience will potentially include “sharing” other people’s food, whether or not people are allowed to bring in their own food.
RSA is not about food! It’s a tool.
The conditions for Licensed premises under the relevant legislation provide authority to the licensee to determine. Just note that many venues have restricted areas for consumption of alcohol.
P.S.
Hopefully being misquoted was a mistake?
Just to be sure the referenced post actually stated.
It remains about the experience, which is why there is a discussion about bringing food into the cinema.
Some of us doubtless need the snacks, etc as part of fulfilling the experience. Observation not judgement. It’s just the way some like it.
What I was attempting to say was that you wrote “food, alcohol” but there are important legal differences between “food” and “alcohol” and so they ought to be considered separately.
Mark, I have looked into this and the original federal Trade Practices Act of 1974 was replaced in 2010. The new Competition and Consumer Act includes many of the provisions of the TPA but not all and not identical. This may have accounted for cinemas trying to do what they were not allowed to do previously.
For the record, section 45 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 “prohibits contracts, arrangements, understandings or concerted practices that have the purpose, effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition in a market, even if that conduct does not meet the stricter definitions of other anti-competitive conduct such as cartels.”
Cinemas have now installed their own coffee shops in reaction to protests about blocking patrons drinking coffee. We can still smuggle in small snacks and consume them in the dark. Sporting venues and festivals which prevent patrons bringing in their own food and drink are in the firing line for a public interest group to take them on at some point. I will be cheering on the action when it happens
