ACCC v Dateline Imports Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCA 1222

Thursday 27 November 2014 @ 11.21 a.m. | Legal Research | Trade & Commerce

The Federal Court has handed down its decision in the case of ACCC v Dateline Imports Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCA 1222 (18 November 2014), ordering Dateline Imports Pty Ltd to pay penalties of $85,000 following action by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) for false or misleading representations and breaches of ss 52(1), 53(a) and 53(c) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (now the Competition and Consumer Act 2010) (Cth) (the Act).

Background to the Case

The penalty follows the Court’s judgment on 30 July 2014, which found that Dateline Imports contravened the Act by making false or misleading representations about the amount of natural keratin in its Keratin Complex Smoothing Therapy hair straightening product.

In July 2014, the Court held that:

  • Dateline’s representation that its Keratin Complex Smoothing Therapy hair straightening product was comprised of at least 35% natural keratin was false or misleading, with the court finding that it contained less than 3% natural keratin;
  • Because the product contained less than 3% natural keratin, Dateline’s representation that it had the benefit of infusing at least 35% natural keratin into the hair of customers using the product was also false or misleading; and
  • Dateline’s representation that a ban on the product by the Ireland authorities would be overturned was misleading, and Dateline’s managing director Mr David Taylor, was knowingly concerned in this contravention because he knew that Dateline did not have reasonable grounds for making this representation.

The ACCC had also alleged that Dateline Imports made false or misleading representations when it stated that its Keratin Complex Smoothing Therapy hair straightening product did not contain formaldehyde and that it was safe for use by consumers. The Court dismissed these allegations.

Reaction to Judgment

ACCC Commissioner Sarah Court said:

“Consumers must be able to trust claims that are made about the ingredients and benefits of beauty products … Credence claims are a current enforcement priority for the ACCC.”

TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.

Sources:

ACCC v Dateline Imports Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCA 1222 (18 November 2014)

Dateline Imports penalised for false or misleading representations about a hair straightening product – ACCC Release MR 281/14 

Related Articles: