cna you make this statment sounds like accc is somewhat effetive mostly inefetive or did i already did it

Question

According to opposing viewpoint of is somewhat effective poses potential risk as not properly resolving individual disputes to stakeholders such as company and consumers according to ACCC. In the inquiry at 2017 any legal advice was not provided as harm already widespread prohibit unfair contract terms and increase penalties for anti-competitive behaviour establish a new National Anti-Scam Centre”(SB). In 2020, Flight Digital Pty Ltd charged penalties of $25,200, and the ACCC issued 2 infringement notices for false advertising on its website. On the website, it stated that consumers were entitled to a full refund within 14 days, which also applies under the ACL. However, almost 20% of the original price was deducted from the refund, failing to protect the consumer's costs (SC).

Answer 1

According to the opposing viewpoint, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is mostly ineffective rather than somewhat effective. This is because it is argued that the ACCC poses potential risks by not properly resolving individual disputes for stakeholders such as companies and consumers, as stated by the ACCC itself. Moreover, in the 2017 inquiry, no legal advice was provided, despite the widespread harm caused by unfair contract terms and anti-competitive behavior. Additionally, the establishment of the new National Anti-Scam Centre has not been deemed effective.

An example of the ACCC's ineffectiveness is seen in the case of Flight Digital Pty Ltd in 2020. The company was charged penalties amounting to $25,200, and the ACCC issued two infringement notices due to false advertising on their website. The website promised consumers a full refund within 14 days, in accordance with the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). However, upon requesting a refund, almost 20% of the original price was deducted, thus failing to adequately protect the consumer's costs.