The creeping corporatisation of consumer guarantee remedial relief: Implications of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v LG Electronics Australia Pty Ltd on the Australian Consumer Law

Abstract

This article will contend that contrary to the legislative intention, the Australian Consumer Law’s consumer guarantee remedial relief procedures are complicated, cumbersome and time-consuming for many consumers whose products become defective. This is all the more so for higher-value products that become faulty after the warranty against defects (otherwise known as the manufacturer’s warranty) has expired. The article contends that this could have the unintended consequence of ceding to powerful and self-interested manufacturer or retailer corporations the responsibility to lawfully provide remedial relief to consumers outside the Australian Consumer Law. This creates an environment for the creeping corporatisation of consumer guarantee relief as highlighted in the decisions of the Federal Court and the Full Federal Court in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v LG Electronics Australia Pty Ltd. Whilst consumers have the freedom to pursue statutory relief, the reality is that the unwieldiness of the statutory regime is for many consumers, even fully-informed ones, less preferable than engaging (knowingly or unwittingly) in a corporate-driven remedial process possibly leading to a less favourable remedy for the consumer. This creeping corporatisation has the potential to undermine the legislative and regulatory framework governing consumer guarantees. This could lead to weakening consumer confidence in the Australian Consumer Law, especially the ability of consumers to rely on statutory guarantee remedies. Show more