No Coverage For Mobile Contracts
- ACCC alleges misconduct
- Company knew customers did not have coverage
- Accepted payment anyway
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has instituted legal proceedings in the Federal Court, Darwin against EDirect Pty Ltd, which also trades as VIPtel Mobile.
The ACCC alleges that EDirect, via telemarketing, entered into mobile phone contracts with consumers who provided addresses in areas where EDirect was unable to supply its services due to the lack of network coverage. By doing so, the ACCC alleges EDirect engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct and misrepresented the performance characteristics, uses or benefits of its mobile telecommunication services, namely that the services would work in areas where the service in fact could not work.
The ACCC also alleges that EDirect accepted payment for its mobile telecommunication services from certain consumers, when it:
- was aware or should have been aware that it wouldn't be able to supply the services within a reasonable time, or alternatively
- intended to supply mobile services that were materially different to the services for which it accepted payment from those consumers, ie EDirect accepted payment from those consumers for mobile services accessible at consumers' nominated addresses, but intended to supply services that were not accessible at consumers' nominated addresses.
The ACCC is seeking:
- pecuniary penalties
- redress for affected consumers, and
- court costs.