In this section of our ACCC mid-year update, we explore the key trends and developments regarding consumer protection and fair trading and how aspects of these areas are faring in 2025. We re-examined our earlier predictions for the year, which focused on how franchise networks adapted to the new Code, our thoughts on anticipated enforcement priorities for the ACCC and the impact of cost of living pressures. The accuracy of our predictions was then compared against what the ACCC has actually done so far this year in these spaces.  

What we predicted

Consumer markets, retail and franchising

We predicted that 2025 would be a busy year for Australian franchise networks, as they worked to familiarise themselves with the new Code. This would have included reviewing and updating their franchise agreements and disclosure documents to ensure Code compliance. We believed compliance with the ACL, including UC laws, would continue to be an important issue on the radar of franchisors. For the ACCC, ensuring that small business would receive the benefits of the laws designed to protect them remains a priority; however unlike in previous years, the ACCC did not identify franchising as an area of focus for them in 2024. As such, moving into 2025, we expected that ACCC would keep enforcement actions targeted at franchise networks to a minimum, in part to enable the sector to adapt to the new Code. We also believed that any significant work of the ACCC in the franchising space would be in the form of educational efforts, most likely in connection with the new Code. 

Cost of living

Going into 2025, we expected to see progress in the Webjet and the Coles Federal Court proceedings, and potentially the commencement of further prosecutions for misleading and deceptive conduct against companies and businesses providing essential goods and services. Based on prior matters, we expected that Coles could settle the claim with the ACCC. Finally, we also expected to see a continued focus from the ACCC on achieving results for consumers, but with a much greater emphasis than under its previous leadership on consumer redress and compensation schemes. 

Misleading or deceptive advertising 

We expected to see the ACCC continue its focus on major structural reforms (such as ‘unfair practices’, merger reforms, and digital platforms and services) leaving consumer protection to be somewhat of a lower priority in 2025. We believed it would be likely that the ACCC would continue to bring consumer protection cases by exception and only where issues of national significance, substantive legal questions, blatant conduct or vulnerable consumers were involved. We also expected that, in line with its international counterparts, the ACCC would continue its new practice of conducting broad sweeps to identify problematic conduct and drive wholesale changes across multiple businesses without the need for lengthy and costly litigation. In other words, we believed the ACCC would push on with its focus on ‘faster, louder, stronger’. Finally, we expected that cost of living, consumer guarantees, delivery timeframes and price representations would remain firmly in the ACCC’s sights. 

What has the ACCC done?

Cost of living and competition issues in the supermarket and retail sector 

The ACCC continued its focus on misleading pricing practices and also reminded businesses about the appropriate use of card surcharges to directly address cost of living concerns. While the ACCC brought proceedings in 2024 against the major supermarkets for alleged misleading discounts, the only new development of any significance so far this year has been the publication of the ACCC’s supermarkets inquiry report in March 2025. 

Unfair Contract Terms and Consumer Guarantees

The ACCC identified concerning return policies and terms and conditions in a sweep of over two thousand Australian retail websites, noting practices that might contravene the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) by imposing time-limits for returns, blanket 'no refund' conditions, referring consumers to manufacturers to seek remedies for faulty items, or restricting remedies for faulty items. This sweep resulted in the ACCC issuing warning letters to retailers urging businesses to review and change or remove concerning ‘refund and return’ policies and statements. Reebelo Australia paid penalties for allegedly making false representations about consumer guarantee rights by imposing a 14-day time limit on remedies for faulty or incorrect goods. Apparel business and Hard Rock Enterprises Pty Ltd admitted to making misleading representations about the time available to consumers to seek remedies for faulty products. 

Misleading advertising and pricing

The ACCC has taken significant action against misleading pricing practices. Dendy Cinema Pty Ltd paid a penalty for allegedly using 'drip pricing'. Mattress supplier, Emma Sleep Pty Ltd, admitted to making false or misleading statements about sale prices, including showing fake discounts and using countdown timers to create a false sense of urgency for consumers. Several major retailers, including Michael Hill Jeweller and MyHouse, paid penalties for alleged misleading 'sitewide' sales claims during Black Friday events, where discounts did not apply to all products as advertised.

The numerous penalties imposed on retailers for misleading sales, drip pricing, and incorrect consumer guarantee information (such as Michael Hill, Emma Sleep, Dendy, Reebelo, Hard Rock) demonstrate strong enforcement by the ACCC. The sweep of online return policies and the Mable undertaking demonstrate the effective use of compliance and education tools to address unfair terms. However, new litigation in this area has been subdued.

Greenwashing 

The ACCC has renewed its focus on false environmental claims. Clorox Australia Pty Ltd was ordered to pay an $8.25 million penalty for false or misleading representations that certain GLAD kitchen and garbage bags were partly made of recycled 'ocean plastic' when they were not. The ACCC also launched Federal Court action against Australian Gas Networks Limited for alleged greenwashing in its ‘Love Gas’ campaign, claiming gas would be renewable within a generation without reasonable grounds. Legal proceedings were instituted against Edgewell Personal Care Australia Pty Ltd (owner of Banana Boat and Hawaiian Tropic) for allegedly false or misleading claims that its sunscreens were ‘reef friendly’, when they actually contained other chemicals that potentially cause harm to reefs.

