Slashdot Mirror

Have a look at the rules around cancelling a service. Specifically, the bit that says:

If you have a major problem with a service or a minor problem that can't be fixed within a reasonable time you have the right to cancel a service contract, when it is: ... unfit for the purpose you asked for.

There are reasons why I could not see myself moving to the USA. Shonky services, with no laws to limit the damage they can cause, are a significant part of those reasons...

This is invaluable info that customers should be more aware of - and the US should follow.

In Australia, NBN provider speeds are reported to the public.

https://www.accc.gov.au/media-...

Sure, the NBN rollout has not been without its problems and controversy but reports on how the various providers are scoring gets reported.

what-is-a-major-problem

The keyboard not functioning correctly fundamentally is a major problem with notebook. I would NOT have purchased a machine, hypothetically if I had purchased one, had I known about the defect. Otherwise, yeah, I won't buy that model now. Which is the whole purpose of our consumer protection laws, which, again, do exist.

It is and the ACCC fined large telcos and made them pay back the differences between the plan the customer was on and the plan that was achievable on the link. Customers that were affected could also cancel their contracts with no penalty for early termination.

The ACCC also drew up new advertising guidelines which require ISP's to advertise the rate achievable in peak times.

Going forward, if after connection, it is found that the rate you signed up for is not achievable on the link you can downgrade the contracted rate to what is achievable or pull out of the contract.

https://www.accc.gov.au/public...
https://www.accc.gov.au/consum...

It is and the ACCC fined large telcos and made them pay back the differences between the plan the customer was on and the plan that was achievable on the link. Customers that were affected could also cancel their contracts with no penalty for early termination.

The ACCC also drew up new advertising guidelines which require ISP's to advertise the rate achievable in peak times.

Going forward, if after connection, it is found that the rate you signed up for is not achievable on the link you can downgrade the contracted rate to what is achievable or pull out of the contract.

https://www.accc.gov.au/public...
https://www.accc.gov.au/consum...

Might be time to get those consumer laws up to modern standard, have a look at the EU or here in AU.

Gaming may not be a right, but under the Australia Consumer Law, refunds on products that fail to meet reasonable expectations are. Valve was being stupid.

Right, but there's a huge amount of room to debate what counts as a "reasonable expectation." Especially when the product being sold by Valve is technically a license to access a game. I'm not an expert in Aussie law, but I suspect that Valve's position is along the lines that as long as the license allowed them to access the material as advertised, then what they sold is 100% within expectations and the actual content itself isn't relevant under the CPG laws.

But I do agree that they were dumb to not get some Legal people to look into Aussie law ahead of time... if you're going to play in International business it's an absolute necessity.

Gaming may not be a right, but under the Australia Consumer Law, refunds on products that fail to meet reasonable expectations are. Valve was being stupid.

Developer subscription? Sorry neither have nor need one.

And you keep pretending you own your own life. It does not work that way anymore. I do not even believe that I "own" my devices now. The last machine I knew I owned was an NEC APC H03. I know I "owned" that because when I purchased it and it arrived they wanted to charge me extra for a technical manual. All I wanted was the details of the system calls. They wanted me to pay and I did not want to. I complained to ACCC (Now https://www.accc.gov.au/consum...). Next think I knew there was a man at my door, begging me to sign an NDA but carefully telling me I do not have to, with a 3x3x4 ft box that contained everything down to chip mask for the proprietary chips. Who knew it was illegal to sell a programmable device in this country without providing the full specifications? That was 1984 and this is now. Nowadays you might just as well assume that you are owned before you open the box.

You are making a silly assumption if you think I trust anyone. You are making an even bigger one if you think you can do something about it.

Amusing that the only computer I "knew" I owned was purchased in 1984.

Many places have point of sale laws. If the conditions of contract are not clearly established at the point of sale, they do not exist. This is reasonable because, you have the cost of shopping, going to the store, getting the product and returning home and in the case of software installation costs. Any agreement post the purchase is invalid, as in sound contractual terms, they should reimburse your costs associated with the purchase and the return, when you are presented new conditions that you disagree with. This includes documentation inside the box, let alone scattered across the internet. They are basically just putting up a legal bluff, in most countries they are screwed and they know it, they are just fending it off by giving a back door to you via their software to your government. They would lose a class action law suit if brought against them in the right jurisdiction, especially say the UK or Australia with far stronger consumer rights laws eg https://www.accc.gov.au/consum... (what American companies are allowed to get away with is just mind boggling, now wonder they wanted to force crappy laws US on Australia via the TPP, the Toilet Paper Protocol, named so for what it does to countries constitutions.)

