The government is considering new laws prohibiting unfair trading. The new laws aim to prevent practices such as:
presenting choices in a way that exploits or ignores a customer’s vulnerabilities
not properly disclosing important information when people sign up for a service (for example, joining a super fund or taking out disability insurance through super)
misleading or hidden information.
However, at this stage, the new laws would not include financial service. Read more from Super Consumers Australia:
Would these potentially new laws prohibit puffery?
I note that the EU laws specifically prohibit behaviour that is considered misleading. I am not sure how they define misleading for those cases or what are already considered blacklisted. My support would be more behind both a combined general and specific prohibition in any new or amended law here in Australia.
Some of the claims by some insurers/funds might fall under a definition of puffery, no specific examples come to mind but things like Australia’s best fund or best managed are possible slogans used.
I am disappointed that puffery is given such free rein in many advertising campaigns, if laws are being discussed to tighten up unfair trading then I am of the opinion that puffery needs addressing much more than it has been previously.
From the discussion paper released by Treasury, my reading has led me to believe many of the changes are not new laws but rather amending of parts or further definition included in the already existing laws (particularly the ACL).
If the issue is proposed changes to the ACL to address consumer rights, then get stuck into that.
So many posts on this site are about rights to refunds that are simply not supported in the existing law. The existing ACL gives the impression that these rights exist, and many posters parrot this, but it comes down to courts to decide.
