Forget the ‘Yes’ slogan, Optus. It’s a big ‘No’ from the ACCC

Since Rio Tinto blew up the 46,000-year-old Juukan Gorge rock shelters in 2020, a string of Australian companies has had their own “Juukan” moments – detonating their social licence credentials on the back of their treatment of Indigenous Australians.

Optus has joined this ignominious list.

Optus is being sued for pressuring vulnerable customers.

First it was Woolworths, which only at the 11th hour and in the face of enormous protests scrapped plans in 2021 to build a giant Dan Murphy’s liquor barn in Darwin, very close to three dry Indigenous communities. Lift-off was aborted, but the supermarket giant failed to dodge the optics bullet.

About the same time, Telstra was ordered to pay $50 million in penalties after admitting it broke consumer law and acted unconscionably when it signed up 108 Indigenous consumers to multiple post-paid mobile contracts that they didn’t understand and couldn’t afford.

“Sales staff in these Telstra-branded stores used unconscionable practices to sell products to dozens of Indigenous customers who, in many cases, spoke English as a second or third language,” ACCC’s then chair Rod Sims said at the time. The Telstra breaches took place between 2016 and 2018.

This makes it all the more inconceivable that Optus is facing similar allegations – on an even larger scale. The ACCC is alleging Optus engaged in unconscionable conduct in breach of consumer law by selling phones and plans to hundreds of consumers that they often did not want or need.

When one’s competitor is pinged, checking your own shop’s culture and selling behaviour would seem obvious.

The period of Optus’ alleged transgressions began at almost the same time Telstra was ordered by the Federal Court to pay its penalty. So Optus must have been aware of such selling practices in the telco space.

When one’s competitor is pinged, checking your own shop’s culture and selling behaviour would seem obvious.

The allegation made by the competition watchdog against Optus is only exacerbated by the references to the company’s aggressive debt-collection practices, which were used even when the telco knew the contracts had been “created fraudulently”, according to the ACCC.

Here is the kicker: The ACCC says many of these exploited consumers were vulnerable or disadvantaged, living with a mental disability, diminished cognitive capacity or learning difficulties, were financially dependent, unemployed or had limited financial and legal literacy.

Many of the affected customers were First Nations Australians from regional and remote areas or people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

This is a company still recovering from its poor response to the 2022 cybersecurity crisis that put at risk the personal information of 9 million customers.

Optus is being sued in the Federal Court over this by the communications regulator, which alleges it did not protect customers’ confidential information.

The message is clear. Big brands must clean up their acts. The big business lobby’s argument that anti-business consumer sentiment is being drummed up by opportunistic politicians gets weaker every time a regulator such as the ACCC or the Australian Securities and Investments Commission takes legal action, accusing companies of misleading consumers or unconscionable conduct.

We have had supermarkets allegedly fooling customers with fake discounts. We had a settlement over ghost flights sold by Qantas. We’ve heard allegations that Harvey Norman customers were misled over interest-free promotions.

Only last week, ASIC launched a legal action against QBE over allegations that some of the insurance giant’s customers have been misled about price discounts they thought they were getting on their premiums.

So much for the Optus “Yes” logo. At least for some of its customers, the answer should have been a loud and clear “No”.

The Business Briefing newsletter delivers major stories, exclusive coverage and expert opinion. Sign up to get it every weekday morning.