I don't play semantics I just go with reasonable rules https://www.accc.gov.au/busine.... Failure would be no longer fit for the purpose for which is was intended ie supplying a reasonable charge to allow reasonable use of the device. I know some countries are tougher on this, than those that blatantly favour corporate profits but I think they need to be even tougher and not be sucked down by corrupted foreign government influence.

Actually, the real reason behind this is that they were about to get their asses handed to them in court by the ACCC. They've been trying to fight the ACCC's lawsuit, claiming that Australian consumer protection laws don't apply to them (they do). As a last-ditch effort to avoid massive fines, they've decided to mostly comply with our laws, and it's simply easier to have one policy for all steam users rather than only offering refunds to Australians. Their wording is 100% spin.

The problem here is that consumer laws don't provide the protection you think they do. I'm not sure why you mention either the PSN or Steam as neither of those services seem to run afoul of anything in the laws.

I'm dont know or care about PSN, but the ACCC disagrees with you where steam is concerned.

Perhaps you should inform them that the consumer laws don't provide the protection they think it does, since you obviously know better.

For those who can't be bothered researching, Australian consumer protection laws guarantee us a refund in the event of a product that is not fit for purpose. For example, a game that doesn't run. If an item I have purchased is not it for purpose, then I am entitled to my choice of a refund or replacement. Furthermore, it's a violation of our consumer protection laws to say you don't give refunds, because you're legally required to.

Valve and the ACCC are still in a spate of litigation (according to the Q1 ACCC report here http://www.accc.gov.au/system/... ) in regards to not offering refunds.

To me that headline just says "Valve announces that they're still not working on Half-Life 3".

So when is this amazing new innovation which is absolutely definitely not just me-too-ism coming? I'd appreciate if somebody would clarify the anticipated release order for SteamVR/SteamController/SteamMachine/SteamOS/SteamTrain/HL3/armageddon.

There's also that little Illegal business practices matter. Not to mention the abysmal quality of their "technical support".

So I guess my real question is "why should I care?"

Fuck Valve. I'd rather burn my money.

For this to be successful it needs to be easy

There's another factor - it also needs to be worthwhile.

We (Linux users) can help with this by supporting people who do port games, both morally and financially.

This means buying games that are released for linux, emailling developers of games you want and telling them that a port would be a guaranteed sale, and emailling devs who do port to say thanks. I now own over 100 nonfree games, it's been a great couple of years. Kerbal Space Program, Civilization V, and Borderlands 2 being standouts. I can't wait for Bioshock Infinite.

But this isn't all smooth sailing, there are 2 problems doing this:

1, the group of linux users who are on what amounts to a religious crusade against nonfree software and refuse to buy any software, period. There's not much you can do about this other than trying to convince them that there's a sane middle-ground between idealism and corporate evil. This is difficult because many of these people will ignore any rational argument you might make unless you're Richard Stallman (and then it doesn't matter whether you're rational or not). I can't find a source right now, but IIRC even Stallman doesn't disappove of nonfree content, he just thinks that the engines should be free. But the zealots don't seem to have picked up on this. (I can already hear the screams of "Ooh, them's fighting words!")

2, Valve's atrocious business practices make purchasing linux games difficult for those of us who know and defend our rights. For example, as an Australian I'm entitled to a refund for any game that doesn't work. Valve's business practices in this regard are dodgy to say the least. Which means that I can't buy anything via Steam, which makes it harder to support the porters. I buy everything via either the humble store, GOG, or direct from Aspyr these days. But it's harder and sometimes more expensive than simply hitting 'buy' in steam.

Based on ACCC files, this is old news (December 2011). http://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-takes-action-against-excite-mobile-pty-ltd

And in any country with decent consumer protection laws (e.g. Australia), that term is void.

In Australia this has been mostly fixed legislatively under the 'component pricing' laws.

Component pricing is advertising a price in its component parts rather than as a single figure, and can create an impression that a product is being offered for sale at a lower price than it actually is. The [legislation requires] that if you choose to use component pricing in advertisements, you must also provide consumers with a prominent single total price for goods and services, as they are able to be quantified at that time.

The single price means the minimum total cost that is able to be quantified (or calculated) at the time of making the representation.

