CONSUMER PROTECTION Question 1 In April 2016, the Federal Court of Australia found that the maker of Nurofen, Reckitt Benckiser, breached section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law \"and another section of the ACL\". The Federal Court found that Nurofen's "specic pain\" range misled consumers because they all contained the same active ingredient ibuprofen lysine 342mg and did the same thing. Nevertheless the \"specic pain\" range cost twice as much as the \"non- specic\" general Nurofen product. The products promised to relieve back pain, period pain, and tension headache or migraine, even though it is not possible to specically target pain relief in such a manner. It was admitted by the ACCC that if a consumer looked carefully he or she would have noticed small print on the packets that said that the active ingredient in each of the products was the same. The ACCC was responsible for bringing legal proceedings against the manufacturer in the Federal Court. What arguments do you believe the ACCC would have presented to the Court in relation to the breach of s 18? Would the ACCC also be able to argue a breach of s 29? Refer to relevant cases to support your analysis of the legislation. (10 marks) (Approximately 20 minutes of writing time)