Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • TOP STORY: Taiwanese executive pleads guilty to role in color display tube price fixing conspiracy
    • ADVERTISING NEWS: Jetstar and Virgin Australia found to have engaged in “drip pricing”
    • ADVERTISING NEWS: Retired NFL players take settlement challenge to High Court
    • ADVERTISING—S.D. Ohio: Tito’s ‘Handmade’ Vodka misrepresentation claims partially dropped
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: Are pharmacy benefit managers writing competition out of the script?
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: Qualcomm faces antitrust investigation in South Korea
    • ANTITRUST—6th Cir.: Non-disclosure restrictions on employee did not form unenforceable non-compete agreement
    • ANTITRUST—S.D.N.Y.: Consent decree resolving challenge to New York tour bus JV approved
    • CONSUMER PROTECTION NEWS: Officials: FTC, FCC MOU Formalizes Long History of Cooperation
    • FRANCHISING & DISTRIBUTION—C.D. Cal.: Safeguard distributor plausibly alleges breach of agreement
    • LAW FIRM NEWS: Arnold & Porter welcomes consumer protection attorney
    • LAW FIRM NEWS: Greenberg Traurig, McDermott Will & Emery announce antitrust hires
    • RICO NEWS: Trial law firm files counterclaims against gasket maker in asbestos suit
    • STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—11th Cir.: Attorney fees properly granted in Chinese restaurant deceptive practices dispute
    • STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—N.D. Ala.: Consumer’s fraud claims against Behr, Home Depot fail
    • SUPREME COURT DOCKET: Recent decisions, cases, and petitions pending High Court review
    • WORTH NOTING—Other Antitrust and Trade Regulation developments
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING NEWS: Jetstar and Virgin Australia found to have engaged in “drip pricing”, (Nov 18, 2015)

    By Michael Menzhuber, J.D., LL.M.

    Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd. and Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd. have been found by the Australian Federal Court to have contravened the Australian Consumer Law by engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct through “drop pricing,” maki ...

    By Michael Menzhuber, J.D., LL.M.

    Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd. and Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd. have been found by the Australian Federal Court to have contravened the Australian Consumer Law by engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct through “drop pricing,” making false or misleading representations about the price of particular advertised airfares, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) announced. The proceedings against each of the airlines were brought by the ACCC.

    The agency alleged that, in relation to specific advertised airfares, Jetstar and Virgin failed to adequately disclose an additional Booking and Service Fee ($8.50 and $7.70 respectively) that was charged on bookings paid using most credit cards or PayPal (and by debit cards in the case of Virgin. The ACCC alleged that the Booking and Service Fee was disclosed to consumers only when they had moved through a number of stages of the booking process.

    Although the ACCC was not able to establish that the alleged false or misleading representations were made by Jetstar on its 2014 website or its promotional emails in 2014, or by Virgin on its website or in its promotional emails of 2014, the court found that false or misleading representations about specific advertised airfares were made: (1) on Jetstar’s website in 2013 and on its mobile site in 2014; and (2) on Virgin’s mobile site in 2014.

    This conduct, according to ACCC Chairman Rod Sims, is an example of “drip pricing.” Drip pricing occurs when a headline price is advertised at the beginning of an online purchasing process and additional fees and charges (which may be unavoidable or applied in most transactions) are then incrementally disclosed or “dripped.”

    Drip pricing conduct was a priority enforcement area in the ACCC’s 2014 Compliance and Enforcement Policy with the agency addressing identified behavior across a number of industries. It remains a focus of the ACCC’s current priority area of systemic consumer issues in the online marketplace. Consumer information on drip pricing is available at www.accc.gov.au

    A hearing on relief will be held on a date to be fixed by the Court. The ACCC is considering the judgment.

    News: Advertising ConsumerProtection

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use