Webjet cops $9m over 'false or misleading' airfare ads
On Monday, the Federal Court ordered online travel agency Webjet to pay $9m in penalties for making 'false or misleading statements about the price of flights and booking confirmations'.
Webjet admitted that between 2018 and 2023 it made false or misleading statements on its website, promotional emails and social media posts when it advertised airfares that excluded compulsory fees.
Webjet also admitted that between 2019 and 2024 it provided false or misleading booking confirmations to 118 consumers for flight bookings which had not actually been confirmed.
Webjet then asked for additional payments of up to $2120, for these bookings, in order for consumers to be able to complete the booking.
Webjet has now refunded these consumers.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission began its investigation after a consumer complained about an airfare advertised as 'from $18', which cost almost three times that price after Webjet added its compulsory fees.
'We took this case because we considered that Webjet used misleading pricing by excluding or not adequately disclosing compulsory fees in its ads,' ACCC chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said.
'Seeking to lure in customers with prices that don't tell the whole story is a serious breach of the Australian Consumer Law.'
The Webjet fees comprised the 'Webjet servicing fee' and 'booking price guarantee' fee which ranged from $34.90 to $54.90 per booking, depending on whether the flights were domestic, to New Zealand and the Pacific, or other international destinations.
While Webjet's website, app and most emails contained information about the additional fees, some users had to scroll to the fine print near the bottom of the screen to see them. In its social media posts, Webjet didn't disclose the additional fees at all.
In a statement from February, when the ACCC agreement was initially approved, Webjet said 'it is important to note that, since being advised of the issues of concern by the ACCC in November 2023, Webjet Marketing has voluntarily and proactively implemented improvements to its fee disclosures'.
'Webjet Group is confident that any customer concern with its offering, disclosure, service or pricing was limited,' the statement said.
'[Webjet] has always prided itself on its high levels of trust with all customers and stakeholders and has fully co-operated and positively engaged with the ACCC to resolve this matter.'
The ACCC found that in the relevant period of late 2018 to late 2023 the Webjet fees represented 36 per cent of the company's total revenue.
The matter was resolved outside of court when Webjet and the ACCC agreed to settle on the conditions that Webjet:
'pay a proposed total penalty of $9m; publish a corrective notice in a form agreed with the ACCC for a period of 60 days; review, maintain and continue to implement an Australian Consumer Law compliance program in an agreed form; and contribute $100,000 to the ACCC's costs'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
25 minutes ago
- ABC News
Helensburgh Coal loses High Court challenge to rulings it breached Fair Work Act by sacking workers
A coal company which sacked 22 workers at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic has lost a High Court challenge to rulings that the sackings breached the Fair Work Act. Helensburgh Coal sacked the workers from its Metropolitan Coal Mine north of Wollongong in June 2020, after a significant drop in the price of metallurgical coal. The workers argued their dismissal was unfair because some work at the mine was being performed by contractors, and theirs was not a case of genuine redundancy. Multiple hearings in the Fair Work Commission resulted in a finding of unfair dismissal, which was upheld in the Federal Court. In a unanimous decision, the High Court has dismissed the company's appeal. The majority judgment pointed to the context of the Fair Work Act as a reaction to the Howard government's WorkChoices legislation. Under WorkChoices, a dismissal which was deemed "harsh, unjust or unreasonable" was permitted for "genuine operational reasons". The Fair Work Act states a dismissal is not a genuine redundancy "if it would have been reasonable in all the circumstances for the person to be redeployed". "There has therefore been a significant rebalance in favour of employees since the enactment of the Fair Work Act," the High Court ruled. The case will now go back to the Fair Work Commission to assess what remedy the workers are owed. Helensburgh Coal engaged labour hire companies Nexus and Menster in August 2018 and March 2020 respectively. A drop in the coal price in the early stages of the pandemic led to its decision to reduce production at the mine, requiring only four crews instead of the usual five. The company committed to insource some, but not all, of the work being done by Nexus. A total of 90 permanent employees were ultimately dismissed, 47 of whom, including the 22 litigants, did not agree to their termination. A major point of difference in the case was whether an employer must consider restructuring its operations and freeing up work for the otherwise redundant employees. Helensburgh Coal argued it only had to consider whether any jobs were available at the time of the sackings. The workers disagreed, and submitted it was up to the Fair Work Commission to assess whether any potential changes were reasonable. They said the concept of redeployment "envisages re-arrangement, re-organisation or transfer and is not limited to an existing vacant job, position or task". The workers argued Helensburgh Coal owed no obligations to either of the labour hire firms it had engaged in the months and years prior. In a statement, the Mining and Energy Union said the High Court had delivered justice for the workers, and set an important precedent about corporate responsibility to a workforce. "Today the High Court has been clear: permanent workers cannot be removed in favour of contractors through dodgy corporate restructuring," MEU General Secretary Grahame Kelly said.
