Unilever Australia Limited/and Jointly by Unlilever Australia Limited and Unilever Plc. v the Protor and Gamble Company

Unilever Australia Limited and jointly by Unilever Australia Limited and Unilever Plc (Unilever) brought proceedings against The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G) in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute concerned allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to P&G's advertising of its "Ariel" laundry detergent. Unilever contended that P&G's advertising campaign, which included television commercials and print advertisements, falsely represented that Ariel was superior to Unilever's "Omo" laundry detergent in terms of cleaning performance, particularly in removing stains.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether P&G's advertising claims constituted misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)), and whether these claims were substantiated. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the representations made about Ariel's superior cleaning power were likely to mislead or deceive consumers, and if P&G had a reasonable basis for making those claims at the time they were published.

Justice Condon considered extensive evidence, including expert testimony and consumer surveys, to assess the likely impact of the advertising on the target audience. The Court applied the established principles for determining misleading or deceptive conduct, focusing on the likely effect on a significant proportion of the relevant class of consumers. The reasoning involved a careful analysis of the specific wording and visual elements of the advertisements, comparing them against the actual performance of the products in various washing conditions. The Court found that P&G had failed to establish a reasonable basis for the claims of superior cleaning performance and that the advertisements were likely to mislead consumers into believing Ariel offered a demonstrable advantage over Omo.

Consequently, the Court found that P&G had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in contravention of section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law. Orders were made in favour of Unilever, including an injunction restraining P&G from continuing the misleading advertising campaign and an order for P&G to pay Unilever's costs.