Question 1 In April 2016, the Federal Court of Australia found that the maker of Nurofen, Reckitt Benckiser, breached se
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 4:57 pm
Question 1 In April 2016, the Federal Court of Australia found
that the maker of Nurofen, Reckitt Benckiser, breached section 18
of the Australian Consumer Law “and another section of the ACL”.
The Federal Court found that Nurofen’s "specific pain” range misled
consumers because they all contained the same active ingredient —
ibuprofen lysine 342mg — and did the same thing. Nevertheless the
“specific pain” range cost twice as much as the “nonspecific”
general Nurofen product. The products promised to relieve back
pain, period pain, and tension headache or migraine, even though it
is not possible to specifically target pain relief in such a
manner. It was admitted by the ACCC that if a consumer looked
carefully he or she would have noticed small print on the packets
that said that the active ingredient in each of the products was
the same. The ACCC was responsible for bringing legal proceedings
against the manufacturer in the Federal Court. What arguments do
you believe the ACCC would have presented to the Court in relation
to the breach of s 18? Would the ACCC also be able to argue a
breach of s 29? Refer to relevant cases to support your analysis of
the legislation. (10 marks)
that the maker of Nurofen, Reckitt Benckiser, breached section 18
of the Australian Consumer Law “and another section of the ACL”.
The Federal Court found that Nurofen’s "specific pain” range misled
consumers because they all contained the same active ingredient —
ibuprofen lysine 342mg — and did the same thing. Nevertheless the
“specific pain” range cost twice as much as the “nonspecific”
general Nurofen product. The products promised to relieve back
pain, period pain, and tension headache or migraine, even though it
is not possible to specifically target pain relief in such a
manner. It was admitted by the ACCC that if a consumer looked
carefully he or she would have noticed small print on the packets
that said that the active ingredient in each of the products was
the same. The ACCC was responsible for bringing legal proceedings
against the manufacturer in the Federal Court. What arguments do
you believe the ACCC would have presented to the Court in relation
to the breach of s 18? Would the ACCC also be able to argue a
breach of s 29? Refer to relevant cases to support your analysis of
the legislation. (10 marks)