Log In | Subscribe | | |

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to appeal flushable wipes case

Publication: 
Nigel Morris-Co...
chiefofficersnet

When our sister publication Little Blue Green Planet wrote about the ACCC's case about flushable wipes, it dealt with the legal issues from behind a curtain of humour (see here). But the ACCC has decided to appeal. Is it mad or vindictive?

What did the wet wipe say to the toilet paper? "I flush, therefore I'm flushable." Kimberley-Clark - this one's for you.

The ACCC's chairman, Rod Sims, explains : “We are appealing this decision because we believe the Court made an error in deciding whether it was misleading for Kimberly-Clark to represent that the Kleenex wipes were suitable to be flushed. We will argue on appeal that Kimberly-Clark’s flushable claims should have been found to be misleading because there was evidence of the risk of harm these wipes posed to the sewerage system, and that the trial judge was wrong to require evidence that these particular wipes had caused actual harm."

Give up. Use common sense and think of the ordinary and natural meaning of the word "flushable." It has one job and one job only: to describe the process by which material leaves the toilet pan and disappears down a pipe. After that, to try to apply the word "flushable" is to try to contort its meaning.

"The ACCC is aware of problems continuing to be reported by Australian water authorities as a result of non-suitable products, such as wet wipes, being flushed down the toilet and contributing to blockages and other operational issues." Fine. So find some other way of dealing with it - and also find a way of explaining how this is a consumer or a competition issue.

ACCC does some extremely good work. Sometimes it gets too wrapped up in its own self-importance. This, sadly, is one of them.

---------------- Advertising ----------------

World NomadsTravel Insurance | | Singapore Airlines

--------------------------------------

 


 

Amazon ads

| |