Multiple prices are when a company displays more than one price for the same items or services. In this case, the supplier must sell the item or service at the lowest displayed price or remove the item from sale until the price is corrected. Small retailers who do not fall under the unit price code may choose to introduce unit prices if they sell the minimum assortment of food. However, if a retailer opts for unit prices, they must comply with all the requirements of the Code. Two-price comparative advertising is often used by companies to demonstrate the difference between the prices they charge for a product compared to a previous price for that product (e.g., “was $300/now $200” or “$300 now $200”). This approach is also known as “double advertising” or “strikethrough” pricing. The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW (IPART) is the independent price regulator for services provided by the NSW government, including the costs of water, energy, public transport and local government. In zamel`s case, the retailer used “was/now” prices in some of its catalogs by eliminating higher prices with one line and placing the lower price in larger and heavier fonts in other catalogs. In the period preceding the respective catalog sales periods, the 44 pieces of jewelry were not sold at all or only in very limited quantities at the “was” or “crossed out” price. In addition, Zamel`s had adopted and implemented a price negotiation policy under which its representatives were allowed to sell jewelry at prices below the “strikethrough” price indicated in the respective catalog and that an ordinary or reasonably ignorant customer would not have purchased at the “was” or “crossed out” price if the items had been purchased prior to the sales period.5 A retailer, which is subject to the price code `unit`, must indicate the following: a unit price for all foodstuffs (unless exempted from it). In keeping with its enforcement policy and priorities, the ACCC`s investigations generally focus on matters “that affect vulnerable consumers or have the potential to disrupt the competitive process or cause widespread harm to consumers or small businesses.” In 2021, the ACCC focused in particular on consumer issues related to COVID-19. From the RESEARCH on RAT prices described above, it is clear that this is still a priority for accc. If you make statements about prices, including in your ads, and when talking to customers, take the time to get it right.

It is illegal to make false or misleading statements about the price of products or services. Fighting the spread of overpricing: why is AFP involved? If you make “was/now” price claims, make sure you can substantiate those claims if required by the ACCC. Keep your numbers honest and keep records of your previous prices to prove you`re following the rules. If you`re not sure if your prices are misleading, seek legal advice before you go. If you`re not sure how your website is performing and your prices in the eyes of the law, sign up for Pod Legal`s $29 website legal audit. We identify potential problems on your website and present you with a comprehensive and non-binding legal report. Register here. The above rules apply even if the “before” price is not indicated. When retailers advertise a price and “save 60%” (or words to that effect), they must be able to prove that number by indicating a previously asked price that correlates with the savings claimed. Two weeks later, the ACCC confirmed that it had significant concerns about the retail prices of RATs: see this ACCC press release. He noted that despite the wholesale cost of RATs between $3.95 and $11.45 per test, some RATs were sold between $20 and $30 each.

AccC President Rod Sims reportedly said: Supermarkets and online retailers must comply with the unit price code when selling certain food-based foods. The unit price allows consumers to quickly compare products of different sizes and brands to find out which product offers the best value for money. 1 www.accc.gov.au/consumers/prices-surcharges-receipts/price-displays 2 www.accc.gov.au/media-release/furniture-chains-pay-penalties-for-making-alleged-misleading-was-now-price-claims 3 The Jewellery Group Pty Ltd v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission [2013] FCAFC 144.4 The Jewellery Group Pty Ltd v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission [2013] FCAFC 144, [1] 5 The Jewellery Group Pty Ltd v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission [2013] FCAFC 144, [37].