Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Oobi Baby Pty Ltd

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) brought an action against Oobi Baby Pty Ltd and one of its directors, seeking relief in respect of the company's alleged contravention of section 48 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). The ACCC claimed that Oobi Baby Pty Ltd had engaged in a practice of minimum resale price maintenance by entering into agreements with retailers not to sell products below a price specified by Oobi Baby Pty Ltd. The Federal Court of Australia was required to determine whether the company had engaged in the conduct and, if so, what relief should be granted.

The court found that Oobi Baby Pty Ltd had engaged in the practice of minimum resale price maintenance. The court was satisfied that Oobi Baby Pty Ltd had communicated to retailers that it would not supply products unless the retailers agreed not to sell, advertise for sale, or display for sale the products at a price less than a price specified by Oobi Baby Pty Ltd. The court found that the company's conduct contravened section 48 of the Act, which prohibits corporations from engaging in anti-competitive practices. The court made several orders against Oobi Baby Pty Ltd, including an injunction preventing the company from engaging in similar conduct for three years, a pecuniary penalty of $40,000, and a requirement to publish information notices to retailers and on its website. The court also ordered one of the company's directors to attend trade practices training.

The Federal Court of Australia made several orders against Oobi Baby Pty Ltd and one of its directors. The court restrained Oobi Baby Pty Ltd from engaging in minimum resale price maintenance for three years, from inducing or attempting to induce retailers not to sell, advertise for sale, or display for sale products at a price less than a specified price, and from refusing or withholding the supply of products to retailers for the same reason. The court also ordered Oobi Baby Pty Ltd to pay a pecuniary penalty of $40,000 and to publish information notices to retailers and on its website. The court ordered one of the company's directors to attend trade practices training on the responsibilities and obligations in relation to the conduct declared by the court to be in contravention of section 48 of the Act. Finally, the court ordered the respondents to pay the ACCC's costs of and incidental to the proceeding.