Cost of living remained a concern for consumers throughout 2025. While the ACCC pursued (limited) enforcement actions to reduce the cost of living, it failed to move the needle on cost-of-living impacts in the short term. In fairness to the ACCC, while enforcement action can hold businesses to account and punish wrongdoing, it doesn’t automatically create competition or lower consumer costs.

Key enforcement activity 

Microsoft Corporation

Microsoft Faces ACCC Action for Alleged Misrepresentations on Copilot Integration and Subscription Pricing

As covered in our chapter Customer Data & Digital Platforms Inquiry, in late in 2025, the ACCC commenced proceedings against Microsoft following a lengthy investigation by the ACCC. The ACCC alleges that Microsoft made false or misleading representations to customers relating to the auto-renewal of their plans. Microsoft told customers that, to maintain their subscription, they had to accept Copilot integration and pay higher plan prices, or cancel their subscription. The ACCC alleges that Microsoft hid another option from customers: the ability to maintain their current subscription at the lower price. The ACCC seeks penalties, declarations, consumer redress and costs.

Telstra

Telstra to pay $18m penalty and $2.3m in remediation for misleading and deceptive conduct.

As we discuss in our chapter on Telecommunications, the ACCC commenced proceedings against Telstra in December 2022, alleging that Telstra moved approximately 9,000 of its Belong customers to a lower-speed internet plan without informing them. ACCC Commissioner, Ms Brakey, said that Telstra’s failure to inform its customers of this change denied them the opportunity to decide whether the service remained suitable. This case demonstrates a key focus of the ACCC’s enforcement priorities: essential services for customers. In 2025, the Federal Court ultimately ordered that Telstra pay an $18m penalty, as well as $2.3m in remediation to affected customers.

Other notable cases/developments

• The Federal Court ordered the Good Guys to pay a $13.5m penalty for failing to disclose key terms and conditions in advertising promotional offers.
   
• The Federal Court also ordered Webjet to pay a $9m penalty for making false or misleading statements on its website, in promotional emails and social media posts in relation to airfares.
   
• The ACCC proceedings against major supermarkets are ongoing in relation to alleged misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to pricing claims made to customers. 

Assessment against priorities 

In announcing the ACCC’s 2025 enforcement priorities, ACCC Chair, Ms Cass-Gottlieb made it clear that there would be very little in the way of any new focus on protecting consumers.  The only new consumer protection priority announced concerned misleading surcharging practices and other add-on costs given their impact on transparency and consumer knowledge. However, the ACCC did take some action on the issues by targeting the supermarket, energy, and telecom sectors, including through foreshadowed proceedings and broader actions to support competition in essential services. 

To understand and address cost of living issues, in 2025, the ACCC:

• investigated the supermarket sector and found that major supermarkets are highly profitable with limited incentive to cut prices for consumers;
   
• brought Court actions against the major supermarkets for misleading “discount” claims on hundreds of products;
   
• announced it will investigate energy retailers for promising “savings” on energy plans that ultimately provide poor value for consumers; and
   
• warned electricity retailers and battery and solar suppliers that it expects retailers and installers to act in the consumer’s interest to ensure that consumers receive the full benefit of the Cheaper Home Batteries Program. 

Yet, in a broader sense, the cost-of-living issue remains unresolved, noting that prices in many affected markets continue to rise. The question is whether the ACCC’s stated priorities are supported by the current public activity in this area or whether enforcement measures (such as new proceedings, infringement notices, undertakings or possible further market inquiries) are simply yet to be made public.

Looking forward 

In 2026, we think the ACCC is likely to continue to scrutinise essential services to address (and hopefully ease) the cost-of-living pressures facing Australian consumers. However, such scrutiny is unlikely to result in enforcement action or immediate reductions in the cost of living, given other market factors driving up prices that remain outside the ACCC’s control.

In addition, we might see:

• Further investigations into energy retail, including the enforcement actions against providers that market misleading discounts or uncompetitive contracts and, potentially, pressure on the Government for price-cap reforms if competition fails to deliver better deals.
   
• Renewed focus on the telecoms sector targeting surcharging, add-ons and contract rollovers that leave consumers out of pocket, plus consideration of the expansion of the CDR regime into telco, allowing consumers to compare offers more easily.
   
• Targeted action in other cost-of-living pain points, such as airline surcharges, and possibly investigations into ‘buy-now-pay-later’ providers, where hidden costs potentially exacerbate household debt.
   
• Possibly, a follow-up supermarket market study if the ACCC’s interim findings are not addressed by the major supermarkets tracking prices, margins and discounting practices.
   
• Submissions to the Government concerning new initiatives, such as:
  • further reforms of the mandatory unit pricing standard across more grocery categories;
  • plain-English disclosure for energy plans; and
  • written contract summaries for telecommunication package fees.