1. Briefly describe the content of TPG's advertising which ACCC considered to be defective
2. Which two statutory provisions did ACCC allege that TPG's advertising contravened and what was it about the advertisements which contravened those provisions.
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. In what two ways did the Full Court take a different approach from that of the primary judge in deciding whether the TPG advertising was misleading?
5. The High Court concluded that the approach taken by the Full Court was not correct. For what two 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 and gave three reasons for this. Briefly explain any two of the reasons the High Court thought the Puxu case was different from the TPG advertising and so should not have been used by the Full Court as a precedent.
7. 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 form the advertising should take, based on your understanding of the High Court's ruling in ACCC v TPG?