display:none
Under the Finfluence: What Do Australian Regulators Think?

Under the Finfluence: What Do Australian Regulators Think?

by | May 16, 2022 | Law for Online Business, Legal, Legal Issues for Small Business

Under the Finfluence: What Do Australian Regulators Think?

Compliance and enforcement priorities for two of Australian regulators, ASIC and ACCC, are now firmly focused on the Digital Economy.

Compliance and enforcement priorities for two of Australian regulators, ASIC and ACCC, are now firmly focused on the Digital Economy. Some might say “it’s about time!”

The regulators will coordinate with each other on many matters including combined financial and non-financial issues, so there is potential to be explaining your actions on two fronts.

What is ASIC doing with Finfluencers?

ASIC started ‘cautioning’ finfluencers in April 2022. Prominent social media influencers attended a briefing about the need for a financial services licence from ASIC in early April 2022. It was invitation only and about 30 turned up, with some commenting vocally on social media that the briefing heralded the end of their business. 

So, what is a Finfluencer, and why is ASIC suddenly so interested?

$99 million dollars lost by Australians in 2021 on scams involving crypto assets (ASIC Commissioner Cathie Armour, March 2022) is why ASIC is interested. That’s just crypto and doesn’t account for other significant losses on financial platforms.

From ASIC’s perspective, a Finfluencer is “a social media influencer who discusses financial products and services online”.

If you wanted to have a technical legal argument, we could look at the meanings of ‘social media’, ‘influencer’, ‘discusses’, ‘financial products and service’. Unfortunately, that is a tortured road and only really necessary if you land in a position where you must defend yourself.

Prevention is better than cure!

What it really comes down to is whether, in the online environment (websites and email lists included) you promote a financial product or financial service.

In Australia, if you are providing financial product advice or arranging for your followers to deal in a financial product, you must hold an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL). There is a huge compliance regime around it and its overly complicated. It can also take quite some time to get a licence; its not at all like getting a diver’s licence.  

THE LAW

Financial product advice is a recommendation or statement of opinion which is intended to influence, or which could reasonably be regarded as being intended to influence, a person making a decision in relation to financial products.

ASIC Info Sheet 269, March 2022

Earning an income from discussing financial stuff online “indicates an intention to influence the audience”, according to ASIC.  

So, a Finfluencer is someone making money from discussing financial stuff online. If what you say is purely factual – “property investment and on market trading are the most common forms of investment in Australia”, then you are ok.

If you say something like “you get way better returns on crypto than shares” alongside promotion of a crypto trading platform, then you are likely to get into trouble. Especially if you are earning revenue from the promotion of the crypto trading platform.

According to ASIC, dealing in a financial product can be as simple as posting a unique affiliate link for a trading platform.

Understanding What Finfluencers Can and Can’t Do Online

Penalties from ASIC for providing financial advice online without an AFS licence can reach 5 years in jail for an individual and more than $1 million in fines.

If you’re worried about what you are publishing, including historical posts, and whether that might put you in the line to be part of the ASIC Finfluencer crackdown, make an appointment  with us to help identify your real risks and whether continuing to operate your business is realistic, or not.

There may be strategies you can implement (and rules to follow) so that you sit outside those needing an AFSL, including becoming a representative for an AFSL holder.

What’s the Risk of Prosecution by ASIC for a Finfluencer?

Part of the recent awareness campaign is to ensure the ASIC will hear about problems now that more people are aware of their concerns. You might not get a complaint from one of your followers, but in our experience, regulatory complaints are often generated by your competitors rather that your customers.

“ASIC takes enforcement action where it is in the public interest”

Right now, ASIC is likely to be focused on finding someone to prosecute and make an example of to warn Finfluencers of the consequences of non-compliance. It also helps them encourage industry compliance.

ASIC takes enforcement action where it is in public interest. If you’re not already known by ASIC, don’t have much of a following or haven’t been complained about, ASIC probably doesn’t know you exist.

Unless:

  • you have a huge following, or
  • enough people complain about losing money as a result of interacting with you, or
  • you are already on ASIC’s radar (due to past behaviour), or
  • they’ve come up with an algorithm to find you on social media without human eyes having to complete all the searches,

you’re unlikely to get any attention from the regulator in the immediate future. ASIC only has so much funding.

