Marking the tenth year of this publication invites reflection. Over ten editions, we have tracked the ACCC’s evolution from a focused competition and consumer protection enforcer to a multidisciplinary market steward engaged in digital platform regulation, energy transition oversight, mandatory merger reform, and consumer protection across an increasingly complex economy. 

The regulator’s responsibilities, its toolkit and the expectations placed on it have all expanded while its core purpose, namely, promoting competition and protecting consumers and small businesses, has remained constant. As we enter the tenth year of our Year in Review series and look toward the year ahead, we do so against a backdrop of rapid technological transformation, persistent cost-of-living pressures, and shifting regulatory architecture. 

Despite all of the changes, the ACCC’s work is more important than ever, continuing to be fundamental to the Australian success story.

2016

↑ ACCC vs Flight Centre

The High Court overturned earlier findings and confirmed that Flight Centre competed with the airlines it represented, and that its conduct amounted to cartel behaviour. The decision significantly strengthened the ACCC’s ability to pursue cartel conduct in vertical arrangements.

2017

↑ Section 46 (misuse of market power) reform

The Harper Review amendments replaced the “take advantage” test with an effects‑based prohibition applying to firms with substantial market power. This was a major advocacy success for the ACCC and aligned Australian law with international competition norms.

↓ Escalating scam losses despite oversight

Australians lost an estimated $340 million to scams in 2017, with losses continuing to rise despite ACCC education and complaint handling. This highlighted the limits of traditional enforcement tools and foreshadowed the need for more systemic, platform‑based responses.

2018

↑ ACL penalty reforms and Yazaki cartel penalty

Maximum ACL penalties were lifted to align with competition law, allowing courts to impose penalties up to 10% of turnover per contravention. The $46 million Yazaki cartel penalty confirmed courts’ willingness to impose deterrent, group‑wide penalties.

↓ Kleenex “flushable wipes” case loss

The Federal Court dismissed the ACCC’s misleading conduct case, finding insufficient evidence that the wipes caused greater blockage risk than toilet paper. The case exposed the evidentiary challenges of pursuing technical product‑performance claims.

2019

↑ Digital Platforms Inquiry Final Report

The ACCC published its landmark Digital Platforms Inquiry report with 23 recommendations spanning competition, media and consumer protection. It established global leadership in digital regulation and led to a permanent Digital Platforms Branch.

↓ TPG–Vodafone merger defeat

The ACCC’s case that TPG was a future competitive entrant was rejected, and the merger was allowed. This undermined the ACCC’s dynamic competition theory in telecommunications mergers.

2020

↑ Record penalties and Telstra Indigenous case

Total penalties in 2019–20 reached approximately $232.7 million, reflecting the strengthened penalty regime. The ACCC also commenced proceedings against Telstra over unconscionable sales to Indigenous consumers.

↓ Federal Court approval of TPG–Vodafone merger

The Court rejected the ACCC’s counterfactual case and found no substantial lessening of competition, with no appeal pursued. This entrenched a major strategic setback in merger enforcement.

2021

↑ Telstra $50m unconscionable conduct penalty

Telstra was penalised $50 million for exploiting vulnerable Indigenous consumers through systemic failures in sales practices. It became the largest ACL penalty for unconscionable conduct at the time and a defining consumer protection case.

↓ NSW Ports case loss (first instance)

The Court found NSW Ports benefited from derivative Crown immunity and that compensation provisions were not anti‑competitive. The decision clarified limits on challenging privatisation‑era arrangements.

2022

↑ Major penalties and cartel prosecution collapse

The ACCC secured $60 million from Google for misleading location data practices and $33.5 million from telcos over NBN speed claims. In contrast, the collapse of the banking cartel prosecution materially weakened confidence in the credibility of criminal cartel enforcement.

2023

↑ Record $438m unconscionable conduct penalties

The Federal Court imposed unprecedented penalties on Phoenix Institute and CTI Invest for large‑scale exploitation of vulnerable students. The case set a new benchmark for penalties involving systemic consumer harm. The introduction of civil penalties for unfair contract terms was also a significant win for the ACCC.

↓ NSW Ports appeal dismissed

The Full Federal Court upheld the original NSW Ports decision, confirming a total loss for the ACCC. The outcome significantly constrained future challenges to long‑term exclusivity arrangements.

2024

↑ Unprecedented annual penalty outcomes

The ACCC reported over $600 million in penalties, including $100 million each against Qantas for consumer law breaches. These results demonstrated the post‑2022 penalty framework’s ability to impose nine‑figure sanctions on major corporates.

↓ Supermarkets inquiry enforcement gap exposed

The inquiry revealed widespread unnotified acquisitions by major Australian supermarkets under the voluntary merger regime. It highlighted systemic under‑enforcement and the limitations of informal merger control.

2025

↑ Supermarkets reforms and merger regime overhaul

The Supermarkets Inquiry Final Report recommended 20 reforms alongside commencement of the mandatory merger notification regime. Together, these changes represent some of the most significant strengthening of competition law architecture in decades.

↓ Digital competition and unfair trading reform gap

Despite strong ACCC recommendations and government support, no digital competition or unfair trading legislation had passed by the end of 2025. This prolonged reliance on ill‑suited general laws to address systemic platform and unfair trading harms.