The New South Wales Office of Fair Trading has confirmed it has commenced legal action against the parent company of online technology retailer Android Enjoyed after receiving hundreds of complaints from consumers about damaged goods and missed deliveries.
It is alleged Singapore-based Digital Marketing and Solutions, which trades as Android Enjoyed and CameraSky, as well as sole director Yuen Ho Wong, have failed in their obligations to consumers, in what could emerge as a test case for reasonable delivery times.
In a statement provided to SmartCompany, NSW Minister for Better Regulation Matt Kean said injunction proceedings are being undertaken in the NSW Supreme Court.
“Fair Trading is alleging the business failed to repair defective goods, provide refunds for defective or damaged goods or goods not fit for purpose, and failed to supply goods in a reasonable time or at all,” he said.
Android Enjoyed, which sells mobile phones and other electronics, has topped NSW Fair Trading’s complaint register on five occasions since September 2016.
The retailer has appeared on the state complaints register 17 times since July 2016, with a 604 complaints made by consumers about the business to date, ranging from poor quality products to acceptance of payment without supplying goods.
Sister business CameraSky has attracted 178 complaints and has appeared on the complaints register six times.
“These are figures no company should be proud of,” Kean said.
The state consumer watchdog issued a public warning about the business, then named Digital Skies Group, in 2016 and warned the public again in April this year, however, CRN reports CameraSky and Android Enjoyed ceased trading in Australia late last month.
A notice posted on CameraSky’s website says the company is no longer trading, and directs customers to email a customer service address with any enquiries.
Proceedings are listed in the NSW Supreme Court for Wednesday, 26 September.
Speaking to SmartCompany, Richard Prangell, a commercial lawyer and director at Viridian Lawyers, said the proceedings against Android Enjoyed could have implications for other online retailers.
He says Australian Consumer Law doesn’t currently explicitly define a time period that constitutes a “reasonable delivery time” for goods to be supplied to consumers.
“This absolutely could be a test for reasonable timeframes [for delivery],” he contends.
“There’s a reasonable timeframe for the provision of services, but not necessarily for goods.
“The timeframe has to be tied to the type of good it is and what is stated and understood when it was purchased,” he continues.
Prangell says local and international retailers selling to Australian consumers should be up front with consumers about what they can expect in relation to delivery times to avoid potential issues.
“Australian consumer laws always apply if you are dealing with an Australian consumer,” he explains.
“Be very clear about what consumers should expect in terms of deliveries and ensure you comply with the timeframe you provide.
“If you don’t comply with that timeframe it may be the case that you are in breach of Australian Consumer Law.”
NSW Fair Trading declined to provide any further comment on the case, citing the ongoing legal action.
SmartCompany contacted Digital Marketing and Solutions for comment but did not receive a response prior to publication.
NOW READ: Fidget spinner retailer breaks NSW Fair Trading customer complaints record