And then there is ACCC and consumer protection laws…

Digital Marketing is one of ACCC’s 2022/23 Priorities 

The digital economy is now front and centre with ACCC adopting a focus on:

  • Consumer and fair-trading issues relating to manipulative or deceptive advertising and marketing practices in the digital economy.
  • Competition and consumer issues relating to digital platforms.
  • Promoting competition and investigating allegations of anti-competitive conduct in the financial services sector, with a focus on payment services.

So Finfluencers are potentially in the firing line with both ACCC and ASIC. The regulators will coordinate with each other on many matters including combined financial and non-financial issues.

 

What’s the Problem with Marketing and Advertising Online?

ACCC is concerned with techniques that are manipulative and generate sales as a result of FOMO (fear of missing out). Techniques of concern include:

  • false scarcity reminders such as low-stock warnings
  • false sales countdown timers
  • targeted advertising using a consumers’ own data to exploit their individual characteristics
  • pre-selected add-ons (no, I don’t want McAfee with that!), and
  • design interfaces that discourage unsubscribing.

A scarcity reminder is false when you have the stock or capacity to provide services but have chosen to limit the number for sale at a given time for the main reason of creating urgency in purchasers.

It’s that level of pressure experienced by the purchaser that is considered manipulative, and the higher the priced item, the greater the problem in ACCC’s eyes. Intent can be implied rather than stated. So even if you say it wasn’t your intent to be misleading, where the end result is higher sales due to a perception of the buyer that if they don’t buy then, intent may be implied.

The pre-COVID seminar industry provided an excellent example of the type of sales pressure that is a concern for ACCC – that emotional pressure to rush to the back of the room to complete a purchase before you miss out. Where marketing includes emotional triggers (doesn’t it all, at least marketing that works?) and those triggers are considered unfairly manipulative, you may have cause for concern.

ACCC has previously warned that high pressure sales tactics may be considered unconscionable conduct [https://www.accc.gov.au/business/anti-competitive-behaviour/unconscionable-conduct] and if sales commissions are structured around that type of selling, it will only emphasise the risk that the sales tactic will be unconscionable.   

Other practices of concern include manipulation of online reviews and search results – using false testimonials is a specific breach of consumer law – and comparison websites and social media influencers who don’t disclose commercial relationships and paid promotions. As long as it is clear that promotions are paid promotions, an accusation of manipulation could be avoided.

The failure to disclose payment for comment is a red flag because it is thought that the comments are more likely to be misleading to potential customers than they would be if there was a wholly independent review without benefit to the writer or publisher. It is also suggested that if you do have a ‘adv.’ or ‘sponsored’ tag or notice somewhere obvious on the review that customers can better determine how much weight they will give to the writer’s opinion. 

What’s the Risk of Prosecution by ACCC?

ACCC selects companies working in their current priority areas when deciding whether to pursue a matter. Again, ACCC doesn’t have the funding to follow up or prosecute every compliance complaint. They focus on those complaints that they believe will give them a win in court, or a negotiated resolution that can be published, and choose claims where the defendant can serve as an example for the rest of the industry.

Despite having an online portal for collection of complaints, where a complaint is made about a small business, particularly one that does not operate outside state boundaries, it isn’t likely to get picked up by ACCC and the complainant may need to start their own legal action to get a remedy.

ACCC has a range of enforcement remedies to address contraventions including litigation and court enforceable undertakings, which are designed to be proportionate to the conduct and the resulting or potential harm.

Their stated first priority is to “achieve the best possible outcome for the community and to manage risk proportionately”.

The main actions they use are:

  • encouraging compliance through educating and informing consumers and traders
  • enforcement using administrative processes or more formal processes such as court action
  • undertaking market studies
  • coordination with other government agencies.

Regulators are slowly catching up to the way the digital economy works and taking an interest in consumer protection in that space.

Now might be a could time to update your marketing strategies.

    How can Onyx Legal help you?

    If you have any concerns about a proposed campaign, or existing campaigns, and would like a review, make an appointment to discuss that with one of our team.

    Make an Appointment

    Your Guide to Terms & Conditions

    Your Guide to Terms & Conditions

    by | Dec 14, 2021 | Law for Online Business, Video, Website Terms

    Your Guide to Terms & Conditions

    The last few years have seen lots of businesses pivot to make greater use of online tools and increase the opportunity for online sales.

    As a business owner you should be considering the exposure of your online business and in particular, when you last updated your terms and conditions, your privacy policy and your disclaimer – or even if you have them to protect your business.

