Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited v AFT Pharmaceuticals (AU) Pty Limited

Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited, the applicant, brought proceedings against AFT Pharmaceuticals (AU) Pty Limited, the respondent, in the Federal Court of Australia, concerning allegations that the respondent's advertisements for their analgesic drug, Maxigesic, contravened the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). The applicant also brought a cross-claim alleging that their own advertisements for their analgesic drug, Nuromol, contravened the ACL. The central issues revolved around whether the advertisements made misleading or deceptive representations regarding the effectiveness of Maxigesic compared to Nuromol and other analgesics.

The court examined the specific representations made by the respondent in their advertisements, such as the claim that Maxigesic provides stronger and more effective pain relief than Nuromol at their maximum recommended daily doses, and that Maxigesic is more effective than over-the-counter (OTC) doses of paracetamol or ibuprofen alone. The court assessed whether these representations were conveyed to consumers and whether they were supported by adequate scientific evidence. The applicant also argued that their own advertisements for Nuromol contravened the ACL by making misleading claims about its efficacy.

The court concluded that several of the respondent's advertisements contained misleading or deceptive representations that contravened various sections of the ACL, including sections 18, 29, and 33. The court found that AFT's claims about Maxigesic's superior efficacy were not adequately supported by scientific evidence and were therefore misleading. The court also found that the applicant's advertisements for Nuromol contained misleading claims regarding its efficacy. The court ordered that the parties file and serve short minutes of orders within 14 days to give effect to these reasons and for the further conduct of the proceeding.