Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v The Good Guys Discount Warehouses (Australia) Pty Ltd

This Federal Court case concerned promotional campaigns run by The Good Guys, a major Australian retailer, offering customers a later benefit if they made a qualifying purchase. Earlier campaigns used the label "Store Credit". Later campaigns used "StoreCash". In commercial terms, the promotions were designed to encourage customers to buy now and receive a further purchasing benefit later.

The case is especially useful because it was not about a single ad or a one-off mistake. The promotions were run over several years, across many channels, and at significant scale. The judgment records 38 Store Credit promotions between 25 July 2019 and 14 August 2022, and 78 StoreCash promotions between 5 September 2022 and 31 August 2023. The business identified at least 1,446 advertisements published during the relevant period.

The regulator side of the case also matters. The proceeding was brought by the ACCC together with a delegate of ASIC. That reflected an important legal point about the nature of the promotional benefits. The Court recorded that it was common ground that Store Credit and StoreCash were facilities through which a person makes non-cash payments, and therefore financial products under the ASIC Act. Issuing them involved providing a financial service.

For business readers, that means this was not just a standard retail advertising case. It shows that the legal character of a promotion can affect which statute applies, and that a business cannot safely assume every promotion sits only under the ACL.

The case did not proceed as a fully contested trial on liability. Instead, the parties reached agreement on the facts and on the orders they asked the Court to make. They filed joint submissions, a statement of agreed facts and admissions, and proposed orders. The Court then had to decide whether those proposed orders should be made.

That procedural posture is important. The judgment is not a finding after witnesses were cross-examined about disputed events. It is a decision about admitted conduct and the appropriateness of declarations, penalties, redress and related orders. For businesses, that makes the case a practical compliance guide. It shows the kinds of conduct the regulators and the Court considered serious enough to justify substantial penalties and a redress regime, even without a contested trial.

The Court identified four principal questions raised by the proposed orders. First, whether the relevant consumer protection provisions in the ASIC Act or the ACL applied. Secondly, whether the proposed declarations appropriately stated the admitted contraventions. Thirdly, whether the proposed penalties were appropriate. Fourthly, whether orders were required to support the consumer redress regime.

The admitted contraventions were grouped into three separate categories of conduct.

First, the advertisements for 38 Store Credit promotions failed to disclose, or adequately disclose, an opt-in condition. Customers would only receive Store Credit if they remained opted in to receive marketing communications from The Good Guys until the credit dispatch date. The judgment explains that consumers who made purchases on the website were automatically opted in to receive marketing communications, but they could opt out later. If they opted out before the date they were due to receive Store Credit, they would not receive it.

Secondly, the advertisements for both the Store Credit promotions and the StoreCash promotions failed to disclose, or adequately disclose, the credit-expiry condition. The promotional benefit had to be used within a specified timeframe. For Store Credit, the expiry period ranged between 7 and 28 days after dispatch, and for the majority of Store Credit promotions the expiry period was 7 days. For StoreCash, the expiry period ranged between 10 and 92 days after the amount was credited to the consumer's digital wallet, and the majority of StoreCash promotions had a 10-day expiry period.

Thirdly, The Good Guys admitted that although it offered to provide eligible consumers with Store Credit by a specified date as part of the Store Credit promotions, it failed to provide Store Credit to approximately 21,500 consumers within the time specified. That issue was different from the advertising issues. It concerned whether a promised benefit was actually provided on time.

The judgment also records that the terms and conditions for the promotions were published on a standalone page on The Good Guys' website, and that advertisements typically referred consumers to terms and conditions by URL, hyperlink, QR code or statements such as "T&Cs apply". The admitted problem was that the key conditions were not disclosed, or not adequately disclosed, in the advertisements themselves.

One of the most practical features of this case is the way it shows compliance risk spreading across the whole customer journey. The promotions were advertised on the website, by email, on social media, by SMS, in electronic catalogues, on third-party websites, in print media, in-store and, for one promotion, on television. The Court record says The Good Guys identified at least 1,446 advertisements.

That matters because businesses often think about compliance in separate silos. Marketing writes the headline. Legal drafts terms and conditions. Ecommerce builds the landing page. CRM manages subscription settings. Operations handles dispatch. Finance or product teams set expiry rules. This case shows why that siloed approach is risky. The legal problem may arise from the interaction between those systems, not from any one document viewed in isolation.

The opt-in issue is a good example. The relevant condition was tied to marketing communications. Customers who made online purchases were automatically opted in, but they could unsubscribe before the dispatch date. If they did, they would not receive Store Credit. That means the real operation of the promotion depended on consent settings and unsubscribe pathways, not just the headline ad.

The expiry issue is another example. A promotion may look generous in a headline, but a short expiry period can significantly reduce its practical value. The judgment records that most Store Credit promotions had a 7-day expiry period and most StoreCash promotions had a 10-day expiry period. If that kind of condition is not made clear, the overall impression of the offer may be misleading.

The late provision issue shows the operational side. If a business promises to provide a benefit by a specified date, that is not just marketing language. It is a representation tied to fulfilment. If systems fail and the benefit is not provided on time, the business may face a separate contravention.