    The post COVID-19 era has resulted in more important updates, changes and governmental compliance responsibilities than prior to the pandemic, and increased the complexity of navigating the online business world.

    Your terms and conditions set out essential protections for your business including identifying which laws govern your website and business, reducing your chance of a dispute arising, giving you the freedom to remove unwanted people, and placing responsibilities on the user that are important to the way you do business.

    Having terms and conditions can significantly reduce any future problems from arising, if you have taken the time to obtain appropriate legal coverage.

    Services Online

    If you sell a service and have any type of intellectual property, such as an education course or unique planning tool, you will want to ensure one of your terms and conditions include protection. As other businesses move online, they may copy some of your own website and design, so a copyright clause can at least alert visitors to your website that you intend to protect your intellectual property and caution them against copying it.

    As a practical tip – do not copy someone else’s website content. It is copyright infringement. If you are checking out what your competitors are doing and want to create something similar, at least choose a competitor on the other side of the world who might have a totally different client base. Don’t copy your local competitor just down the road and expect them not to get upset!

    Be innovative. Even if you sell hard products, you can use your online environment to create membership communities, offer education, host competitions etc.

    Goods Online

    If you manage a type of retail or goods-based business, necessary terms and conditions would include your refund and return policy. Ideally this would set out in very clear terms what the customer should expect in the event that they sought a refund or wanted to return their items.

    Your customer must be aware of your terms and conditions before purchase for them to be binding. It saves a lot of hassles and time down the track if your terms of trade are clear and easy to access. It is worthwhile noting here that some terms and conditions cannot override Australian consumer guarantees. Any attempt to limit the Australian Consumer Laws (ACL), is invalid. Consumer guarantees now apply to products and services with a value up to $100,000, regardless of who the purchaser is. 

    We can help you navigate your obligations under Australian Consumer Law.

    Interesting Recent Cases

    Consider the 2019 case of Australian Competition Consumer Commission (ACCC) v Jetstar.

    Jetstar tried to present their air fares in a way that excluded any right to a refund for the cheaper air fares. The ACCC commenced proceedings against Jetstar for false and misleading representations, as well as breaching the automatic consumer guarantees that cannot be excluded, restricted or modified, no matter how cheap the air fare was for the consumer.

    The Federal Court ordered Jetstar to pay a financial penalty of $1.95 million for the breaches as well as an undertaking to commit to amend its policies and practices to ensure they are consistent with the ACL. This undertaking was court-enforceable if they did not comply.

    Another recent case that illustrates the importance of having express terms and conditions is the case of Hardingham v RP Data. Hardingham was a real estate photographer who had an exclusive licence with his business ‘Real Estate Marketing Australia Pty Ltd’ (REMA) for the copyright of his works. He had an ongoing informal oral agreement between him and the various real estate agencies for the use of his photographs and floor plan images for the agencies marketing campaigns. He did not have any express terms and conditions in place between him and the various agencies.

    These agencies would then upload his work to Realestate.com.au for the marketing campaigns. In order to proceed with the upload of the photographs, the agency (often a subscriber) would need to agree to the terms and conditions on the website as set out by Realesate.com.au. The terms and conditions on the Realestate.com.au website contained a sub-license to “other persons” in a detailed form.

    Realestate.com.au then sub-licensed to RP Data who then published the photographs on its websites and superimposed a logo on the images. RP Data is a subscriber-only database of real estate sales and rental history. After an appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, the court held by 2:1 majority, that the sub-licence to RP Data who then used and manipulated the photographs and images was an infringement of copyright.

    The court held that the original owner of the copyright did not agree to the sub-licence when it verbally agreed to the various real estate agencies uploading the images to Realestate.com.au.

    We have assisted professional real estate photographers to prepare appropriate terms and conditions for the use of their images to ensure they are paid for use.

    This case is a good example where the copyright owner might have avoided going through the expensive and lengthy court process, and the subsequent need to appeal, to receive a judgement in his favour, if he had express terms and conditions that explicitly set out the use of the photographs and images.

    Since he had only oral agreements between him and the real estate agencies, the court had to determine if the implied terms were so obvious and were necessary to give business efficacy to the contract. Thankfully the Full Court found that there was such an implied term in this instance.

