Bombshell as Webjet is hit by a HUGE fine for misleading customers in landmark court ruling
The case run by the ACCC, saw the online travel agency admit between 2018 and 2023 it made false or misleading statements when it advertised airfares that excluded compulsory fees.
The statements were made on its website, and in promotional emails and social media posts.
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 later asked for additional payments, of up to $2,120 from consumers to complete the booking. Webjet has refunded these consumers.
The ACCC started 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.
'Retailers must ensure their advertised prices are accurate. They should clearly disclose additional fees and charges,' Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.
The Webjet fees represented 36 per cent of Webjet's total revenue in the period from 1 November 2018 to 13 November 2023.
Webjet co-operated with the ACCC, admitted liability and agreed to make joint submissions to the Court about orders, including the penalty.
The Court also made declarations and other orders proposed, including that Webjet review its compliance program and pay a contribution to the ACCC's costs.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Kmart is hit with bombshell claims it mislead customers about the horrific place it sourced clothing
Retail giant Kmart is facing accusations it misled customers on its ethical credentials by sourcing clothing supplies from factories in China with links to slave labour. An Australian-based Uyghur group has filed a lawsuit against the outlet in the Federal Court, seeking to gain documents so they can see whether it knowingly sourced stock from suppliers who used forced labour from those in the ethnic group. In its ethical sourcing statement, Kmart said it aimed to provide products that respected human rights according to its ethical sourcing code which committed to abiding by international standards, including guidelines set out in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The lawsuit filed by the Australian Uyghur Tangritagh Women's Association claims Kmart included on its 2024 and 2025 factory lists two suppliers with links to the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. It said this region in China's west has been well- documented for 'systemic state-sponsored forced labour and other atrocities against Uyghur and other Turkic Muslim people '. The group wants proof from Kmart that it has abided by its ethical sourcing promises regarding these suppliers and whether its public statements have been misleading or deceptive. Kmart must ensure it is not profiting off forced labour in China, association president Ramila Chanisheff said. 'We're demanding answers from Kmart so we know whether its actions live up to its words about addressing forced labour risks in its supply chain,' she said. The retailer risks a legal claim that it breached Australian Consumer Law by misleading and deceptive conduct if documents show it had failed to monitor the risk of it using forced labour in its supply chain. Maurice Blackburn principal lawyer Jennifer Kanis said the firm was using this first-of-its-kind case to bring real accountability to Australian retailers. 'Kmart tells customers that it supports ethical sourcing and the protection of human rights - but we know there are credible links between two of its factories and suppliers and the use of Uyghur forced labour in Xinjiang,' Ms Kanis said. Human Rights Law Centre associate legal director Freya Dinshaw said the case highlighted the weaknesses in Australia's laws when members of the public are left to take companies to court on suspicions of modern slavery. Unlike the United States, Australia has not banned imports of products made in the Xinjiang region, instead opting for a transparency approach which requires businesses to report annually on their actions to identify and address slavery risks.
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Hundreds of jobseeker payments cancelled illegally by government IT system, watchdog finds
The legality of the system designed to penalise jobseekers has been thrown into doubt after the commonwealth ombudsman found a government department's automatic system unlawfully cancelled payments. The ombudsman has found 964 jobseekers had their payments unlawfully cancelled between April 2022 and July 2024 by the automated IT system that underpins the targeted compliance framework (TCF) system. TCF is designed to make sure jobseekers meet requirements such as attending meetings with an employment provider and applying for jobs to continue to receive their payments. Payment cancellations have been paused since January after the government found a further 1,326 people had financial penalties 'applied incorrectly' due to an IT issue. On top of this, 45 people had their payments illegally cancelled because the system continued to operate in error. On Wednesday, the ombudsman found the payments had been cancelled unlawfully and recommended the government continue to pause cancellations until the it could review the legality of the entire TCF system. The ombudsman, Iain Anderson, said he investigated cancellations where public servants working at the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations had failed to consider individual circumstances before cancelling a payment as laid down by law. 'They were just automating the cancellation without considering the individual circumstances of the jobseeker and whether it was appropriate to cancel the payment or not,' he told Guardian Australia. 'The target compliance framework itself has been very problematic in that regard.' Anderson said that in 2022 DEWR was also meant to put in a 'digital protection framework' to ensure jobseekers were treated fairly, but the department had failed to do so. Anderson said the secretary of DEWR, Natalie Jones, needed to be 'completely confident' the system was working properly before the cancellations resume. 'The targeted compliance framework has had a number of different problems, and so the secretary of DEWR needs to do much more than simply look at the unlawful cancellation issue. 'They need to be really certain that the entire target compliance framework is going to comply with the law and be fair.' He said there were also concerns as to whether the suspension of payments, which happens in tens of thousands of cases each month, was legal. 'We have some concerns as to whether the suspension process is happening fairly and reasonably,' he said. On top of this, Guardian Australia understands a Deloitte report into the IT system that underpins the TCF has found that it is not functioning within the proper legal frameworks. The Deloitte report – which has yet to be published – recommends overhauling the TCF's IT system to ensure that the suspension or cancellation of payments is done legally. The Greens have called for the government to abolish the TCF and release the report. 'It is clear that the TCF is an expensive hangover from a conservative government which has been heartlessly prolonged by this Labor government for far too long,' senator Penny Allman-Payne said. The DEWR is also conducting a legal review to examine the way decisions are being made under the legislation. The Ombudsman will continue to investigate the TCF with another report due out later in the year.