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
Parents slam 'gouging' price of this school cost
An Aussie parent fed up with the cost of school portraits vented about the 'gouging' from different photography companies on an online forum. Amid the cost-of-living crisis, the parent posted in the r/Australia Reddit forum after seeing the price list for their child's school photo packages. The cheapest option, a group photo, was $35. Meanwhile, the 'Premium Pack' cost $66. 'Captive audience and no competition equals gouging,' they claimed in the post. 'I'd be interested to know how much it costs to produce a 'Basic Pack',' they added, noting this option costs $48. '1400 kids at our school, if 1000 get the basic, that's nearly fifty grand. Two-person crew for two and a half days. They do every school in our region. Basic editing. I'm guessing there are franchise fees, but they must be making bank.' The post amassed hundreds of comments, with many agreeing that the prices are getting out of hand. 'They hike the prices up because parents want photos of their kids,' said one. 'It's outrageous,' claimed another. 'Ours in daycare started at $50 for 24 pictures … we just want one for the grandparents and one for us'. 'Gave up on these ages ago, it's just a cash grab now,' said someone else. Others said school photos were an 'outdated concept'. 'Why don't they offer a digital version only?' asked one. 'Why do people still do this? People have thousands of photos of kids on their phones,' questioned another. Meanwhile, others pointed out that this has been the case for years. 'Is this your first time ordering photos?' asked one. 'Every year without fail, the price increases,' remarked a different user. However, others argued it isn't 'mandatory' to buy them, so there's no need to complain. A school photographer with 10 years of experience chimed in to clarify. They said that for a large school, a crew of about 10 works long hours, costing $2000 –$3800. Each company uses $10,000 worth of gear, with regular repairs needed 'at least once per season'. They mentioned paying around $2500 for the licensing of their software. Back in the studio, a team of about 10 retouchers carefully edits every photo, fixing minor flaws, and manages class photos and individual parent requests. A separate team handles payments, orders, packaging, and delivery. 'This year we photographed 85,000 Victorian school kids between February and June, so yeah, it's a bit more complicated than just taking the photo,' they said. They also mentioned that at some schools, they work at a loss because sales are very low. 'Some schools have a sell rate of less than 50 per cent, and there's even been one at 10 per cent.' Interestingly, they pointed out that schools with the lowest sales rates are often in higher socio-economic areas since families can afford to hire private photographers for family photos. For lower socio-economic areas, school photos are often the only professional photos children will have.
The Australian
an hour ago
- The Australian
Melbourne property price revival is finally underway but has a long way to go
After a lost decade, house prices are finally rebounding in Melbourne as investors who moved early reap rewards from bargain hunting over the past year. Interstate investors and first-home buyers are leading the charge in the city that has been the nation's worst property market for almost a decade. Speaking on The Australian's The Money Puzzle podcast, property adviser Stuart Wemyss of the ProSolution Private Clients group said the market was more positive. 'We are seeing good numbers in Melbourne in recent months. These are numbers that we have not seen for nearly 10 years in this market,' he said. Mr Wemyss said the Cotality daily price index for the city, which registered a 2.8 per cent increase over the last six months, was proof green shoots were emerging. It indicated Melbourne was looking at a 5.8 per cent annualised return. Mr Wemyss said the index is a leading indicator for the Victorian residential market, where the level of bidder activity and inspections at properties for sale is also lifting. 'These are all the signs that start to change before prices move higher,' he said. Melbourne's long-awaited rebound has also arrived well before the full cycle of expected interest rate cuts are due in the mortgage market. Mr Wemyss, who has been one of the loudest voices detailing Melbourne's woeful recent period of price declines, said he was 'totally convinced' about the rebound. 'We are seeing it on the buyer and on the seller side,' he told The Money Puzzle. 'Clients who have been looking for both houses and apartments have been able to exceed expectations. Normally we've been a bit disappointed with the results in the city. More recently we have been pleasantly surprised.' Melbourne's median price growth over one year has been a very modest 0.6 per cent against almost 4 per cent for Sydney and a nationwide median of 8 per cent, which is substantially assisted by strong prices in Perth, Brisbane and Adelaide. However, it is over the longer term that the deep malaise of Melbourne property is evident. The city has a 10-year average of less than 3 per cent against 6 per cent in Sydney and a nationwide median also of 6 per cent. 'In real terms, Melbourne house prices are negative over the last five years,' Mr Wemyss said. Melbourne's rise is still modest by interstate standards. In fact, all states started to turn positive in terms of growth from early February this year. Over the past six months the annualised gains in Sydney are about 6.1 per cent, Perth, about 7.1 per cent and Adelaide has slowed down to about 3.9 per cent. In other words, Melbourne's bounce is somewhere in the middle of the pack. Bargain hunters, especially interstate buyers, would certainly have a view that if Melbourne is to experience a catch-up similar to the run enjoyed by Adelaide in recent years then it has a long way to go. 'If you are looking for an entry-level home in the middle of Melbourne then you can still get in at levels which are half the price of Sydney,' Mr Wemyss said. 'If you want a house in Sydney, a cottage 5-10km from the city, you are probably going to have to pay $2m to $2.5m for the property. 'In contrast, in Melbourne you can buy something that fits a similar description often with larger land and you are talking about $1.1m to $1.2m. That's a lot more manageable for a lot of people. In fact, I have never seen the gap so wide between the two cities.' Read related topics: House PricesWealth Personal Finance Boomer children have found a new way to tap into their inheritance early - hitting up their parents to take out reverse mortgages. But there are pitfalls. Property Investing While some of his friends have written off the idea of ever owning a home, Joey Croke has sacrificed holidays, a flash car and parties to build an extensive property portfolio.