    COVID-19 Impact on Terms and Conditions

    Consider another recent case that relied on terms and conditions under a contract that was affected by COVID-19 shutdowns is the case of Dyco Hotels Pty Ltd v Laundry Hotels (Quarry) Pty Ltd. This case concerned the sale of the Quarryman Hotel in Pyrmont, New South Wales (NSW). The contract was signed on 31 January 2020, with the date of settlement set for 27 March 2020.

    The contract price was for $11,250,000 and included the associated hotel licence, the gaming machine entitlements and the hotel business itself. The deposit paid by the buyers was $562,500.

    In the sale contract, there was an Additional Clause 50.1 which imposed various obligations upon the vendor, including the obligation to continue to operate the business “in the usual and ordinary course as regards to its nature, scope and manner”.

    On the 23 March 2020, 4 days before settlement, public health orders issued shutting down the majority of hospitality services. This made it unlawful for the hotel to continue to operate, except for takeaway food and drinks, in accordance with the public health directions.

    The buyers argued that the business sale was frustrated by the public health orders since the hotel was no longer able to operate in the “usual and ordinary course as regards to its nature, scope and manner”. They asked for return of the $562,500 deposit and claimed the value of the assets decreased by $1 million due to the public health orders.

    The vendor disagreed.

    The vendor’s position was that the hotel continued to trade as a going concern within the confines of the health orders and in accordance with the legal restrictions that had been imposed upon it. If the vendor had operated contrary to the public health orders, it would have placed the future operation of the business in jeopardy, including the hotel licence to operate. This would have damaged the goodwill of the hotel. The vendor also argued that they were entitled to terminate the contract, retain the deposit and seek damages for the loss of the bargain.

    The NSW Supreme Court found in the vendor’s favour and held that the contract was not frustrated by COVID-19 public health orders. The vendor was entitled to keep the $562,500 deposit and recover damages as well for the loss of bargain. The court assessed the damages to be $900,000 and deducted the deposit of $562,500 from that amount.

    Although the terms and conditions in this case were not online but contained in sale documents, it does demonstrate that carefully considered terms and conditions can make a big difference to the outcome of a dispute. 

    The purchasers might have been better protected if there were any contractual warranties given by the vendor about the future financial performance of the hotel. Since there were no warranties given, the purchasers accepted the risks.  The purchasers were experienced in the Sydney hotel operations business and understood the various potential risks of legislative changes, despite not being familiar with the impact of a pandemic.

    This is a good illustration of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on terms and conditions and contemplation of the risks associated with business operations. Following the lessons in this case, a vendor would be wise to include business conduct obligations under the contract that can be altered or changed to comply with public health emergencies. A buyer would be wise to include options to terminate the contract in the event where the value of the business has dramatically dropped due to unexpected circumstances.

    Another COVID-19 impact on the operation of businesses can be seen in the recent case of Flight Centre Travel Group Limited Trading as Aunt Betty v Goel. Terms and conditions were online and agreed to by click wrap agreement – where the buyer has to check a box stating they agree to terms and conditions before being able to complete the purchase.

    In the first hearing, Goel had been awarded a refund on the basis that the purchased flights hadn’t been received.

    On the 5 November 2019, the customer (Goel) had made a booking online, for the return flights from Sydney to Delhi scheduled for flights during April 2020. The $2,336.30 flights were with Malaysia Airlines which cancelled the flights during March 2020, when COVID-19 public health orders restricted international travel.

    The terms and conditions stated that Flight Centre was only agent and not responsible for delivery. If that were the case, Malaysian Airlines would have been liable to provide the refund, not Flight Centre.

    The case we are referring to was an appeal by Flight Centre where it argued that the business Aunt Betty operated as an agent, and not the supplier of the service and therefore was not liable for actions by the airline in cancelling the flight. It would have set a damaging precedent for Flight Centre to be liable to refund all booking costs where it had not received the bulk of those funds, which had been passed on to the suppliers (like Malaysian Airlines) pending delivery.

    The tribunal, on appeal, held that Goel would have been aware at the time of booking that he had booked the flights with an agent and not the actual airline carrier itself. It is interesting to note that the court decided that the booking could not have been made without the positive acknowledgement of the terms and conditions on the website. The court also decided that there was no breach of the consumer laws by the agent, and it was not liable to provide the refund.

    Conclusion

    In order to operate your business successfully, you need to be mindful of the ever-changing landscape that both COVID-19 public health emergencies create, and the increasing demands shaped by conducting more business in the online space.

