1 Briefly describe the nature of TPG's advertising which caused ACCC to bring these proceedings.

2 What statutory provisions did ACCC allege that TPG's advertising contravened.

3 What were the findings (conclusions) of the primary judge about the following aspects of the advertising.

- bundling.
- the set up fee.
- single price.

4 What were the differences in principle between the approach of the Full Court and the approach of the primary judge in evaluating whether the TPG advertising was misleading?

5 The High Court concluded that the approach taken by the Full Court was not correct. For what reason or reasons did the High Court come to this conclusion?

6 The Full Court, in coming to its conclusions, applied as a precedent the ratio in a case called Parkdale Custom Built Furniture v Puxu ("Puxu"). The High Court said that the Full Court wrongly applied the principle in Puxu. Explain why the High Court thought Puxu was not a proper precedent to apply to the TPG advertising

7 What did the High Court have to say about the "dominant message" approach?

8 What did the High Court say about the assumed level of knowledge in TPG's target audience?

9 Is an intention to mislead essential for advertising to be misleading? Explain what the High Court thought about this

10 If you were employed in the marketing section of an internet service provider or a fitness centre which was about to launch an advertising campaign promoting an attractive "plan" for membership in which there were several "parts" (costs and benefits) to be taken into account by potential customers, what advice would you give about the format of the advertising, based on your understanding of the High Court's ruling in ACCC v TPG?