Dulux Fined for Misleading Paint Claims
Friday 4 November 2016 @ 9.03 a.m. | Trade & Commerce
It has been revealed that Paint maker DuluxGroup (Australia) Pty Ltd (Dulux), has been fined $400,000 for making misleading claims about its so-called heat reflective paint.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) launched legal action against Dulux over claims relating to one of its products, InfraCOOL roof paint could reduce the temperature of living areas inside homes by up to 10 degrees.
The Federal Court (the Court) has ordered Dulux to pay penalties totalling $400,000 for making false or misleading representations about the temperature reducing characteristics of two of the paint products.
Background
From June 2009 until September 2012, Dulux promoted its heat-reflective roof paint, InfraCOOL, as a paint that could reduce the interior temperature of the living zones of a house by up to 10 degrees.
From November 2011 to September 2012, Dulux also promoted its Weathershield Heat Reflect wall paint as a paint that could and would significantly reduce the interior temperature of a house.
InfraCOOL was advertised in trade paint stores and on the Dulux website.
Weathershield Heat Reflect was promoted in a wide variety of media, including on the Dulux website and Facebook page, in lifestyle magazines, major regional newspapers across Australia, television advertisements, in-store pamphlets, flyers and colour cards and on the paint tins themselves. Dulux now no longer sells the Weathershield Heat Reflect paint.
Findings of the Court
The Court found that each of these claims was false or misleading after Dulux admitted that it did not have any reasonable grounds for making those representations. Dulux's conduct falls into the "lower to middling range of seriousness", but it was a matter that Dulux takes extremely seriously. Dulux said it never set out to deliberately deceive and as soon as it learned of the breach it withdrew the relevant advertising, took immediate steps to correct it and co-operated with the ACCC's investigation.
Comment by the ACCC
The ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said:
“Dulux promised a real consumer benefit at a premium price, apparently supported by scientific evidence, when in fact Dulux had no reliable evidence of what benefit could be delivered in real world conditions because it had not tested for any reduction in the room temperature of houses painted with these products. Businesses have a responsibility to ensure that accurate information is given to consumers about the performance characteristics and benefits of their products, and that these claims are backed by adequate scientific or technical evidence. This is particularly the case where consumers pay a premium to purchase products that are promoted as delivering particular benefits.”
Comment from Dulux
Dulux said in a statement that the matter had occurred more than four years ago and was related to a "very small, niche range of specialist heat reflect paint products". The company said it was:
"… disappointing that it has taken this amount of time and money to reach an outcome that we largely conceded soon after the ACCC commenced its action in 2012".
The penalties
Dulux consented to declarations by the Court, and provided an undertaking to the Court not to make similar representations unless it has reasonable grounds for doing so and to clearly and prominently explain the factors that may reduce the effect of applying heat reflective paint. Dulux was also ordered to publish corrective notices in The Australian newspaper and on its website, and to pay the ACCC’s costs.
TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.
Sources:
Dulux caned by ACCC for claims paint could lower inside temperature – afr.com.au
Dulux hit with $400k fine for misleading claims – abc.net.au
Dulux to pay $400,000 for misleading cooling paint claims – ACCC Media Release MR 201/16