    The pass of change suggests you have your terms and conditions of trade reviewed and updated more frequently, with consideration of all aspects of a transaction.

    If you are contemplating signing any contracts for business sales or purchases, it would also be advisable to ensure you are covered in the event that COVID-19 emergency public health order impacts adversely on the contract price and business valuation or operational requirements.

    The new year is also a good time to evaluate your privacy policies and disclaimers, as well.

    How can Onyx Legal help you?

    We love reading and writing terms and conditions. Someone has to do it. It’s fun for us. If your terms and conditions are like a different language for you and you’d rather not think about them, let us help. Book a time to chat with one of our team about how we can help update your online terms sooner rather than later.

    Make an Appointment

    Your Guide to Terms & Conditions

    Australia Consumer Law: How Does it Affect Your Business?

    by | Nov 11, 2021 | Consumer Law, Law for Online Business, Legal

    Australia Consumer Law: How Does it Affect Your Business?

    australian consumer law: how does it affect your business?

    From 1 July 2021 the monetary limit that applies to consumer goods or services under the Australian Consumer Law increased from $40,000 to $100,000. So, what does that mean for you?

    Let’s start by looking at who is a consumer.

    Who is a consumer under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL)?

    Since 1 July 2021, a consumer can be any person or entity that purchases goods or services from you, where those goods or services –

    • are purchased for $100,000 or less;
    • or are ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use,
    • or are a vehicle or trailer used for transporting goods on public roads (more than personal use).

    For anything purchased up to 30 June 2021, the value was $40,000. This is the first uplift in that value since 1986 and aims to protect a broader group of consumers. Whether your customer is a person, or a company or any other type of entity is irrelevant is the goods or services purchased were under $100,000. So, if you deal B2B, your business still has to meet consumer law obligations.

    Similar rules apply to the provision of financial services under the Australian Securities Investment Commission (ASIC) legislation, and the monetary limit of financial services has also been lifted.

    What protections apply to consumers?

    As soon as a purchaser is classified a consumer, the ACL consumer guarantees apply. Consumer guarantees are automatic and apply in addition to any warranties you might offer.

    A warranty and a guarantee are similar things. They are both promises that you make about your business goods or services. It might be helpful to consider them from an ‘active’ and ‘passive’ perspective. Consumer guarantees are automatic. A business doesn’t have to actively do anything, they just exist. A warranty is a voluntary promise, something you offer in addition to consumer guarantees. So, a ’30 day money back guarantee’ is actually an express warranty. Go figure.

    There are nine consumer guarantees for goods, and three for services.

     

    ProductsServices
    • Will receive clear title
    • Will have undisturbed possession
    • No undisclosed security over the goods
    • Acceptable quality
    • Fit for purpose
    • Match description
    • Match sample or demo
    • Repairs and spare parts are available
    • Express warranties will be met
    • Acceptable care and skill
    • Fit for purpose
    • Delivered within a reasonable time

    Clear title and undisturbed possession just mean that when you purchase it, the buyer knows that there is not another owner or some other costs in the background. An example might be a business or relationship break up where one person sells something second hand and it actually belonged to the other partner. The person who really owned it can argue that the person who sold it did not have the right to do so and claim it back. Equally, a customer might want to pick something up from customs only to discover there are fees owed before they can take away the goods.

    Undisclosed security is where money is owed. For example, if you want to buy a piece of machinery and there is finance owed on it and a PPSR registration against it, so the lender has priority over your claim and can sell the machinery to recover the debt, even though you bought it in good faith.

    Many of the consumer guarantees are straight forward, but acceptable quality will depend on the value and quality of the goods. If you pay $100 for something that is advertised as an outdoor marquee, you might expect it to last at least a day, but you wouldn’t expect it to last for years and you wouldn’t expect it to last through high winds. On the other hand, you would expect a $1200 marquee to be more robust.    

    For something to be fit for purpose, the consumer has to let you know what purpose is important to them. So, if a customer says it is important to them that the office chair they are buying can recline, but not fall over with someone who weighs 110kg in the seat, then the office chair needs to be able to meet that specification to be fit for purpose.

    The availability of spare parts is important because it can affect what people are prepared to pay for an item. A consumer might be prepared to buy something that will last for a limited period without repair if it is cheap (consider home printers), but not pay for a large office copier without the ability to rely on regular service and repairs.     

