Selected cases

High Court of Australia · [2013] HCA 54

ACCC v TPG Internet

A High Court advertising case about headline prices, unavoidable charges and the overall impression of broadband promotions.

High Court of Australia12 Dec 2013

Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Use the linked official source for section-level detail, and get advice for your situation.

Get legal help

Start here

Quick read

  • Headline prices must show the real deal.
  • A High Court advertising case about headline prices, unavoidable charges and the overall impression of broadband promotions.

Use this to check

  • Fine print cannot rescue a misleading headline price.
  • Unavoidable fees should be prominent, not buried.
  • Design, font size, placement and repetition all affect the legal impression.

Decision snapshot

  1. What happened

    • TPG advertised an Unlimited ADSL2+ broadband package with prominent headline pricing.
    • The ads emphasised a monthly broadband price while other unavoidable charges, including telephone line rental and setup costs, were disclosed less prominently.
    • The ACCC argued the campaign's dominant impression was misleading because customers could not obtain the advertised broadband service for the headline amount alone.

  2. What the court had to decide

    • The High Court had to decide whether the advertisements were misleading when assessed by their overall impression, and whether the lower court had given too much weight to qualifying information that appeared less prominently than the headline offer.

  3. What the court decided

    • The High Court allowed the ACCC's appeal and restored the primary judge's approach to the misleading overall impression.
    • The decision remains a core warning for businesses using bold headline offers with important qualifications.

Practical impact

Practical read

  • Headline prices must show the real deal.
  • If unavoidable charges are hidden, delayed or visually downplayed, a technically true price can still create a misleading overall impression.

Useful next steps

  • Fine print cannot rescue a misleading headline price.
  • Unavoidable fees should be prominent, not buried.
  • Design, font size, placement and repetition all affect the legal impression.
  • Put unavoidable charges near the headline price.
  • Review ads on mobile, email and landing pages, not only desktop mockups.

Practical read

TPG is the classic Australian headline-pricing case. The ad did contain more information, but the headline did the commercial work. The High Court's point was that customers read advertising as a whole, and a business cannot rely on fine print to repair a dominant misleading impression.

For small businesses, this matters any time pricing is bundled: subscriptions, memberships, delivery fees, setup fees, minimum spends, add-ons and required companion products. If the customer has to pay it, the headline needs to make the real price obvious.

Checks to run

Key points

  • Put unavoidable charges near the headline price.
  • Review ads on mobile, email and landing pages, not only desktop mockups.
  • Avoid savings or unlimited claims unless the qualifying conditions are clear.
  • Check campaign creative before media spend goes live.

Key takeaways

  • Fine print cannot rescue a misleading headline price.
  • Unavoidable fees should be prominent, not buried.
  • Design, font size, placement and repetition all affect the legal impression.

Related topics

Consumer Law & TradingDigital & Ecommerce

How Sprintlaw can help

Website Terms and ConditionsContract Review