“As a result of investigations undertaken by Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, it has been found that the company made false and misleading representations, and committed fraud, relating to the offer and sale of activewear in Australia. The company was fined $3. 7 million and ordered to pay $1. 5 million to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to cover the costs of the proceedings.
A company based in Sydney has been ordered to pay $3. 7 million as a result of false claims in relation to an Australian contract.
In a statement to Antivirus & Malware, the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) said the conduct by the company that breached the Consumer Services Act has now been proven criminal.
“There have been investigations conducted by Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and the National Fraud Authority – in connection with allegations of the conduct of Vectra Activewear, Inc. involving false or misleading representations and/or unlawful behaviour,” the statement said.
“The investigations have revealed that Vectra Activewear, Inc. , and its registered office in Australia, made false representations relating to the offer and sale of activewear in Australia and engaged in unlawful behaviour and therefore they are liable to the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission for £3. 7 million and £2. 5 million respectively.
“Vectra Activewear Incorporated has also committed criminal offences by engaging in unlawful conduct,” it said.
“The conduct relating to Vectra Activewear Incorporated has been referred to the Australian Federal Police for investigation.
The ACCC described the charges in a statement to Antivirus & Malware.
“The findings of the investigations have now been confirmed by the Australian Federal Police and have been referred to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for further action,” it said.
“The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has referred the matter to the Australian Federal Police and requested that they commence an immediate investigation into the matter.
A Federal court ordered Lorna Jane Pty Ltd. to pay $3.7 million for false and misleading claims during the Australian pandemic of 2018.
Lorna Jane Pty Ltd. had made claims to be the sole maker of “antivirus and malware solutions” for Australia’s domestic government and non-government organisations in order to deflect blame from the fact that their products weren’t up to scratch and were found not to offer the required level of protection against the Australian coronavirus as their claim. | Antivirus & Malware.
The case against Lorna Jane Pty Ltd (LJP) involved a breach of several sections of the National Consumer Law, which include the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) and Fair Supply of Goods Act (FSCGA) – both listed as non-indictable offences. The defendant failed to produce any documents or produce any evidence to the court. | Federal Court Summary.
On the date of the court hearing, the jury found the defendant liable for breach of the ACL and that LJP made false and misleading representations about its products. Furthermore, the jury found LJP’s CEO had acted with malice and that the CEO knew the representations were false and misleading. | Jury Reasons.
During the trial, a number of prominent journalists and bloggers published articles regarding the claims made by LJP. The articles discussed the nature of LJP’s claims and the evidence in the case, including evidence from expert witnesses and the defendant’s own witness. | Press Statement.
The articles reported LJP’s claims of its own products being the best in the business as well as the results of independent security analysts. Moreover, the articles reported LJP’s claims that the coronavirus was manufactured on its premises, rather than LJP itself as evidence in the case. | Journalist Statement.
An investigation into the conduct of a clothing manufacturer
In the last few days, there’s been some buzz around the topic of “How did it get this far?”, which is the question that most people have when they hear about the story of a prominent Chinese manufacturer of clothing who was raided in an investigation into an alleged “hijacking”. A news article from a tech publication states, “the Chinese company named in the alleged trade-in theft case is named as ‘Wangda’ after the city of a small town in the southwestern province of Guizhou where the company is located.
To see what they’re suggesting, let’s step back and reexamine the alleged “hijacking”, and see if it’s possible that it really wasn’t.
On March 26, 2016, Chinese authorities raided a factory that was allegedly involved in a “hijack”, or trade-in, scam. The incident took place in the city of Kunyang, Guizhou. The main victim in this scam is reportedly a company called “Lianhe Industry Development Corp” (LIDCO). LIDCO is founded in 2013 in Kunyang in Guizhou province by some members of a small, “hijacked”, business conglomerate. A lot of that group was reportedly associated with a certain property developer named Huaxin City Development Co, a Chinese company in Guizhou province.
Lorna Jane vs. LJ Shield
The LJ Shield is one of the most popular antivirus software systems, due to its affordable package (free if purchased at most major stores). But Lorna Jane has made the most of the system’s popularity, as new malware has been discovered and a significant number of malware users have found the Lorna Jane shield and its security features to be quite strong and effective. The article is provided as a free download for the LJ Shield for this reason. Read it and see if Lorna Jane’s shield is an effective antivirus product. | Lorna JANE vs. LJ Shield : Both Lorna JANE and Lorna JANE Shield have the same antivirus and malware protection features.
The LJ Shield is one of the most popular antivirus software systems, due to its affordable package (free if purchased at most major stores). But Lorna Jane has made the most of the system’s popularity, as new malware has been discovered and a significant number of malware users have found the Lorna Jane shield and its security features to be quite strong and effective. The article is provided as a free download for the LJ Shield for this reason. Read it and see if Lorna Jane’s shield is an effective antivirus product.
The LJ Shield is one of the most popular antivirus software systems, due to its affordable package (free if purchased at most major stores). But Lorna Jane has made the most of the system’s popularity, as new malware has been discovered and a significant number of malware users have found the Lorna Jane shield and its security features to be quite strong and effective. The article is provided as a free download for the LJ Shield for this reason. Read it and see if Lorna Jane’s shield is an effective antivirus product.
The LJ Shield Pro is one of the LJ systems that has a high impact antivirus package that is designed to protect against a large number of types of viruses and malware.
Read more: Lorna JANE vs. LJ Shield – Antivirus Features & Benefits, Features Comparison – Lorna JANE vs.
Tips of the Day in Antivirus & Malware
These days, the concept of “viruses” are changing with new technologies becoming the new normal. There is a new breed of virus out there that does not require human interaction – it’s designed to replicate itself, and infect your computer.
Virus detection is not yet 100% accurate, and there is no way to be 100% sure that your computer has been infected. But if your computer is infected, some companies make good money giving you a discount.
Whether you need Antivirus, or Malware, or are a computer user, do yourself, your own research and do not be afraid to download the latest version of your anti-virus software.
Unzip your downloaded file.
Open a command prompt and enter the file name (you will be prompted for the password) – this will be your CMD variable.
Spread the love“As a result of investigations undertaken by Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, it has been found that the company made false and misleading representations, and committed fraud, relating to the offer and sale of activewear in Australia. The company was fined $3. 7 million and ordered to pay $1. 5 million to the…
