Business Law Library & Tracker
Consumer Law & Trading
Australian Consumer Law, unfair contract terms, refunds, advertising and online trading rules.
Sources last reviewed 2 June 2026
Published law explainers
308
Curated from a much larger legal corpus
Topics
11
Plain-English clusters
Published case explainers
663
Selected from thousands of decisions
Tracked updates
11
New, amended & reviewed
These are plain-English explainers, not legal advice. They are a good starting point, but check the linked official source before you rely on a specific section, and get advice for your situation.
Talk to a lawyerLegislation
Competition and Consumer Act 2010
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)
Spam Act 2003
Spam Act 2003 (Cth)
Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code - Standard 3.2.2 - Food Safety Practices and General Requirements
Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code - Standard 3.2.2 - Food Safety Practices and General Requirements
Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth)
Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth)
Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 (Cth)
Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 (Cth)
Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth)
Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth)
Tracker
- Case1 June 2026
Digital consumer law cases added
Digital, ecommerce and marketplace businesses now have selected cases for pricing interfaces, search ads, data disclosures and small-business unfair terms.
Consumer Law & TradingPrivacy & Data - Reviewed28 Feb 2026
Spam Act flagged for marketing compliance review
Businesses running email or SMS campaigns should confirm consent records, sender identification and working unsubscribe links.
Privacy & DataConsumer Law & Trading - Case15 Jan 2026
ACCC v Valve added as a selected consumer law case
Online businesses should review refund terms and consumer guarantee wording in light of this decision.
Consumer Law & Trading
Cases
Self Care IP Holdings v Allergan
Brand strategy should be checked before launch. Businesses need to consider registered marks, packaging, product naming and the overall impression created for customers.
Outcome: The High Court found against the key trade mark and consumer law claims. In broad terms, the Court did not accept that the challenged words were being used in the infringing way alleged, or that the relevant misleading representation was conveyed to reasonable consumers.
ACCC v Employsure
Read this case as a warning about the whole structure of a paid search campaign. The legal risk did not come only from one phrase in isolation. It came from the combination of the search terms chosen, the dynamic use of those terms in headlines, the ads appearing first, the official-sounding wording, and the absence of Employsure’s name. If your business advertises near a government function, make sure an ordinary user can immediately tell that your business is a private provider. Do not rely on the idea that users will slow down, inspect every detail, or work out that a result is only an ad. Review keywords, headlines, URLs, call extensions and landing pages together. If the campaign works because users think they are clicking on the regulator or an endorsed service, that is exactly the kind of impression that creates ACL risk.
Outcome: The Full Federal Court upheld the ACCC’s appeal. It held that Employsure’s publication of the Google Ads conveyed the alleged government affiliation representations to the ordinary or reasonable member of the relevant class. That conduct contravened s 18 of the ACL and involved false or misleading representations contrary to ss 29(1)(b) and 29(1)(h). The Court set aside the first instance orders, directed the parties to confer on the form of declarations and injunctions, remitted the proceeding to the primary judge for hearing on pecuniary penalty and first instance costs, and ordered Employsure to pay the ACCC’s appeal costs.
ACCC v Google
Businesses collecting location or behavioural data should make privacy and consumer disclosures match the real product settings. Privacy wording can also be consumer law risk.
Outcome: The Federal Court found Google had made misleading representations to some Android users about location data settings during the relevant period. The decision showed that consumer law can apply to privacy and product-setting representations, not just classic sales advertising.
ACCC v Trivago
Read this case as a decision about what an ordinary consumer would take from a digital comparison service. If your website or app highlights a result as top, featured, recommended, best value or cheapest, you need to be able to justify that impression. It is not enough to say the algorithm is complex or that cheaper options appear elsewhere. If payment from suppliers affects prominence, the presentation must not imply neutral or cheapest-first comparison unless that is really what the system delivers. Savings claims also need like-for-like comparisons. Before launch and after major product changes, review the interface as a whole, including ranking order, labels, strike-through prices, hover-overs, disclosures, ad copy and any statements about impartial comparison.
Outcome: The Federal Court held that Trivago made each of the alleged Cheapest Price, Top Position, Strike-Through and Red Price representations during the periods alleged by the ACCC. The Court concluded that the Cheapest Price Representation contravened sections 18 and 34 of the Australian Consumer Law, and that the Top Position, Strike-Through and Red Price representations contravened sections 18 and 29. The Court also found that Trivago engaged in broader conduct up to 2 July 2018 that led consumers to believe the website provided an impartial, objective and transparent price comparison enabling them to quickly and easily identify the cheapest available offer, and that this conduct contravened sections 18 and 34. The published orders show the matter was then listed for further case management.
ACCC v JJ Richards
If your business uses standard form contracts with small business customers, ACCC v JJ Richards is a strong reminder to review the whole template, not just one clause at a time. The Court dealt with a recurring service contract that gave the supplier control over renewal, pricing, service-related credits, exclusivity, credit, indemnity and termination. Those rights are commercially familiar, but the case shows they can become unfair when they operate one way and leave the customer exposed to lock-in or detriment. A practical review should ask four questions. First, does the clause give your business a unilateral power over an important part of the relationship? Second, is that power genuinely necessary to protect a legitimate business interest? Third, does the customer have a meaningful counterbalance, such as notice, a right to dispute, or a right to terminate? Fourth, do several clauses work together to make the contract harsher overall? The case also shows the consequences of getting this wrong. A business may have to stop relying on existing terms, stop using them in future, notify customers, publish corrective material and run a compliance program. For many businesses, that is a much bigger problem than simply redrafting a clause.
Outcome: Moshinsky J made declarations and orders by consent on 13 October 2017. The Court declared that the eight identified term categories in captured small business standard form contracts entered into or renewed after 12 November 2016 were unfair contract terms within s 24 and void by operation of s 23. The Court also restrained JJ Richards from applying or relying on those terms in captured contracts, restrained it for five years from entering into small business standard form contracts containing those terms, required corrective notices and customer notification within 14 days, required an ACL compliance program within 90 days to be maintained for three years, and ordered that the parties bear their own costs.
ACCC v Valve Corporation
Online businesses selling to Australian customers should assume the Australian Consumer Law applies, and refund or 'no returns' clauses cannot override consumer guarantees.
Outcome: The Federal Court found Valve had made misleading representations about Australian consumer guarantees. The Full Federal Court later dismissed Valve's appeal, including against the finding that it carried on business in Australia and the $3 million penalty.