Higher penalties are
coming for conscious breaches of the Australian Consumer Law
The Federal Court has called for guides for higher
penalties to discourage ‘cost of doing business’
contraventions of the Australian Consumer Law.
The regulators have supported this call. In its Final Report
issued on 19 April 2017, Consumer Affairs Australia and New
Zealand (CAANZ) has proposed that penalties for companies
which contravene the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) be
increased to align with penalties for contraventions of the
Competition Law.
The Nurofen decision highlights why the current penalty
guides are deficient
In Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Reckitt
Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 181 (the Nurofen
civil penalty decision) the Full Federal Court of Australia
(Jagot, Yates and Bromwich JJ, jointly) increased the civil
penalty imposed by the trial judge on Reckitt Benckiser from
$1.7 million to $6 million for conduct liable to mislead the
public as to the nature, characteristics or suitability for
purpose of pain killers known as the Nurofen specific pain
range. This decision is final, now that leave to appeal to
the High Court of Australia has been refused.
The Court commented upon the limited utility of applying the
current guides, namely a maximum penalty of $1.1 million per
contravention, noting the absurdity of treating each of the
5.9 million sales of the misleading packets of Nurofen as a
separate contravention:
In this case, the theoretical maximum was in the trillions
of dollars (some 5.9 million contraventions at $1.1 million
per contravention) … [The] penalty in … this case is best
assessed by reference to other factors, as there is no
meaningful overall maximum penalty given the very large
number of contraventions over such a long period of time. (para
157)
In its media release (16 December 2016) the ACCC hailed the
decision as ‘a great win for Australian consumers’, and
advised that it had called for higher penalties:
“This is the highest corporate penalty awarded for
misleading conduct under the Australian Consumer Law,” ACCC
Chairman Rod Sims said.
The Full Court found that the initial penalty of $1.7
million was manifestly inadequate given the need for
deterrence and the substantial consumer loss suffered.
“The ACCC welcomes this decision, having originally
submitted that a penalty of $6 million or higher was
appropriate given the longstanding and widespread nature of
the conduct, and the substantial sales and profit that was
made,” Mr Sims said.
“The ACCC has been advocating for increased penalties under
the current review of the Australian Consumer Law”
The higher civil penalty guides proposed by CAANZ
The CAANZ Final Report contained Legislative Proposal 18 -
Maximum Financial Penalties:
Increase maximum financial penalties available under the ACL
by aligning them with the penalty regime under the
competition provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act
2010 (CCA):
- for companies, the greater of:
- the maximum penalty (of $10 million), or
- three times the value of the benefit the company received
from the act or omission, or
- if the benefit cannot be determined, 10 per cent of annual
turnover in the preceding 12 months.
- for individuals, $500,000. (Report, p 87)
The CAANZ proposal contains not only an increase in the
amount of the maximum penalty to $10 million, but also
introduces two new alternatives to align the maximum penalty
to the benefit the company has received from the
contravention – one is a calculation of the financial
‘benefit’ gained from the sale of the product, the other is
a calculation of based on turnover.
CAANZ outlined this reasoning behind its proposal:
Currently, maximum financial penalties available under the
ACL ($1.1 million per offence for companies) are
insufficient to deter future breaches, particularly where
the non-compliant conduct may be highly profitable or the
company is large. For example, the $10 million penalty
imposed against Coles for unconscionable conduct in dealings
with 200 of its suppliers was referred to by Justice Gordon
as insufficient for a company with annual revenue in excess
of $22 billion (ACCC v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd
[2014] FCA 1405 (Gordon J), at [106]). While maximum
penalties under the ASIC Act are slightly higher ($1.7
million per offence for companies), they are also too low to
act as an adequate deterrent.
This proposal is expected to significantly increase the
deterrent effect of the ACL provisions. Higher penalties
would put a higher price on contraventions to sufficiently
deter repetition by traders and by others who might be
tempted to contravene the ACL. (Report, p 87, 88)
Would applying the CAANZ proposal have increased the Nurofen
civil penalty?
The Court made these findings in the Nurofen civil penalty
decision –
- Total revenue from the sale of 5.9 million packets of Nurofen for the period 2011 to 2015 (the relevant
contravening period) was determined at $45 million.
- The price of the Nurofen specific pain range was double
the price of the standard product, and so the extra paid by
consumers over the period was at least 50%, namely $22.5
million.
- The ACCC carried out its own calculations and estimated
the extra paid was $26.25 million.
- The conduct of Reckitt Benckiser was not ‘innocent’ – it
‘courted the risk’ of contraventions, because it knew that
others had considered the marketing to be misleading, and it
knew why.
The Court stated:
The penalty of $1.7 million cannot be viewed as substantial
(as Reckitt Benckiser would have it) or as achieving the
primary deterrence object of a civil pecuniary penalty. To
the contrary, we consider that the penalty would reinforce a
view that the price to be paid for the contraventions was an
acceptable business strategy, and was no more than a cost of
doing business. (para 164)
The Court approached the assessment by setting an
‘appropriate penalty range’:
one useful guide to the appropriate penalty range is loss to
consumers. In this case, this loss may be assessed by
reference to the extra amount paid by consumers as against a
product that did not suffer from any of the impugned
representations, such as ordinary Nurofen. This best
approximates the impact on consumers, and thus the potential
gains to Reckitt Benckiser. This gives a starting point of
around $25 million and, on any view, more than $20 million
(the price of the impugned products being about double that
of standard Nurofen and the total revenue being $45
million). (para 158)
Had the CAANZ proposal been applied, it would have most
likely increased the civil penalty. This is because the
‘starting point’ for the Court would be the highest of
–
- $10 million, or
- 3 times the ‘profit’ on sales of Nurofen of $20 million,
being $60 million, or
- 10% of the annual revenue of the Reckitt Benckiser Group
for the product sold in Australia, being $45 million divided
by 5 (years).
The highest amount would therefore be $60 million, which is
three times higher than the amount of $20 million that the
Court set in the Nurofen civil penalty decision as being the
‘top of the range’ for the penalty.
This analysis demonstrates that the CAANZ proposal would
have the desired impact of providing a better guide to the
Court to set as a ‘starting point’ to assess civil
penalties.
Conclusions
If the CAANZ proposal is legislated, it will result in a
substantial increase in civil penalties awarded by the
courts for contraventions of the ACL, by giving a better
guide to setting the ‘top of the range’ than the current law
provides.
While it is true, as ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said of the
Nurofen civil penalty decision that “This is the highest
corporate penalty awarded for misleading conduct under the
Australian Consumer Law,” (media release), the Court’s
reasons for decision indicates that the Court could have
imposed a higher penalty, had the ACCC asked for it:
we are of the view that an appropriate penalty for the
contraventions had to be not less than $6 million (and could
have been many millions more [had] the ACCC’s figure of $6
million [been a higher instead of] being at the bottom of
the appropriate range …). (para 166)
Therefore, regardless of the CAANZ proposal, the Court is
willing to impose higher civil penalties in an appropriate
case under the current law, should the ACCC request.
For more information on why the Nurofen marketing was
misleading, click on my article
Reckitt Benckiser must pay
the penalty for using misleading labels in its Nurofen
Specific Pain Range
Marketing observation by Michael Field, marketing
consultant
Brand managers and product marketers are being put on
notice by these events. ‘Sailing close to the wind’ with
clever, but misleading marketing campaigns is no longer a
commercially viable option as the penalties are increasingly
likely to neutralise any profits made. This is before we
count the cost of damage to the brand.
Michael Field is a partner in strategy consulting firm
EvettField Partners
|
