Apple, ACCC agree on $2.25m 4G fine

Apple, ACCC agree on $2.25m 4G fine

Summary: Apple and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) have agreed that Apple should pay a $2.25 million penalty for calling its iPads "4G", even though they don't work on Australian 4G networks. However, the judge has not yet approved this amount.


Apple and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) have agreed that Apple should pay a $2.25 million penalty for calling its iPads "4G", even though they don't work on Australian 4G networks. However, the judge has not yet approved this amount.

The ACCC took Apple to court in March for using the moniker "4G" to describe iPads that were able to connect to mobile networks, even though the 4G frequencies that the iPad uses don't work on current Australian long-term evolution (LTE) 4G networks.

Facts agreed on by the ACCC and Apple Australia suggest that Apple's conduct breached consumer laws in four ways — by saying that the new iPad with Wi-Fi and 4G could connect to Telstra's LTE network on:

  • Its web page and online store

  • Its own stores

  • Information and materials provided to resellers

  • Information and materials provided by Apple on reseller sites.

Each of these instances of non-compliance has a maximum potential penalty of $1.1 million, meaning that Apple was originally facing a maximum penalty of $4.4 million. Apple and the ACCC have settled on a penalty of $2.25 million.

Justice Mordecai Bromberg adjourned the matter until next week, as he wanted further information to assess the appropriateness of the penalty. Specifically, he wanted Apple to provide financial information and sales figures for iPads during the period while the new iPad was sold as 4G, as well as information pertaining to the differences between 3G and 4G networks.

Apple's counsel argued that the number of iPads sold is irrelevant, pointing to similar cases involving Optus and Harvey Norman, where the court accepted general statements about the size of the businesses rather than requiring specific, detailed financial information. Apple, however, finally agreed to provide the sales information confidentially.

Apple also noted that refunds may have been sought for any reason — there was data collected on whether refunds were sought specifically over the 4G issue, and the court will need to consider this in its judgment.

Based on the facts before him, Bromberg said that he had "no idea" of the impact on a customer expecting to connect to a 4G network. He said that the evidence before him didn't tell him how the networks were different. "There is nothing before me that differentiates between 3G and 4G other than the fact they have a different numeral," he said.

The ACCC told Bromberg that he didn't need to "delve into the technical characteristics" in order to make his ruling, saying that it is only focused on whether consumers were misled, rather than the impact on those consumers of receiving a 3G-capable device rather than a 4G-capable device.

Apple pointed out that it provided unconditional refunds to all potentially affected iPad customers, altered its worldwide marketing materials and would bear the burden of a record of non-compliance with consumer laws. Apple also changed the designator globally. This action, along with the $2.25 million penalty, would provide an appropriate balance between penalty and corrective action, according to the ACCC.

Topics: Apple, Government, Government AU

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Before I say anything I have to mention that i'm not an Apple fan, don't own any Apple products (any more) or plan on getting any in the future but for once I have to give Apple credit on trying to do the right thing, Its about time!
    • Bioxode... what can I say? beautiful! The way you try to align yourself with the anti-Apple crowd, and then put forward a completely absurd and transparent suggestion. You work hard for the money, no less.

      Of course, one with a brain must wonder how you could spin it that Apple deserve "credit for doing the right thing" when they have infact been busted for misleading consumers with outright lies they knew very well were lies!? They didn't submit - they went to court and argued AGAINST it. They've "agreed" to this amount because it's LESS than they could be given legally, and they have been at war with ACC til an amount has been decided upon. They're pretty lucky - 2 million means very little to Apple. The bad press, however, means a lot. But I'm sure they'll be out, as usual, on every comment board they can trying trying to reprogramme the truth of the matter! And good luck with your suing of Samsung to bully the competitive market with ridiculous lawsuits - nice work from a company that exploited the original patent system to steal most of their ideas. The tide is turning against Apple - which is why they won't show their sales figures - they get press off their enormous sales, but literally refuse to BACK THEM UP - even when demanded to in court. It's all becoming a tad transparent.
  • It's not enough! They should have to pay the full penalty. Have to wonder why the ACCC lets them off with a slap on the wrist.