It might be protected through
- a discrete privacy statute,
- trade practices law or
- communications law such as the Do Not Call Act 2006 (Cth) noted earlier this month.
The ACCC has indicated that penalties in that case and in a related matter (combined penalties of $1.5 million for unlawful selling practices by AGL Sales and AGL SA, $200,000 for conduct by marketing company CPM Australia) were a clear warning that businesses needed to comply with laws about making unsolicited approaches to consumers.
In ACC v AGL (No 2) the court stated that in late 2011 a sales representative ignored a "Do not knock, unsolicited door to door selling is not welcome here" sign on the consumer's front door, and persisted in offering the resident an energy supply deal, thereby contravening paragraph 75(1)(a) of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), ie Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).
The contravention had been identified in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v AGL Sales Pty Ltd & Ors  FCA 1030.
Middleton J found "the contravention subverted both the consumer's desire not to be disturbed or interrupted by sales representatives and the very protections provided to the consumer by the legislation".
The refusal to leave enabled that contravening conduct: had the sales representative left on request, no opportunity for that contravening conduct would have arisen.
The failure to leave when requested was serious in nature because of the location and context in which it occurred, being a private residence to which AGL SA and CPM were not invited.
The contravention subverted both the consumer’s desire not to be disturbed or interrupted by sales representatives and the very protections provided to the consumer by the legislation. ...
A contravention of s 75 will rarely, if ever, directly result in financial loss or damage.
Section 75 of the ACL protects consumers in their homes by imposing a mandatory standard of conduct for persons engaged in door-to-door selling. The standard is intended to limit consumers’ exposure to inconvenience, invasion of privacy and unwanted sales calls.
The consumer did not suffer direct financial loss because she did not enter into an agreement with AGL SA. However, the consumer was subjected to unwanted interactions with a salesperson and suffered the inconvenience and invasion of privacy.