Skins conflict resolved

ADELAIDE: The drawn out battle between sportswear brand Skins and the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) has finally come to an end.

The compression specialist has been ordered to pay a total of $200,000 and one of its sales agents a further $14,000 as a result of being found guilty by the Federal Court of breaches of the Trade Practices Act.

In a judgement released earlier this month, the court ordered the payment be made up of a $120,000 fine plus $80,000 in costs.

The ACCC initiated the proceedings in late 2007 over what it claimed was the five-year-old brand’s “deceptive conduct and resale price maintenance”.

Heard before Justice J Besanko, the case concerned representations made by Skins in its print, radio and television advertisements in 2005 and 2006 and also on its website from at least June 2006.

Further action was taken against Skins managing director Jaimie Fuller and the Australian Physiotherapy Association-endorsed brand’s South Australian agent Christopher Warhurst.

The ACCC’s chief concern centred around whether Skins paid money to elite sportspeople to wear Skins products or to endorse Skins products, and whether the products worn by elite sports people were always paid for with money.

Sports stars named in the case included cricketer Brett Lee, athlete Michael Milton, skier Jono Brauer and rugby union players from the New South Wales Waratahs side.

The ACCC also alleged that during the period July 2005 to 2006 Skins contravened the Trade Practices Act by “inducing and attempting to induce” Adelaide-based retailer Sports Locker not to advertise a 20 per cent discount off the brand’s recommended retail price.

It also alleged that in May 2006 Skins failed to supply an order of Skins products to the unnamed retailer because it had advertised the products at a 20 per cent discount off the recommended retail price.

As a result of the decision, Skins has also been ordered to run corrective notices across several media platforms and provide written notice of the court’s finding to stockists and suppliers.