Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Mazda Australia Pty Ltd (No 2)

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) filed a case against Mazda Australia Pty Ltd, alleging that the company had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct. The dispute centred around the respondent's contravention of sections 18(1) and 29(1)(m) of Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). The ACCC claimed that Mazda Australia Pty Ltd made false representations concerning the existence or effect of consumer guarantees, which were not aligned with the statutory consumer guarantees. The matter was brought before the Federal Court of Australia to determine the validity of these claims.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether Mazda Australia Pty Ltd had indeed engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by making false representations, and if so, whether these actions contravened the specific sections of the Competition and Consumer Act mentioned. The court had to examine the form of declarations provided by the respondent to ascertain the accuracy of the consumer guarantees and their compliance with the statutory requirements.

In its judgment, the court found that Mazda Australia Pty Ltd had indeed contravened sections 18(1) and 29(1)(m) of the Competition and Consumer Act by making false representations about the consumer guarantees. The court noted that the form of declarations used by Mazda Australia Pty Ltd contained misleading information, which led consumers to believe that they were receiving certain statutory guarantees that did not actually exist. The court concluded that the respondent's conduct was misleading and deceptive, and thus, it contravened the provisions of the Act. The court dismissed the ACCC's claim in so far as it related to questions of liability, but otherwise upheld the claims.

As per Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, the court ordered that the applicant’s claim in so far as it relates to questions of liability is otherwise dismissed. The court did not specify further orders beyond this dismissal.