Australia Leading Case unconscionabilitycompetition and regulation

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Kobelt

(2019) 267 CLR 1

JurisdictionAustralia

CourtHigh Court of Australia

Year2019

StatusBinding authority

Summary

HCA held 4:3 that a book-up system with Indigenous customers was not unconscionable under ASIC Act s.12CB; unconscionability requires more than a poor bargain.

Key Principle

The HCA (4:3) held that a book-up system operated by a general store owner with Indigenous customers was not unconscionable under the ASIC Act s.12CB; the concept of unconscionability requires more than a poor bargain.

Area of Law

consumer

Related Cases

Google LLC v ACCC (2021) 391 ALR 346

Google was not liable for misleading or deceptive conduct under Australian consumer law in respect of sponsored search results created and placed by third-party advertisers.

ACCC v Valve Corporation (No 3) [2016] FCA 196

Valve Corporation made false representations to Australian consumers that no refund rights existed for Steam game purchases, breaching consumer guarantee provisions of the ACL.

ACCC v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd (2016) 340 ALR 25

FCAFC upheld that marketing identical ibuprofen products as targeting specific pain types was a misleading representation under the Australian Consumer Law.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Kobelt and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Australian Securities and Inve...