Written by In a recent penalty hearing between the ACCC and Uber BV (a subsidiary of the Uber Group), a judge from the Federal Court of Australia asked the two parties to provide additional evidence as to how they had come to their agreed settlement figure of $26 million, which the Judge deemed to be excessive.
The background to the dispute was that the ACCC commenced proceedings against UBV for alleged contraventions of the Australian Consumer law, for inaccurately calculating fares for UBV’s ‘UberTaxi’ product and incorrectly displaying cancellation messages on the Uber app and website.
UBV admitted to the contraventions and, in a jointly filed Statement of Agreed Facts and Admissions, indicated its agreement to a $26 million pecuniary penalty.
Interestingly, during the hearing the Judge commented that whilst it is often highly desirable to accept jointly agreed penalties, he refused to make the penalty orders without further evidence from the parties. This was because, according to his calculations, the penalty should have only amounted to $4-5 million. The reasoning was based on the fact that the amount of the penalty must correspond to the gain made by the contravening company.
It will be interesting to see whether the Judge will impose a penalty below the agreed amount once he has received the further evidence. Nevertheless, the approach emphasises the need for comprehensive evidence to support any proposed penalty – no matter the status of the offender.