Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Safety Compliance Pty Ltd (in liq)

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) brought proceedings against Safety Compliance Pty Ltd (in liquidation) alleging misleading or deceptive conduct and false representations in relation to telemarketing offers for workplace health and safety equipment. The court had to determine whether Safety Compliance engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, and if so, whether the conduct contravened the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). Additionally, the ACCC claimed that individuals involved in the management of Safety Compliance had accessorial liability for the company’s contraventions. The court examined whether Safety Compliance made false representations about the legal requirement to purchase their products, their affiliation with government agencies, and the coercive nature of their sales tactics.

The court found that Safety Compliance engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by implying that there was a legal requirement to purchase their products, falsely representing that they were affiliated with or endorsed by government workplace health and safety agencies, and making misleading statements about consumers’ prior agreements to purchase. The representations that Safety Compliance was a government agency or affiliated with such an agency were particularly misleading, as were the threats of government inspections and fines for non-compliance. The court concluded that these actions amounted to coercion. Furthermore, the court found that individuals who owned or managed Safety Compliance had accessorial liability for the contraventions.

In its decision, the court made several declarations reflecting its findings. The court declined to make any disclosure or adverse publicity orders concerning Safety Compliance due to its liquidation. The court will consult with the parties to establish a timetable for submissions on the nature and extent of any injunction, pecuniary penalties, disqualification orders, and costs. The court’s reasoning was grounded in the evidence provided by small business owners and officers of Paterson Group Video Ezy, which detailed the coercive and misleading nature of Safety Compliance’s telemarketing practices.