Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Optus Mobile Pty Limited

This case arose from ACCC proceedings against Optus Mobile Pty Limited in the Federal Court of Australia. The Court was not deciding whether contraventions had occurred after a fully contested hearing. Instead, Optus admitted multiple contraventions of the Australian Consumer Law, and the ACCC and Optus jointly asked the Court to make declarations, penalty orders, publication orders and costs orders.

The commercial story matters. This was not framed as one isolated bad sale. The admitted conduct covered sales to 24 vulnerable consumers over a period running from 8 January 2019 to 12 September 2023, separate debt collection conduct linked to the Mount Isa store from at least February 2020, and further conduct in Darwin stores between June 2021 and July 2023 affecting at least 363 consumer accounts. The Court's catchwords also record that the conduct targeted vulnerable consumers, was extremely serious, and was facilitated by failures to address known system deficiencies.

The undertaking attached to the orders adds more context. It says the ACCC commenced the proceeding on 31 October 2024. It also describes the relevant period for products and services covered by the undertaking as August 2019 to July 2023, and explains that Optus sold through company-operated stores, licensee stores, contact centres and online channels. The undertaking says the proceeding concerned inappropriate sales conduct at 16 retail stores during the relevant period.

The orders set out the admitted conduct in direct terms. In relation to the 24 consumers, Optus admitted that it knew or ought to have known those consumers were experiencing vulnerability or disadvantage. Many were First Nations persons from remote communities. The conduct included undue pressure or influence, poor explanation of contract terms, and sales of goods and services that consumers often did not want, did not need, could not afford, or could not use.

One practical feature stands out. The declarations say there were multiple instances where staff did not have regard to whether consumers had Optus coverage where they lived, and sold them goods and services they would not be able to use because of the lack of coverage. That is a very concrete example of how a sale can become legally risky even if the paperwork is completed. If the product will not work for the customer in their actual circumstances, the sale process is already in dangerous territory.

The undertaking gives further detail about the kinds of vulnerability involved. It refers to consumers living with mental disability or diminished cognitive capacity, being unemployed, being financially dependent and indigent, having limited financial literacy, English not being a first language, and living with learning and comprehension difficulties. It also says many suffered financial harm and non-financial harm, including shame, embarrassment, stress and emotional distress. Being pursued by debt collectors caused distress and fear for at least some consumers, and defaults affected credit scores and may have affected access to other credit and services.

The case was not limited to the 24 consumers. The orders also identify two further streams of conduct that mattered to the Court's assessment of the overall pattern.

In Mount Isa, from at least February 2020, Optus senior management was aware of findings from an internal investigation that 82 contracts concerning 46 consumers appeared to have been entered into fraudulently without the relevant consumers' knowledge. Despite that, Optus referred outstanding debts associated with those contracts to third party debt collection agencies, sold debts to a third party factoring agency, and affected up to 39 consumers through debt collection activity. The orders say some accounts had defaults listed against them with credit reporting bodies. The undertaking adds that senior management knew those debts related to contracts that had been or might have been created by licensee staff without the knowledge of affected consumers, and that the majority of affected consumers were First Nations Australians from Mount Isa and the Northern Territory.

In Darwin, between June 2021 and July 2023, sales agents at the Casuarina and Palmerston Gateway stores manipulated or bypassed credit controls, oversold and overpriced accessories, including above recommended retail price, and sold services and devices without regard to whether consumers had coverage where they lived. The declarations say store managers and assistant store managers engaged in, taught and or directed junior staff to engage in that conduct. It affected at least 363 consumer accounts. Some of those consumers were First Nations persons, lived in remote communities and or were experiencing vulnerability or disadvantage.

These parts of the case matter because they show the Court was dealing with a pattern of behaviour, not a handful of disconnected complaints. They also show how management knowledge and store-level practices can combine to create a broader unconscionable conduct case.

The legal issue was whether the Court should make the declarations and relief jointly proposed by the ACCC and Optus after Optus admitted contraventions of sections 18, 21 and 29 of the Australian Consumer Law. In practical terms, that meant deciding whether the agreed penalty and other orders were appropriate in light of the admitted conduct.

The catchwords show the Court considered the seriousness of the conduct, the fact that vulnerable consumers were targeted, the failures to address known system deficiencies, and the principles applicable when fixing a civil penalty, including specific and general deterrence. So the Court's task was not simply to record admissions. It had to be satisfied that the proposed orders were within an appropriate range and properly reflected the nature and scale of the admitted wrongdoing.

The declarations also matter because they identify the legal character of the conduct. The 24 consumer matters were declared to be 24 instances of unconscionable conduct. The Mount Isa and Darwin conduct were also declared to contravene section 21 as part of a pattern of unconscionable conduct. In addition, Optus admitted making false or misleading representations to 4 consumers about the price of goods and services, contrary to sections 18 and 29(1)(i).

The Court made orders in the terms sought by the parties on 24 September 2025. It declared by consent that Optus engaged in 24 instances of unconscionable conduct in relation to the 24 consumers. It also declared that the Mount Isa conduct and the Darwin conduct contravened section 21 of the Australian Consumer Law as part of a pattern of unconscionable conduct. The Court further declared that Optus made false or misleading representations to 4 consumers with respect to price in contravention of sections 18 and 29(1)(i).

