(4) WAS THE SECOND COVERAGE REPRESENTATION MISLEADING OR DECEPTIVE?
108 That the Second Coverage Representation was misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive contrary to s 52 of the Act is apparent when regard is had to:
(1) the technical evidence adduced by Telstra at trial;
(2) Telstra's explicit disclaimer; and
(3) Telstra's emphasis in subsequent advertising material that coverage was affected by the type of handset used and whether there was external antennae.
It is necessary to say something further about each of these matters.
Technical Evidence
109 Mr Goonan, the Director of Wireless Fundamental Planning and Integration in the Wireless Engineering and Operations Group for Telstra, gave evidence, amongst other things, about the coverage of mobile networks and mobile coverage predictions. He said that, generally speaking, "coverage" refers to the area in which service is usable. He gave evidence that the number and positioning of base stations have a key role to play in network coverage because the number or density (or both) of base stations directly influence signal strength, a key determinant. He explained that base stations are constructed for a number of reasons, including:
(1) to enable network coverage to be extended in terms of the geographical reach of the network;
(2) to enable the network to cater for higher levels of traffic;
(3) to increase the level or depth of coverage provided by the network within a given area (particularly within densely populated locations such as inner city metropolitan areas and city centres); and
(4) to manage the quality of the radio signal (that is, to minimise interference).
110 Mr Goonan said that a combination of network capacity and signal quality, along with the level of coverage provided at a given location and time, impacts and determines the performance of mobile calls to or from mobile handsets into that area dropping out, suffering interference or failing. In addition, the extent of network coverage provided by a particular base station may be affected by:
(1) the elevation of the position on which the base station is constructed;
(2) the height and direction of the base station radio antennas on the tower or building structure;
(3) the environment surrounding the base station (for example, whether there are obstacles such as building structures or other natural geographic obstacles); and
(4) the curvature of the earth.
111 Mr Goonan also gave evidence that because of the variability of the radio signal propagation, digital mobile telecommunications service providers typically use predictive models to determine coverage and to produce coverage maps. Telstra Next G coverage maps, produced using accepted industry practice and methodology, depict coverage areas as:
(1) an inner contour which describes the area where reliable coverage is predicted when using a device without an external antenna; and
(2) an outer contour which describes the area where reliable coverage is predicted when using a device with an external antenna.
The minimum coverage signal levels which are used to describe these contours are based on the standards for minimum signal levels required for network operation, as defined by the world governing standards body for 3GSM technology. A prediction tool is then used to account for a range of factors including terrain, vegetation and physical structures and a large number of technical factors including physical and electrical characteristics of the network and customer devices to statistically estimate where reliable coverage will be received.
112 The central thesis of Mr Goonan's evidence was that while predictions of coverage were "generally accurate, there will be specific areas described as being within a coverage area where a customer's device will not work" and that "[t]his is a common characteristic of wireless systems." So, for example, he spoke of coverage being degraded or not existing in specific locations due to physical structures or geographical features. He noted that "[p]hysical structures which may block or inhibit coverage could include basements, lifts, underground car parks, concrete buildings, tunnels and road cuttings. Geographical features which may block or inhibit coverage include hills, mountains and trees."
113 Each of these matters mentioned by Mr Goonan is a significant qualification to the accuracy of the Second Coverage Representation. None is explicitly mentioned or can be inferred from any of the 12 Events.
Explicit Disclaimer
114 The significance of the points made by Mr Goonan is further reinforced by Telstra publishing an express disclaimer inconsistent with the message conveyed to the reasonable or ordinary user by the Second Coverage Representation. The disclaimer is set out in Schedule 3. The whole of the disclaimer is important, but the following passages bear particular emphasis:
….while the footprint of coverage outlined on the maps is generally accurate, there will be specific areas described as being within a coverage area where a customer's device will not work. This is a common characteristic of wireless systems. For example, coverage could be degraded or not existent in specific locations due to certain physical structures or geographic features. Physical structures which may block or inhibit coverage include basements, lifts, underground car parks, concrete buildings, tunnels and road cuttings. Geographic features which may block or inhibit coverage could include formations such as hills and mountains or even trees.
…
Data speeds experienced on Telstra's wireless networks may be affected by network availability, the type and configuration of customer equipment, the performance of external networks (for example the Internet), the signal strength of the device used and other factors such as the type of application being used.
(Emphasis added.)
115 No evidence was led to establish when the disclaimer was introduced. However, even if it was in existence throughout the dissemination of each of the 12 Events, none of the Events made sufficient reference to the disclaimer so as to make it a sufficient qualification to the Second Coverage Representation. And as will later be demonstrated, some made no reference to any form of qualification.
