feedSubscribe to our news feeds
Archived Posts Lists

Australian Regulatory Compliance Review
Australian Technology and IP Business
Credit Union and Mutual Law
National Consumer Credit Reform
Personal Property Securities Australia
Longview Business Insights
Australian Private Health Insurers
Wills, Trusts, Super
Mutuals Resource Centre

Resources

Commonwealth legislation
Corporate Governance
Not-for-Profit links
Regulator Links

June 27, 2005

Trade promotions: misrepresenting prizes

What Does "100 Grand" Mean to You? (via Blawg Review) recounts the story of a woman who entered a US radio competition for "100 grand" and who in fact won a chocolate bar with that title and not cash…she sued.  The article also refers to the Pepsi Harrier jet competition and the Toy Yoda (not Toyota) case.

The basic principle is that if you are running a competition you must be very careful to ensure there aree no ambiguities in what a person is required to do to win and that the prizes to be won are accurately described.

In Australia, the ACCC has, for example, taken action over Coles Dollar Dazzler competition, Australia Post’s ‘Win the Thrill’ campaign and the Shark Challenge Golf Competition.

The most hard fought court battle was McDonald’s 1999 ‘Monopoly McMatch & Win’ promotion which resulted in a lengthy trial won by McDonalds over whether 1998 vouchers were valid in the 1999 competition.

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted 27th June 2005 by David Jacobson in Trade Practices