Consumer Laws Compared: Australia vs Malaysia

In June 2022 Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong met with Malaysian Foreign Minister Saifuddin Abdullah and reaffirmed Australia’s commitment to the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (CSP). According to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the CSP aims to foster greater bilateral cooperation on economic prosperity, society and technology and regional security. Noting the bipartisan commitment to the CSP in both Australia and Malaysia and the increasing instability in the Indo-Pacific region, it is essential to understand laws across the Indo-Pacific region. Therefore, this article aims to provide a brief introduction into the similarities and differences into consumer law between Australia and Malaysia. 

Who is a consumer?

Under the Australian Consumer Law 2010 (Cth) s 3 (‘ACL’), a consumer is defined as a person who purchases goods or services (g/s) for less than $100,000, or the goods were of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption (‘personal use’) or the goods consisted of a vehicle/trailer acquired for use principally for good transportation on public roads. Whilst the Consumer Protection Act 1999 (Malaysia) s 3 (‘CPA’) also uses the ‘personal use’ definition, the CPA provides that persons must also not acquire, use or present themselves as acquiring or using the g/s for the primary purpose of resupply in trade, consuming them in manufacturing or repair/treating goods or fixtures on land in trade.

Whilst the ACL merely requires satisfaction of the personal use definition, the CPA s 3 requires the ‘personal use’ definition and satisfaction of the abovementioned criteria. Further, persons must satisfy the ‘personal use’ requirement under the CPA, whereas this is not mandatory pursuant to ACL s 3(1). Therefore, the ACL’s scope is significantly greater than that of the CPA. 

Misleading and Deceptive Conduct 

Arguably the most famous section of the ACL, s 18 provides that a person must not in trade or commerce engage in conduct which is or is likely to mislead or deceive. Contrastingly, s 9 of the CPA provides that a person must not engage in conduct which is or is likely to mislead the public as to the nature, manufacturing process, characteristics, suitability for purpose, availability or quantity of the g/s. Whilst the CPA provides an exhaustive definition of misleading/deceptive conduct, the ACL provision is non-exhaustive. Therefore, the ACL is broader in scope and consequently offers greater consumer protection compared to the CPA.  

Conclusion

Whilst there are some similarities between the ACL and CPA's definitions of ‘consumer’ and ‘misleading and deceptive conduct’, the ACL has broader definitions in both areas. However, it should be noted that this article merely provides a brief introduction into Australian and Malaysian consumer law and further analysis is needed to develop a broader understanding of bilateral laws.