116 When considering whether conduct is misleading or deceptive, a court must consider the conduct as a whole and should accordingly consider whether the entire representation in question, including the disclaimer, is misleading or deceptive: see Butcher at [152]. For a disclaimer to prevent the conduct in question from being misleading or deceptive, it must either communicate information to the relevant class such that they are not misled at all, or provide information to the relevant class so that, in an evidentiary sense, it is unable to be shown that the relevant class relied on the representation: Karmot Auto Spares Pty Ltd v Dominelli Ford (Hurstville) Pty Ltd (1992) 35 FCR 560 at 572; Alpine Holdings Pty Ltd v Warwick Entertainment Centre Pty Ltd (2003) 11 Tas R 242. When considering the effectiveness of a disclaimer its form and the manner of its execution, as much as its substance, are relevant factors: Keen Mar Corp Pty Ltd v Labrador Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd [1989] ATPR 46-048.
117 None of the 12 Events explicitly contained a copy of this disclaimer. Events 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 did not contain any indication whatsoever that the Second Coverage Representation as conveyed was qualified, nor did they refer the consumer elsewhere for more information regarding the Second Coverage Representation.
118 Event 1 (the Everywhere Advertisement) concluded with a screen displaying the text "Visit your local Telstra Shop or Dealer today", followed by "telstra.com/nextg" (see [43]). This is not sufficient to alert an ordinary or reasonable member of the class that the images and messages which preceded that text were in any way qualified. Even an "eager consumer, wanting information, wanting to know whether to migrate from CDMA" visiting telstra.com/nextg is not directly alerted to the disclaimer. Rather, they are required to first navigate to a "coverage map" before the disclaimer becomes apparent. The disclaimer is so far removed from the original event that it has little, if any, qualifying effect.
119 Events 4, 5, 9 and 12 contain phrases which invite the consumer to "check to see if they are covered". There is a slight variation in the wording used by each of these Events. Event 4 (the Telstra Website) (referred to in Event 1 in the manner I have just described) states "Next G network covers most Australians. Visit our coverage maps to see if you are covered" and contained a link to the coverage maps page referred to above at [80]-[82].
120 Event 5 (the Brochure) had the following text appearing on the back page "for more information on Telstra's Next GTM network, including coverage areas CLICK telstra.com.au/nextg." This was then followed by the heading "Important things you should know" and several trade mark statements and disclaimers, none of which made any reference to or sought to qualify the Second Coverage Representation.
121 Event 9 (the Network for Business Brochure) twice included the wording "[c]heck telstra.com to see if you are covered" and Event 12 (the Next G Family Brochure) included a similar invitation which read "Next G is available in most places across Australia - check telstra.com to see if you are covered."
122 While Events 4, 5, 9 and 12 highlight to a consumer that more information is available in relation to the Next G network's coverage, they do not communicate the limitations of the Second Coverage Representation conveyed in the disclaimer, nor do they, for that matter, give any indication which would lead a consumer to believe that a qualifier or disclaimer attached to the advertisement. They simply convey the message that coverage may not be afforded in all areas. They are silent to the fact that certain factors, such as geographical and physical features, as well as handset choice may affect coverage. The disclaimer does not erase the misleading or deceptive conduct by Telstra in relation to the Second Coverage Representation.
Blue Tick
123 Still further reinforcement of the points made by Mr Goonan is provided by Telstra's subsequent adoption of advertising which emphasises "the importance of handset selection and additional accessories such as antennas". Again, none of these qualifications were made in any of the Events. Each is inconsistent with and demonstrates the misleading and deceptive character of the Second Coverage Representation. A page on the Telstra website, reproduced in Schedule 4, emphasised:
When upgrading to a new Next GTM mobile, it is important that the Next GTM mobile and accessories you select are suitable for your location and match your existing phone style and car kit. This will help ensure similar coverage performance.
124 Mr Goonan gave evidence that the website informed customers that some important factors to consider when choosing a Next G mobile handset or accessories (or both) included:
(1) whether the customer needs to maximise their coverage experience,
(2) where they will be using their mobile phone - metropolitan areas, regional areas or rural areas within the Next G network coverage area; and
(3) whether they will be using it in:
(i) handheld mode; or
(ii) in a car with either a directly coupled car kit with an external antenna or a patch lead with an external antenna.
125 Mr Goonan also noted that where customers wished to use their handsets without accessories such as external antenna, Telstra had a number of Next G mobiles that were specifically recommended for rural handheld coverage. Mr Goonan gave evidence that handsets were advertised by Telstra, both on its website and in stores from mid-July 2007 with a "blue tick" and as "recommended for rural handheld coverage".
126 Events 2, 6, 10 and 11 were released following the introduction by Telstra of the "blue tick" recommendation system in mid July 2007. However, none of these Events contained any such qualifying information. The remainder of the Events continued to circulate unamended, despite the new "blue tick" recommendation program.
Conclusion
127 When viewed in light of the technical evidence and the explicit disclaimer, I consider that the Second Coverage Representation:
(1) was misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive contrary to s 52 of the Act;
(2) falsely represented that services were of a particular standard or quality contrary to s 53(aa) of the Act; and
(3) falsely represented that goods or services had performance characteristics they did not have contrary to s 53(c) of the Act.