You must include in the single price any:

• * charges of any desciption payable by a consumer to purchase the good or service (e.g. administration fees, compulsory services charges, booking fees)
• * taxes, duties, fees, levies or charges payable by the consumer for the supply of the good or service (e.g. goods and services tax or sales tax).

As the poster below mentioned, Australia currently has one of the strongest economies in the world (in part due to having a lot of expensive dirt, and not letting our banks get away with US-style shenanigans).

Meanwhile the 'Voldemort Tax' you mention isn't to stop complaints about the Carbon Tax, but rather to stop business jacking up prices unfairly, and then falsely blaming it on the Carbon Tax. If their prices do need to increase due to the tax, then they are allowed to state this: http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1039037

That's not even slightly relevant. You linked to a quick links page, a directory of useful links provided by a government organisation. By your logic, TransGrid and the Fuel Gauge Report are government regulatory organisations simply because the ACCC links to them (and FGR isn't even Aussie).

Also, it's highly unlikely that there is legislation enforcing the ASB's authority. Like in New Zealand, the advertising industry founded a "self-regulation" body so that the government wouldn't regulate them. It worked, by the way.

That's not even slightly relevant. You linked to a quick links page, a directory of useful links provided by a government organisation. By your logic, TransGrid and the Fuel Gauge Report are government regulatory organisations simply because the ACCC links to them (and FGR isn't even Aussie).

Also, it's highly unlikely that there is legislation enforcing the ASB's authority. Like in New Zealand, the advertising industry founded a "self-regulation" body so that the government wouldn't regulate them. It worked, by the way.

The ASB is a non-government organisation.

- well, you can call it what you want, but here it is. accc.GOV.au It doesn't matter if they are 'self-regulation' or whatever kind of regulation, it's about licensing and regulations and it's backed by the government legislation. This is not free-market solution at all, with a free market solution people wouldn't be forced into any such 'self-governing' bodies.

FINRA is another so called 'self-governing body' in USA, but try and become a broker or an investment advisor, you are immediately under their governance, you can't get your licensing without being governed by them, and if you want to run a business helping people to invest, you can't do it without getting those types of licenses.

So you can call it 'self-regulation' all you like, but people can't do business legally without being regulated by these organisations, and these organisations have power of government legislation behind them.

So what?
First: what's a 'normal' website? How is posting ads on /. different from FB or anywhere else where people can leave comments?

Second: what's 'advertising'? How about you mention your product or service on /. (in Australia) and then what, why would it be different? If this is specifically about FB, then it's camel's nose under the tent, gov't just needs one instance of regulation that covers something specific and then it expands it to everything. Aren't we all 'terrorists' and guilty by some gov't definition already?

Third: this is it - why is this branch of government now forcing moderation of people's comments on websites?

You seem intentionally dense or perhaps just another fanboi. As has been pointed out to you. This is all about misleading advertising. The standards are irrelevent, As is whether it is WiFI+4G because that is what they chose to name it is also completely irrelevent. Every Company is subject to the laws of the countries they do business in. How would you feel if an Australian phone company started selling 4g phones in the US and you brought one only to find it only works on Australian networks?.
The ACCC in Australia is strict but extremely even handed, these laws apply as strictly to Australian companies as it does to US ones, many Australian companies have run afoul of them too, I only find it sad that you seem to think that a government organisation that actually works for the consumer interests is a bad thing, companies using small print and excuses to excuse lies in adverts while acceptable overseas is NOT acceptable here.
. http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/815335

It sounds almost EXACTLY like it is the equivalent of Chapter 11 BANKRUPTCY in the US. (anyone with knowledge of the specific lawys tell me if I am right or wrong).

With liquidation being Chapter 7.

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1009395

Don't deal with bankrupt companies. In any country. If they can't pay their bills, they can't pay their suppliers, their inventory can get sold off, gift cards could be non-redeemable, your order could be paid for by you and the money gone and you get nothing.

If you see something in the store and you buy it right there you may be OK, just don't expect support, warrantee service, returns, refunds or exchanges.

They are going to die, and screw people on the way down.

Warranty deadlines seem to be a very typical US-consumer-shafting.

If the product has failed due to manufacturing defect despite reasonable use, then the retailer (and then ultimately manufacturer) is required to replace it. If this is a few days out of the manufacturer's warranty it is usually irrelevant.

See Warranties and Refunds - ACCC

Statutory rights are not limited to a set time
period. Instead, they apply for the amount of time
that is reasonable to expect, given the cost and
quality of the item.

