- 43 -
noteworthy that the three consumers who gave evidence for the ACCC all said that they considered that the basic thing that they were purchasing was computer software. Of these three, Mr Miles had considerable knowledge and expertise in this area. As I explain later in these reasons, he is a 31 year old computer programmer and software developer who has played video games since he was 8. He has worked as a research assistant and software developed in the computer science department of the University of New England. He participates in tests for new games and often plays games around 3 times a week.
(3) Issue 3: Whether Valve's conduct was in Australia or whether Valve carries on business in Australia
158 This issue raises the question of whether the Australian Consumer Law applies at all to these circumstances. It is necessary to consider first whether Valve's conduct was "in Australia" before considering whether Valve "carries on a business in Australia". This is because this trial proceeded on the basis that the latter question only arises by the extended operation of the Competition and Consumer Act if Valve's conduct was not in Australia.
The test for whether Valve's conduct was in Australia
159 The parties conducted this litigation on the basis that it was necessary for the ACCC to prove that Valve's conduct was in Australia or, if not, that the extended provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act applied to extend the operation of that Act to conduct outside Australia. That assumption appears to have been based upon the provision in s 131(1) of the Competition and Consumer Act which provides that the Australian Consumer Law "applies as a law of the Commonwealth to the conduct of corporations, and in relation to contraventions of Chapter 2, 3 or 4 of Schedule 2 by corporations". It seems that the assumption of the parties is that the "and" in s 131(1) is not a disjunctive application of two circumstances in which the Australian Consumer Law applies as a law of the Commonwealth. In other words, the parties assumed that it was necessary for the ACCC to prove both that there was "conduct of a corporation" and that the conduct was "in relation to contraventions of Chapter 2, 3 or 4 of Schedule 2 by the corporation" even if the contravening conduct implicitly involved a separate connection with Australia (such as a supply of goods in Australia). In light of the conclusions I have reached on this issue, and in the absence of argument on this point, it suffices to proceed also on that assumption.
160 Section 4(2)(a) of the Competition and Consumer Act provides that a reference in the Act to "engaging in conduct" shall be read as