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
Should big tech be allowed to mine Australians' text and data to train AI? The Productivity Commission is considering it
The Productivity Commission is examining whether technology firms should be exempted from copyright rules that stop companies from mining text and data to train artificial intelligence models. The PC, in its interim report into 'harnessing data and the digital economy', used copyright as a case study for how Australia's existing regulatory framework could be adapted to manage the risks of artificial intelligence. A key recommendation from the interim report was that the federal government should conduct a sweeping review of regulations to plug potential gaps that could be exploited by 'bad actors' using AI. Scott Farquhar, the co-founder of software company Atlassian, last week called for an 'urgent' overhaul of Australia's copyright rules, arguing they were out of step with other comparable countries. Farquhar said creating exemptions for text and data mining to train large language models 'could unlock billions of dollars of foreign investment into Australia'. That suggestion has been rejected by the Copyright Agency, a not-for-profit organisation that collects and distributes royalties to thousands of copyright holders. The agency has argued instead for the government to create a new compensation scheme for creators of content used by tech companies to train their AI models. Sign up: AU Breaking News email Stephen King, one of two commissioners leading the PC's inquiry into harnessing the opportunities of the digital economy, said: 'Copyright is a great example of where Australia needs to sit back and ask: 'Are our laws fit for purpose with AI?'' 'The obvious harm is that an AI company may use copyright materials without providing appropriate compensation. On the other side, we want the development of AI-specific tools that use that copyrighted material,' King said. 'It may be possible to say, can we approach AI the same way we have approached copyright in other ways, through copyright collections. Music is played everywhere, so we have set up collecting societies that are authorised under our competition laws, and they act on behalf of singers, songwriters and creators.' King said the PC was asking for feedback on other options, before a final recommendation by the end of the year. 'We have a fair dealing exemption that doesn't include text and data mining, maybe that should be an exemption – as long as AI companies are gaining legal copies and they have paid for it.' In its third of five thematic reports, the commission said artificial intelligence could resuscitate Australia's moribund productivity. PC modelling showed that even the most conservative estimate was that AI would deliver a $116bn boost to the economy over the next decade. King said that this translated into a $4,300 kicker to the average Australian's real wage in 10 years' time, and that the actual benefits could be much larger. The commission advised against creating an overarching AI-specific piece of legislation, and warned that clumsy or excessive regulation risked stifling the technology's potentially transformative benefits. That message is likely to be well received by the government, with Andrew Leigh, the assistant minister for productivity, backing this approach. But King said the commission was not arguing for a minimalist approach to AI regulation. 'It's not light-touch at all. What we are saying is that AI is going to make it easier, cheaper and faster for bad actors to engage in harmful conduct. But most of that harmful conduct is already illegal,' he said. 'Let's work out where the harms are and see whether they are covered by existing law. And if they are, let's make sure the regulators have the resources and powers to stop the bad actors.' The PC's interim report also backed changing privacy rules to incorporate an outcomes-based approach, rather than a 'box-ticking' exercise where businesses 'comply with the letter of the law but not the spirit of it'. The commission said the government 'should support new pathways to allow individuals and businesses to access and share data that relates to them'.