This means a consumer may be entitled to a
remedy under their statutory rights after any
manufacturer’s voluntary or extended warranty has
expired.

For example, it is reasonable to expect that an
expensive television should not develop a serious
fault after 13 months of normal use. In this case,
the consumer could argue the item was not of
merchantable quality and ask for it to be repaired,
even if the manufacturer’s voluntary warranty had
expired.

It's not standard practice by most retailers, just a few dodgy ones and quite frowned upon by the ACCC. JB Hi-Fi have been caught doing it with mobile phones.

Well, many years ago, everyone charged per Mb over the plan limit, but I think the ACCC got involved after a number of "outrageous" bills made it into the news and told ISPs to clean up their act - or perhaps it was bad publicity over the crazy bills people were refusing to pay, but for the most part ISPs now just throttle down. A heavy user will still get the bigger plans, but users won't suddenly get slugged with a $50k bill (there were a few in this price range for a single month).

Sure, it's not really in the interest of ISPs, but it isn't an unreasonable request of them - and they all seem to do it now.

Found it buried beneath several links. http://www.accc.gov.au/content/maintain/create/index.phtml?contentTypeItemId=9133&informationSpaceItemId=268347&inPop=1&returnUrl=.&type=Other

What legislated multi-year warranties?

They are not warranties, but statutory guarantees. Most states in Australia used to have similar laws in this area but since 1st Jan this year they have been harmonised across the whole country.

The requirements are not entirely explicit, ie it is not explicitly defined that a product costing $X should last $Y years, they are largely couched in terms of what is "reasonable".

I'm investigating the situation in Australia a little more to attempt to understand it, but their laws clearly state that if you warranty a particular good for service, you have to provide a good capable of that service.

It would seem to me that updating the product wouldn't negate that at any time in the future unless there is a specific condition to the update and agreed upon before the update is made. It would also seem to me that a console that runs Linux as well as plays Play Station games and connects to the Play Station networks, would have to continue doing so or it could run afoul of the bait and switch laws because the failure was specifically due to the companies actions. While I understand there was a warning on April 1st (which could be confused with a joke), regardless, both the linux ability and the removed access to their networks for playing games should be not allowed under the existing law. It's my understanding that the choice was to lose one ability and not retain both which makes the product something entirely different then represented when sold.

I wish I could find the supposed ACCC ruling clearing sony of wrong doing, but it seems to be a mystery right now.

If you are in that situation, talk to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. I know someone who was in that situation where TPG said they couldn't give them ADSL but BigPond said they could. They talked to the TIO and ended up on the TPG plan they wanted without needing to pay anything to Telstra (i.e. contract exit fees).

I cant find a cite but thanks to the ACCC, Telstra are legally required to wholesale ADSL1 to any ISP that wants to buy a port from Telstra Wholesale.

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/759631

Telstra is not favouring its retail business units by implicitly supplying services to itself at prices which are unjustifiably lower or of a higher quality than those offered to downstream competitors.

Although in situations like this it isn't Telstra's fault, they aren't denying other ISP's access, Telstra wholesale and Telstra retail are completely separated. Telstra retail have no better access to infrastructure and the TIO should refer you to the provider you are trying to connect with.

Telstra wholesale don't speak to or deal with customers only to other providers, and Telstra retail cannot help you connect with another provider.

They are obviously shutting down the public file library (they still will be caching in the background, same diff to them) so they can run up user downloads to increase profit margins in light of the future wholesale fibre broadband network. So the marketing lie, no demand with the reality a chance to up download charges http://www.bigpond.com/internet/plans/adsl/plans-and-offers/ especially considering the lowest usage cap is 2 GB.

2GB is wildly low but it all came about when Telstra were using the incumbent telco position and the support of right wing politics in order to try to establish a content distribution monopoly (low downloads limits force you to buy through their uncapped service others download charges would exceed content charges especially at 15 cents a MB say $12 per dvd no content and no media).

They have alwasy be a really bad company, years back I signed an eighteen month contact, after one month the raised the price $10 a month and introduced a cap of 3GB on a previously uncapped service, then claimed they only raised the price $10 (in reality more like a 1000% or more increase considering those additional usage charges), the ACCC http://www.accc.gov.au/ had to force them to allow users to drop the one way contracts, which I naturally enough did.

