Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Mercedes-Benz Australia/Pacific Pty Ltd

In the case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Mercedes-Benz Australia/Pacific Pty Ltd, the ACCC brought proceedings against Mercedes-Benz for contraventions of section 127(1) of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) concerning compliance with a recall notice. The recall notice was issued by the Minister in respect of motor vehicles fitted with Takata airbag inflators, which posed a safety risk to consumers. Mercedes-Benz admitted to making statements to consumers that minimised or mitigated the perception of the risk associated with the recall, in breach of its approved Communication and Engagement Plan (CEP). The ACCC sought pecuniary penalties and a declaration of contravention against Mercedes-Benz.

The court had to decide whether Mercedes-Benz had contravened section 127(1) of the ACL by making statements to consumers that minimised or mitigated the perception of the risk associated with the recall. The court also had to determine the appropriate penalty for the contraventions, taking into account the totality principle and the need for deterrence. The court found that Mercedes-Benz had indeed contravened the ACL by making the statements in question, and that the penalty should reflect both specific and general deterrence considerations. The court considered the safety concerns associated with the recall, the potential impact of non-compliance in the motor vehicle industry, and the need to maintain consumer confidence in the recall process and product safety measures.

The court held that Mercedes-Benz had contravened section 127(1) of the ACL by making statements to consumers that minimised or mitigated the perception of the risk associated with the recall. The contraventions were grouped into two courses of conduct, involving the Precaution Statements and the No Incidents Statements. The court found that the totality principle applied, and that the penalty should reflect both specific and general deterrence considerations. The court took into account the cooperation of Mercedes-Benz with the ACCC, the importance of achieving the highest possible recall completion rates, and the need to maintain consumer confidence in the recall process and product safety measures. The court ordered Mercedes-Benz to pay a pecuniary penalty of $12.5 million and a contribution to the ACCC's costs of $100,000.

The court made a declaration that Mercedes-Benz had contravened section 127(1) of the ACL by making statements to consumers that minimised or mitigated the perception of the risk associated with the recall. The court ordered Mercedes-Benz to pay a pecuniary penalty of $12.5 million and a contribution to the ACCC's costs of $100,000. The penalty reflected both specific and general deterrence considerations, and took into account the cooperation of Mercedes-Benz with the ACCC, the importance of achieving the highest possible recall completion rates, and the need to maintain consumer confidence in the recall process and product safety measures.