AMCA Vs Optus 2009 Case Study

A commonly experience issue associated with marketing innovation is Spam. This refers to unsolicited commercial messages, sent via any form of electronic communication, essentially becoming a nuisance. In an attempt to achieve justice for consumers, this issue resulted in the creation of the Spam Act 2003, this legal measure already an indication of the efforts of the legal system to protect consumers with the nuisance associated spamming. The effectiveness of this measure in achieving justice for consumers can be demonstrated in the case of AMCA v Optus 2009. In 2009, following Optus’ disregard of 2 infringement notices from the AMCA, the AMCA was forced to take Optus to the Federal Court. The pretext for AMCA’s decision to take Optus to court came in
During the trial, Optus’ disregard of the 2 infringement notices previously issued by the AMCA played a pivotal role in the Judge’s decision, with the judge ruling that Optus had knowingly acted unconscionably. In the end justice was achieved for consumers with Optus being made to pay court cost, and $110,000 for spamming its mobile phone customers. Therefore, as demonstrated in the case of AMCA v Optus 2009, the law has been highly effective in achieving justice for consumers in the area of marketing innovation, through setting up a watchdog (AMCA) which enforces to the Spam Act 2003 ensuring corporations aren’t violating the rights of consumers whilst marketing their business. Furthermore, the case highlights how effective the law is in achieving justice for consumers because the case is a quintessential example of how the law is willing to step in on behalf of consumers to achieve justice, when they can’t match or compete with large corporations such as