The first major issue was which statutory regime applied. The Court recorded that it was common ground that Store Credit and StoreCash were facilities through which a person makes non-cash payments and were therefore financial products within the meaning of the ASIC Act. By issuing them, The Good Guys provided a financial service. On that basis, the Court agreed that the relevant ASIC Act provisions applied to the opt-in conduct and the credit-expiry conduct, and that it was not necessary to consider the analogous ACL provisions for those issues.

A separate statutory interpretation issue arose for the failure to provide Store Credit by the specified date. The parties had agreed that section 12DE(2A) of the ASIC Act applied, but if that was wrong, section 32(2) of the ACL applied. The Court concluded that section 12DE(2A) of the ASIC Act was not applicable, but section 32(2) of the ACL was applicable.

The second issue was whether the proposed declarations properly reflected the admitted contraventions. The third was whether the proposed penalties were appropriate having regard to the relevant facts and circumstances. The fourth was whether orders were required to support the consumer redress regime, including confidentiality around the notice to eligible consumers.

Because the case was resolved on admissions, the judgment is best read as a decision about the legal characterisation of admitted conduct and the appropriateness of the orders sought, rather than a detailed factual contest about what happened.

The Court made declarations reflecting the admitted conduct. For the opt-in issue, it declared that by publishing advertisements for 38 Store Credit promotions without disclosing, or adequately disclosing, that consumers would only receive Store Credit if they remained opted in to receive marketing communications, The Good Guys engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to financial services contrary to section 12DA(1) of the ASIC Act, and conduct liable to mislead the public as to the nature and characteristics of a financial service contrary to section 12DF(1) of the ASIC Act.

For the expiry issue, the Court declared that by publishing advertisements for the Store Credit promotions and the StoreCash promotions without disclosing, or adequately disclosing, that the benefits had to be used within a specified timeframe ranging between 7 days and 92 days, The Good Guys contravened the same ASIC Act provisions.

For the late provision issue, the Court declared that by offering to provide eligible consumers with Store Credit by a specified date and failing to provide it to approximately 21,500 consumers within the time specified, The Good Guys contravened section 32(2) of the ACL.

The Court ordered pecuniary penalties totalling $13.5 million. That total comprised $1.5 million in respect of the contraventions referred to in the opt-in declarations, $10 million in respect of the contraventions referred to in the expiry declarations, and $2 million in respect of the ACL contraventions concerning late provision of Store Credit.

The Court also ordered a consumer redress regime. Eligible consumers who were entitled to receive Store Credit or StoreCash from a qualifying purchase and who did not redeem their first entitlement, in whole or in part, were to receive redress broadly equivalent to that initial entitlement, subject to the detailed terms of the annexure. The redress was to have a 12-month expiry period from the date it was provided. The Court also made reporting orders about the redress regime, a suppression order over the confidential annexure containing the consumer notice, and a costs order requiring The Good Guys to pay $200,000.

This case should be read as a warning about both disclosure and execution. The first lesson is that a condition can be legally important even if it sits in the background of your systems rather than in the headline offer. If a customer would reasonably understand the promotion to mean they get the benefit by making the qualifying purchase, but in reality they only get it if they stay subscribed to marketing or satisfy another ongoing condition, that condition is likely to be central to the overall impression created by the ad.

The second lesson is that short expiry periods matter. A short use-by period can materially affect the value of a promotional credit. If the benefit expires after 7 or 10 days, many customers may view the offer differently than if they had a longer period to use it. The Court's orders were based on admitted failures to disclose, or adequately disclose, those expiry conditions.

The third lesson is operational. Promotions often fail not because the concept is unlawful, but because the business has not aligned its systems with the promise being made. If the ad says the benefit will be sent by a specified date, your dispatch process, customer data, consent logic and exception handling all need to support that promise. In this case, about 21,500 consumers did not receive Store Credit within the time specified.

The fourth lesson is classification. Where a benefit operates as a facility for non-cash payment, the ASIC Act may apply to the misleading conduct issues. Businesses should not assume that calling something a voucher, credit or wallet balance answers the legal question. The structure and function of the benefit matter.

For smaller businesses, the same principles apply even if the scale is much lower. A promotion offering account credit, wallet credit, a voucher or a rebate can still create risk if key conditions are hidden or if fulfilment breaks down. The practical answer is to review the promotion as one connected system rather than as separate marketing and operations tasks.

The judgment was delivered on 8 September 2025 by O'Bryan J in the Federal Court of Australia. The hearing date recorded in the extract is 18 August 2025. The orders required payment of penalties and costs within 30 days of the order date. The redress regime required notices to eligible consumers to be sent within 14 days of the order date, notification to the applicants within 30 days of the order date of the number of consumers sent a store credit under the regime, and a further confidential report within 400 days of the order date unless another date was agreed in writing.

The proceeding was otherwise dismissed after the agreed orders were made.

This page is based on the Federal Court judgment in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v The Good Guys Discount Warehouses (Australia) Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1085, dated 8 September 2025. The published extract supports the key facts, admissions and orders described above, including the dates of the promotions, the categories of admitted conduct, the statutory provisions applied by the Court, the penalties, the redress regime and the costs order.

The publicly available text is truncated before the full reasons conclude. The account above therefore focuses on the admitted conduct and the orders clearly recorded in the judgment.