is this good viewpoint that accc is not effective
According to opposing viewpoint of is somewhat effective poses potential risk as not properly resolving individual disputes to stakeholders such as company and consumers according to ACCC. In the inquiry at 2017 any legal advice was not provided as harm already widespread prohibit unfair contract terms and increase penalties for anti-competitive behaviour establish a new National Anti-Scam Centre”(SB). In 2020, Flight Digital Pty Ltd charged penalties of $25,200, and the ACCC issued 2 infringement notices for false advertising on its website. On the website, it stated that consumers were entitled to a full refund within 14 days, which also applies under the ACL. However, almost 20% of the original price was deducted from the refund, failing to protect the consumer's costs (SC).
Based on the information provided, it can be argued that the ACCC is not entirely effective in resolving individual disputes and protecting both companies and consumers. The example of Flight Digital Pty Ltd's false advertising and failure to protect consumer costs suggests a gap in the ACCC's effectiveness. This viewpoint highlights the need for stronger actions and measures to be taken by the ACCC in order to ensure fair practices and consumer protection.
Based on the information provided, it seems that there are arguments supporting the viewpoint that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is not effective in resolving disputes and protecting stakeholders such as companies and consumers. Here are the reasons for this viewpoint:
1. Lack of legal advice: In the 2017 inquiry, it is mentioned that the ACCC did not provide any legal advice when harm was already widespread. This could suggest a lack of proactive action on their part to prevent or mitigate issues.
2. Insufficient resolution of individual disputes: The opposing viewpoint argues that the ACCC has not properly resolved individual disputes between consumers, companies, and other stakeholders. This suggests that the commission may not be effectively addressing and resolving specific issues faced by these parties.
3. Penalties and infringement notices: The example of Flight Digital Pty Ltd being charged penalties and issued infringement notices for false advertising indicates that there are instances where companies breach regulations under the ACCC's jurisdiction. This raises questions about the effectiveness of the commission's enforcement actions.
4. Failure to protect consumer costs: In the case of Flight Digital Pty Ltd, the company deducted almost 20% of the original price from the consumer's refund, which is against the Australian consumer law (ACL). This suggests that the ACCC failed to protect the consumer's costs in this particular situation.
It is important to note that this is just one viewpoint, and there may be other arguments and evidence that support a different perspective on the effectiveness of the ACCC.