Dell corporate communications officer, Rob Small, said the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has no right to claim victory having had four of five demands it raised in court rejected.
The ACCC accused Dell of inadequately disclosing delivery charges when quoting prices in advertisements it posted in national newspapers between June 1994 and November 2001.
The court ruled that references to the delivery charge in smaller text at the bottom of the ads or alongside the price "did not make clear to customers that the delivery charge was compulsory". However the court dismissed the ACCC's allegation that Dell misled consumers on price.
Dell was ordered to run corrective advertisements explaining how the charges could mislead. The court rejected four other remedies demanded by the ACCC, including consumer compensation and deeds of community service.
"This decision makes clear that advertisers need to be upfront about additional costs", said ACCC chairman, Professor Allan Fels. "Price is a powerful drawcard. It lures the reader in."
Small said that anyone intelligent enough to be buying a computer wouldn't have been misled by the advertisements.
"There were very few complaints about this issue," Small said.
The ACCC said it is still deliberating the court's decision on price disclosure.
For the first time, I agree with the ACCC. When I bought a Dell computer back in early 2000, the sales representative did not mention a $99 delivery fee . Once the order was confirmed via fax, I noticed the delivery fee.
From my viewpoint, it was a very rude hit in the face. The sales rep should have informed me of the charge during the order.
On the positive side, it is good to see that Dell now mentions the deliver fee in its advertisements.