carsales succeeds in Victorian Supreme Court action against News Corp-owned competitor carsguide for misleading or deceptive conduct

| | 1 Comment

CarsGuide billboard 1 (1).jpg

The Victorian Supreme Court has ruled in favour of carsales.com Limited that competitor carsguide.com.au’s recent advertising campaign, created by BWM Dentsu, is misleading or deceptive.

 

The Court ruled that the extensive carsguide.com.au media campaign across television, radio, newspapers and billboards made a number of representations which were misleading or deceptive.

Says carsales.com Ltd CEO Greg Roebuck: “We saw the carsguide.com.au campaign as trying to damage the trusting relationship that carsales has established with consumers over many years. We see this decision as a win for both us and the consumer, who will now not be subjected to these misleading advertisements.”

 

carsales’ began legal action after the carsguide.com.au campaign was first aired on June 15. “We asked carsguide.com.au to stop but it refused. Instead of resorting to tactics similar to those employed by carsguide in their advertising, we chose to take the matter through appropriate legal channels,” said Roebuck.

 

“Carsguide has tried to paint itself as David in a battle with Goliath, when this is simply not the case. Carsguide is owned by News Corporation and some of the largest car dealerships in Australia. We are pleased with this outcome and trust that it will lead carsguide.com.au to take a different and more reasonable and balanced approach to its advertising campaigns in the future.”

Justice Judd of the Supreme Court of Victoria was definitive about the behaviour of Carsguide: “I find that by making the representations through its advertising campaign the defendant has engaged in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive the Australian public contrary to section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law”.

 

Justice Judd ruled “The defendant’s attempt to explain or justify the purpose of its advertising campaign was unpersuasive. It was superficial and internally inconsistent. It would be fanciful to concede that the defendant was disinterested in the value to its client dealers…”