No what you do is complain to the ACCC. The ACCC become especially heavy handed when they have to investigate the same complaint twice. The ACCC website lists that they were investigated for exactly this practice when selling "new" mobile phones.

It's no skin of the manager's back if he comes down to talk to you for 2 min only to swap the product and put it back on the shelf. The complaints are what can hurt them.

Exactly. I was at the Apple store yesterday and saw loads of people walking out with just an iPad. My friend bought just an iPad, and on the apple Australia website you can buy just the iPad.

This is JBHiFi doing their usual business practices. It seems they really really like talking to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. 45 search results for ACCC on www.accc.gov.au Including selling new mobile phones, not selling items they advertised at the advertised price, and general competition concerns.

Yes they do have a "Star" rating. And corporations have been caught cheating to sell more.. http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/763524/fromItemId/142

You are absolutely correct. Sorry.

However, the ACCC also has powers to stop resale price maintenance:

Any arrangement between a supplier and a reseller that means the reseller will not advertise, display or sell the goods the supplier supplies below a specified price is illegal.

No, but it's a problem when they start doing anti-competitive things like cartel behaviour and price gouging http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml?itemId=280309

The ACCC responded to my complaint regarding this latest move of Sony's and they are looking into the matter. Whether or not anything will come of it is anyone's guess, but the ACCC do have a history of standing up for the consumer and not being afraid of multinational corporations.

Specifically, they're looking into the sale of a PS3 with OtherOS support being removed after the sale. The issues raised are being considered in the context of the Trade Practices Act 1974 .

TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 - SECT 70
Supply by description
                          (1) Where there is a contract for the supply (otherwise than by way of sale by auction) by a corporation in the course of a business of goods to a consumer by description, there is an implied condition that the goods will correspond with the description, and, if the supply is by reference to a sample as well as by description, it is not sufficient that the bulk of the goods corresponds with the sample if the goods do not also correspond with the description.

                          (2) A supply of goods is not prevented from being a supply by description for the purposes of subsection (1) by reason only that, being exposed for sale or hire, they are selected by the consumer.

TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 - SECT 71

Implied undertakings as to quality or fitness
                          (1) Where a corporation supplies (otherwise than by way of sale by auction) goods to a consumer in the course of a business, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract for the supply of the goods are of merchantable quality, except that there is no such condition by virtue only of this section:

                                          (a) as regards defects specifically drawn to the consumer's attention before the contract is made; or

                                          (b) if the consumer examines the goods before the contract is made, as regards defects which that examination ought to reveal.

                          (2) Where a corporation supplies (otherwise than by way of sale by auction) goods to a consumer in the course of a business and the consumer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the corporation or to the person by whom any antecedent negotiations are conducted any particular purpose for which the goods are being acquired, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract for the supply of the goods are reasonably fit for that purpose, whether or not that is a purpose for which such goods are commonly supplied, except where the circumstances show that the consumer does not rely, or that it is unreasonable for him or her to rely, on the skill or judgment of the corporation or of that person.

I don't know if America has anything like the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission but if you do, I'd urge you to raise this issue with them (and if you're in Australia, please get onto the case).

This is a simple case of a company changing the specs on a product that you have bought, after you've bought it and changing it in an adverse fashion. It is removing a feature that you have paid for and have possibly had for years, without offering any workaround or compensation.

Sony claim that the update is not mandatory, and that it is entirely your choice if you wish to install it or not, but the simple fact is that by not installing the patch, you lose even more functionality than if you do install it. No PSN. No Playstation Store. On online gaming. No access to new games that require this or a newer firmware. No access to bluray content that requires this or a newer version of the firmware. Etc.

Here's the text of the submission I made to the ACCC (you're limited to 1500 characters)

Sony have recently released a firmware update for the PlayStation 3 Games Console.
From what I can see, all this update does is remove a feature from the console. The feature removed is the "Other OS" support - the ability to install another operating system, such as Linux, on the PS3 and use it as a general purpose computer.

Sony claim that the update is not mandatory, however by not installing this update, you lose access to the PlayStation Network, so any games that require this for online play will no longer work. One of the main reasons for owning a PS3 is the online gameplay component.