The substantial penalty imposed on Clorox, along with the court actions against Australian Gas Networks and Edgewell, underscores a robust and impactful enforcement strategy against greenwashing.

Unconscionable Conduct and Vulnerable Consumers

The ACCC has aggressively pursued cases involving vulnerable consumers. In particular:

• The Federal Court ordered vocational college Captain Cook College, its parent company Site Group International Limited, and former COO, Blake Wills, to pay total penalties of $30.4 million for engaging in systemic unconscionable conduct and misleading students.
• Bupa is in the Federal Court after admitting to unconscionable conduct and misleading consumers about health insurance benefit entitlements, affecting thousands of members over five years, with the ACCC and Bupa jointly asking the Court to impose a $35 million penalty.
• The ACCC also commenced proceedings against Beacon Products Pty Ltd, Zandox Group Pty Ltd, and their director, Mr Warren Skry, for alleged unconscionable and misleading sales practices involving unsolicited sales of printer cartridges and cleaning products to small and medium businesses.
• Mable Technologies Pty Ltd, an online support platform for disability and aged care, admitted to using unfair contract terms that disadvantaged clients and support workers, including penalty fees and automatic service log approvals.

The cases involving Captain Cook College, Bupa, Bedshed, Thermomix and other major retailers and providers demonstrate a strong and successful focus on protecting vulnerable consumers from unconscionable and misleading conduct, resulting in significant penalties and redress programs.

NDIS-related Misleading Claims 

Bedshed Franchising Pty Ltd paid penalties for allegedly making false or misleading representations that some products were 'NDIS approved' or 'NDIS permitted'. Thermomix (Vorwerk Australia Pty Ltd) also paid penalties for allegedly misleading NDIS endorsement claims for its appliances.

Product Safety 

Compliance with mandatory button battery standards has remained a significant focus. The ACCC commenced legal proceedings against retail chain, City Beach, for allegedly selling thousands of non-compliant button battery products. Hungry Jack’s Pty Ltd paid penalties for supplying a Garfield toy with children’s meals that allegedly failed to comply with the button battery information standard due to the absence of warnings. Recently, the ACCC has reaffirmed unsafe products in online marketplaces, and product safety issues impacting young children (including button batteries), as major product safety priorities for 2025-26. 

The legal proceedings against City Beach and penalties for Hungry Jack's demonstrate the ACCC's unwavering commitment and proactive enforcement of button battery standards, a critical area for child safety. 

How accurate were our predictions?

Sweeps and audits in franchising and unfair contract terms 

Our expectation of "sweeps and audits of major franchise systems to ensure compliance with the unfair contract terms regime and the new Franchising Code of Conduct" has so far proven to be somewhat correct, with the ACCC issuing infringement notices against Cash Converters and MTA for breaches of the Franchising Code. The surprise development, however, was further litigation against Ultra Tune, involving contempt of court for its failure to comply with 2019 Court orders relating to Code compliance. Having said that, this case clearly fits within the “most serious matters” category – given the ACCC’s long-held concerns about Ultra Tune and its failure to take its compliance with the Code seriously, as evidenced by the numerous proceedings brought by the ACCC against it in recent years. 

Consumer Focus on Misleading Pricing/Claims in Groceries & Essential Services 

Our prediction of "continued action by the ACCC against misleading pricing claims" in groceries and essential services due to cost of living pressures has been highly accurate. This is explicitly an ACCC priority for 2025-26, and the numerous actions against Dendy, Emma Sleep, Michael Hill, Diamond Energy, Telstra, and others directly confirm this continued focus.

Litigation as a ‘last resort’ for serious matters

While we predicted that litigation would be a "last resort for the most serious matters", this prediction has proved to be inaccurate, as the ACCC commenced nearly 10 new proceedings in various areas including proceedings against Bradford Exchange Ltd (alleged subscription traps), City Beach (alleged product safety issues), LDV Automotive Australia and Jayco Corporation Ltd (motor vehicles), Beacon Products Pty Ltd and others (alleged unsolicited sales), Australian Gas Networks Limited (alleged greenwashing) Edgewell Personal Care Australia (alleged greenwashing) and Bupa (health insurance). However, our prediction that the ACCC would emphasise the "quick resolution of claims with a strong focus on consumer redress schemes" has proven to be closer to the mark, given action taken against retailers, such as Michael Hill Jeweller and MyHouse.

Conclusion

The ACCC's activities in the first half of 2025 demonstrate a vigorous and strategically focused approach to its compliance and enforcement priorities. The emphasis on protecting consumers from misleading practices and unconscionable conduct, particularly those experiencing vulnerability, remains strong, leading to significant penalties and redress. Our predictions from the "Maddocks Watchdog Recap 2024" have largely been borne out, though not entirely. Time will tell whether our predictions prove accurate over the remainder of the year.