What’s the difference between “misled” and “deliberate fraudulent deception“
Sorry - not legalese; hope you don't mind.
I don't think our helpful lawyer
@Anna is around anymore, unfortunately.
Simple 'misleading' conduct may be inadvertent - but that's not necessarily relevant to the ACCC case, as I don't think intention comes into it - its whether consumers were misled, or not.
Deliberate fraud deception is obviously more serious - a malicious intent to commit a fraud on the customers.
what is the most severe crime/misdemeanour/fraud ACCC would have gone for
I don't think the ACCC goes after a 'crime'. If a crime is suspected, it would be referred to police.
The Trade Practices Act forbids "false and misleading" actions by corporations (at least). The ACCC can take to court anyone it seriously suspects of committing such.
After investigation, ACCC may press for a $$$ penalty commensurate with the nature and extent of the alleged false and misleading conduct. Many, many cases over a long period Vs just a few; demonstrably 'inadvertent' Vs demonstrably committed knowingly; large corporation Vs small one.
the gap between what QF ”acknowledged “ as opposed to what it could have hung for
As I understood it, Qantas initially flatly denied all wrong doing. In the course of subsequent back and forth, the ACCC withdrew one of its allegations, and Qantas admitted the other (each involving thousands of instances). There was a settlement, which means it didn't go to court, so the parties decided the penalties amongst themselves. If it had gone to court, and Qantas was found guilty on both types of allegations, then the fine would likely have been a lot more. If they could have disproved all allegations, there would be no penalty. But I guess there was a type of plea-bargain. Qantas admitted to one lot and ACCC withdrew the other, to get it done and dusted quicker, and for customers to get their 'remediation' faster.