The ACCC has fined retailer Wiggle for misleading consumers about their rights under the Australian Consumer Law:
Am I the only one who thought of “The Wiggles” ? - For the avoidance of doubt, this is nothing to do with the Australian children’s music group …
Not a big red car in sight
I wonder how the $12,600 penalty compares to their possibly ill gotten profits and the costs of the ACCC legal action.
I must be a troglodyte as I had not heard of this business.
Looking at their website and the prices they charge, the ACCC fine is pocket change, and would only be a marginal addition to their cost of business. Not really a serious penalty.
I’ve bought some cycling parts from them this year, but have not had any warranty issues to date.
I had an issue with a product bought from Wiggle. They refused to refund under warranty until NSW Trading got involved. I’m really glad that ACCC have taken action. I regard Wiggle as rogue traders.
“It’s also misleading for a retailer to tell the customer they must go to the manufacturer for a remedy when a product is faulty. Under the Australian Consumer Law, consumers are entitled to remedies from the business that sells them a faulty product,” … (a little late, but) GOOD TO KNOW!
I recently got a refund from a manufacturer (it took two years). But I was directed to the manufacturer (Lenovo) and had to deal with them myself.
Well done, and for perseverance too!
Sorry but the penalty and the Court Enforceable Undertaking reminds oh so much about the Royal Commission into Banking we had oh so recently and all the ACCC stuff that seems to be reflected here in this result as well. What real discouragement does it cause and the wording of likely rather than did?? This probably cost ACCC much more than the paltry fine it got as a result, in time and money spent on investigation and taking action…
It seems to me somebody and or some people need to get aggressive in the ACCC with these actions and stop playing nice so much of the time.