ads that would have misled customers into thinking they were ordering from a flower shop in their local area, in a proposed $1m settlement with the Australian consumer regulator.
“Meg’s Flowers did not directly maintain any local shopfronts accessible to customers,” a statement of agreed facts submitted to the federal court in June states. In a joint submission to the federal court, Meg’s Flowers has admitted the practice was misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive, and that the company made false or misleading representations in connection with the supply of delivered flowers concerning the place of origin of goods in contravention of Australian consumer law.
The ACCC fielded 66 complaints about Meg’s Flowers in the period, including 11 from customers stating they wanted to support local businesses.Our Australian morning briefing breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it mattersThe statement of agreed facts states that directors responsible for marketing the brand had overall responsibility for the failures that led to the contraventions.