More information about other features that will be locked out are here on Sony's web site: http://blog.us.playstation.com/2010/03/28/ps3-firmware-v3-21-update/

"Consumers and organizations that currently use the “Other OS” feature can choose not to upgrade their PS3 systems, although the following features will no longer be available; Ability to sign in to PlayStation Network and use network features that require signing in to PlayStation Network, such as online features of PS3 games and chat Playback of PS3 software titles or Blu-ray Disc videos that require PS3 system software version 3.21 or later Playback of copyright-protected videos that are stored on a media server (when DTCP-IP is enabled under Settings) Use of new features and improvements that are available on PS3 system software 3.21 or later"

Well I know the ACCC would be all over this. Does the US have a similar consumer watchdog?

sigh... right you are. I suppose that given Australia's history with copyright law I really expected something sinister somewhere.

Shouldn't bag us across the board, mate. Sure we have the odd obvious cretin (you listening, Conroy?) but it's also illegal here to sell a DVD player that is region-locked (ACCC got that one right, I believe). Swings and roundabouts, I suspect, but I've noticed a relatively low CQ (Cretin Quotient) in our government and administration. Well, administration anyway - Parliament certainly has its share. But the folks in the offices mostly get it right, not a huge lot of sinister in any of them.

And no, I do not work for the government in any capacity.

This is the whole problem, of course - the more sites go paywalled, the more incentive there is for the others to stay free.

The problem with that is that all sites have to become paywalled. If one site remains free they will see the majority of the traffic. In fact the more sites that become paywalled, the more incentive there is in remaining free as you will inveitably get a greater share of the audience.

Paywalled sites compete for the same dollar, the reader only has X dollars to spend, if all sites become paywalled this dollar either has to be stretched across multiple paywalls or denied to certain paywalls. The more paywalls there are the less likely they will make money. However with advertising this scarcity doesn't exist, at least not directly. One can view ad's on multiple sites with no cost.

But the paywall regime will never happen. The BBC and ABC have a guaranteed source of funding and a mandate that prevents them from paywalling. So if NewsCorp, PBL and Fairfax all decided to paywall at once the ABC will just get more readers. Not to mention that Australia's 3 biggest publishers all deciding to erect paywalls at once sounds like collusion and the ACCC would have a field day with that one.

Do you know how to pay less for better service in the US?

Most nations call it "regulation". Fixing the kinds of charges a telco can charge, setting minimum standards for performance and service and real punishment for failing to meet standards. If Australia didn't have the ACCC and TIO we'd be in a worse position then the US. Fortunately the ACCC (government organisation responsible for ensuring businesses comply with the trades practices act, or in other words, enforcing the law) took a good hard look at Telstra when it was privatised (was previously a government run public telco) and clearly stated what they were not allowed to do. Now we have multiple phone providers, multiple DSL providers, real competition and a superior 3G network to the US.

So I ask the yanks a question, "what can you do, if a telco screws you over"?

In Australia if a Telco does not live up to their end of the contract, fails to provide service, cuts me off/blocks bit torrent or just drops out too many times and refuses to fix the problem (or gives me the run around) I can call the TIO and have them sort it out within 10 working days.

And yet, that is not the definition of third line forcing.

As I have already stated above, the ACCC says that third line forcing is "a specific form of exclusive dealing prohibited outright by the Trade Practices Act. It is not subject to the substantial lessening of competition test. It involves the supply of goods or services on condition that the purchaser buys goods or services from a particular third party, or a refusal to supply because the purchaser will not agree to that condition."

Therefore, I am correct and Apple refusing to let me use any service but their own when they supply me with the iPhone is strictly prohibited under Australian law.

From the ACCC's website:

"Third line forcing is a specific form of exclusive dealing prohibited outright by the Trade Practices Act. It is not subject to the substantial lessening of competition test. It involves the supply of goods or services on condition that the purchaser buys goods or services from a particular third party, or a refusal to supply because the purchaser will not agree to that condition."

Apple forcing someone to only use their service is exactly what third line forcing is, and this is strictly prohibited under the Australian Trade Practices Act.

All I can find on the dispute is that the ACCC took action because they were concerned about monopoly behavior, and the size of eBay's marketshare figured heavily.

Given that eBay owns PayPal, I don't see how third-line forcing would apply-- third-line forcing happens when a vendor requires a purchase from a third party in order to complete a sale. There is no third part in eBay's case, and I'm not sure exactly how you would work the argument in Apple's case, given that Apple is essentially acting as an agent of sale for the individual developers, and acting as an agent selling a third party's bundled goods is legal, it's my understanding.

Bundling is also of course legal, in Aus and the US, given it isn't used by a monopoly to exploit a monopoly position.

I hope that was supposed to be the ACCC. I really do.