    What happens if you do not meet a Consumer Guarantee?

    If you don’t meet a consumer guarantee, the purchaser has rights to remedies which can include repair, replacement, refund and may also include damages and consequential losses.

    Depending on how the failure to meet consumer guarantees came about, you may also be liable for penalties for breaching a prohibition on making false or misleading representations, another provision of the Australian Consumer Law.

    The type of remedy will depend on the problem with the product or service. If it is capable of being fixed, it is probably a minor problem and will need to be repaired or replaced. Depending on the value of the product, you also have the option of providing a refund, or the customer may have the option of requesting a refund.  

    Consider large retail chains which will refund or replace most items without question simply because it is more efficient than arguing with customers or sending items off for assessment or repair. It also ensures a loyal customer base. Not every business has the same scale to do that.

    If it is a major problem and cannot be fixed, then it is the customers choice about replacement or refund and the supplier must provide that replacement or refund and may also have to pay damages for any foreseeable loss resulting from the failure. In considering whether or not something is a major failure, you need to consider whether a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure would still have purchased the item for the amount that it was sold.

    Consider how you might feel in the same position. 

    For example

    ACCC v Jayco Corporation Pty Ltd [2020]

    As most people would know, Jayco is a brand of caravans and recreational vehicles (RVs). Jayco is a manufacturer that sells through dealerships.

    The ACCC took action against Jayco to determine whether 4 RVs were of acceptable quality (a consumer guarantee), fit for purpose (a consumer guarantee) and whether the manufacturer was compliant with its express warranties. There was also a claim of misleading and deceptive conduct.

    The first RV was a camper trailer. The issues it had were mainly a collection of relatively small poor finishes, but there was also a problem with the alignment of the chassis and a strut that failed in lifting the tent, causing further damage. The Court said –

    “At that price point ($27,000+), a reasonable consumer was entitled to expect a commensurate level of quality, including fit and finish. That expectation is consistent with the brochure that Jayco Corp published, and which Consumer read, which was calculated to convey the impression that a Jayco camper trailer was a durable, quality product. The combination of defects with the RV had the cumulative effect that the RV as a whole was not acceptable in appearance and finish, and its presentation was not consistent with the impression conveyed by the Jayco brochure…. In consequence, Consumer was entitled in April 2014 to reject the RV on the ground that the failure to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality was a major failure…. As a result of the failure of the strut for the tent section on the second occasion, the RV was substantially unfit for purpose.”

    The second RV was pop-top caravan that leaked, which was something the Consumer specifically asked about before purchase. Over a 15-month period it was in for repair on approximately 10 occasions. The Court considered the inability to provide shelter from the weather (the leaking soaked mattresses) “went to the heart of one of its purposes” and that “a reasonable consumer, fully acquainted with the defects and what was involved in attempting to repair them, would not have acquired the RV, and therefore there was a major failure” which entitled the Consumer to a replacement or refund.

    There was also discussion around the fact that Jayco promoted their products as suitable for a relaxing family holiday, and a leaking roof and chassis would make it unfit for that purpose.

    In all cases, Jayco had not provided a replacement or refund of the purchase price of the RVs and in one case was found to have led the consumer to believe that the only remedy available was repair. The court found those representations to be misleading or deceptive (s.18 of the ACL) and false and misleading (s.29 of the ACL). As a result, Jayco was required to pay a penalty of $75,000. It then had to deal with the owners of the RVs.

    How to manage your risk of a consumer plan

    We can help you to review your terms and conditions of supply of goods or services, whether you make them available online through your website or otherwise.

    There are provisions that can be written into terms and conditions to provide you with a level of certainty around what you must do to meet consumer guarantees. For example, with consulting services it might be easiest for you to simply provide the services again rather than offering a refund. This will depend on how amicable the relationship remains with your customer, but may be more attractive that having to refund the consulting fee.

    The ACL does require specific wording in terms and conditions depending on the goods, services or warranties you offer.

    Once we have your terms worked out, then we can look at your processes with you and how information is shared within your business so that you and your employees understand how best to respond to and deal with requests for replacement or refund.

    How can Onyx Legal help you?

    Your terms and conditions of supply are important documents for managing your risk. Understanding your risks and having a clear understanding of how to respond to and deal with consumer complaints also makes a big difference. Book at time to discuss your situation with one of our team.

    Make an Appointment