The Court ordered Optus to pay a pecuniary penalty of $100 million within 30 days. It also ordered corrective publication steps, including publication on the Optus homepage for 14 days, posts on Facebook, Instagram and X for at least 30 days, display in Optus-branded retail stores for 60 days, and publication in specified print outlets including The Senior Magazine, the National Indigenous Times, the Koori Mail and a major daily newspaper in each State and Territory. The Court noted that Optus had given a section 87B undertaking accepted by the ACCC on 17 June 2025, and ordered Optus to pay the ACCC's costs fixed at $1.5 million within 30 days.

The orders also kept parts of the undertaking confidential. Schedule 2 and Schedule 4 to the undertaking were ordered to remain confidential on the electronic court file.

One of the strongest themes in the judgment and undertaking is that the case was not only about frontline misconduct. The declarations say the conduct occurred in circumstances where Optus was aware, or ought to have become increasingly aware, that its systems and controls were deficient to avoid or prevent the conduct, and that there were deficiencies in how it dealt with vulnerable consumers, including because it did not have a holistic vulnerable consumer strategy as at July 2021.

The undertaking goes further. It says senior management became increasingly aware, or ought to have become increasingly aware, that sales staff were engaging in the conduct, that existing systems and controls were deficient, and that Optus generally failed to fully remediate matters for long periods of time, sometimes not until matters were referred to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. It also says Optus failed to promptly fix system deficiencies, allowing the conduct to continue.

The undertaking also identifies commission-based remuneration structures as having the potential to incentivise inappropriate sales conduct. That is a practical warning for any business using commissions, bonuses, upsell targets or store-level performance pressure. Incentives do not need to be unlawful on their face to create legal risk. If they encourage staff to push unsuitable products, ignore red flags, or work around controls, they can become part of the factual picture in a regulator case.

Businesses should read this case as a warning that unconscionable conduct can be built from a combination of sales pressure, poor explanation, unsuitable products, affordability problems, weak controls and bad follow-up conduct. A business may think the main risk is a misleading statement at the point of sale. This case shows the risk is broader. If your systems let staff bypass credit controls, add products after approval, oversell accessories, ignore whether a service will work for the customer, or continue debt collection after complaints and investigations, the overall picture can become much more serious.

The case also shows that vulnerability is not a side issue. It can be central. If your customers may have language barriers, low financial literacy, disability, financial hardship, limited comprehension, or live in remote areas, your process needs to adapt. That may mean slower sales, clearer explanations, stronger records, escalation pathways, and more active supervision.

Another practical lesson is that complaints should be treated as intelligence. Repeated complaints, ombudsman referrals, internal investigations and unusual sales patterns are all warning signs. If management knows about them and does not act quickly enough, that can worsen the position considerably.

The undertaking gives a practical list of control areas that businesses should compare against their own operations. It refers to changes around credit check failures, restrictions on changing contact details while an order is still being processed after a credit check, restrictions on submitting additional orders to increase approved value, and restrictions on adding products or services after credit approval where that would exceed the approved value.

It also refers to controls on accessory pricing, including preventing sales above recommended retail price and providing a full breakdown of accessories in contracts and invoices. For coverage checks, the undertaking says Optus will implement mandatory checks in certain channels, provide results to consumers, require acknowledgements in some digital sales, and keep records of those acknowledgements. For debt collection, it says Optus will pause debt collection activities in certain transactions identified as requiring further validation based on indicators of likely improper sales practices, and review other transactions undertaken by the relevant salesperson.

Even if your business is much smaller, the same themes apply. Review your scripts, order forms, invoices, credit approval workflow, add-on sales process, complaints handling, debt collection triggers, and management reporting. If you use agents, licensees or outsourced collectors, review those relationships too. The legal risk does not disappear because the conduct is carried out by someone else in your distribution chain.

The Court's judgment and orders are dated 24 September 2025. The hearing date recorded in the extract is 2 September 2025. The Court notes that Optus gave a section 87B undertaking that was accepted by the ACCC on 17 June 2025. The undertaking says the ACCC instituted the proceeding on 31 October 2024.

For conduct timing, the declarations say the 24 consumer sales occurred between 8 January 2019 and 12 September 2023. The Mount Isa debt collection conduct is described as occurring from at least February 2020. The Darwin conduct is described as occurring between June 2021 and July 2023. The undertaking also refers to a relevant period between August 2019 and July 2023 for the products and services it describes.

These dates matter because they show the conduct was not brief or isolated. The admitted issues extended over years and across multiple locations and channels.

This page explains the Federal Court decision in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Optus Mobile Pty Limited [2025] FCA 1177 using the published judgment and the part of the attached undertaking reproduced with the orders. That material is detailed enough to explain the commercial story, the admitted conduct, the legal issues and the outcome.

Some parts of the undertaking are not reproduced in full in the extract, and some schedules were kept confidential by court order. For that reason, this page focuses on the conduct and compliance themes that are clearly stated in the published material. It is general information, not legal advice.