2024 Consumer Law in review: Top 10 enforcement actions shaping Australia’s legal landscape in 2025

2024 saw landmark cases reshape the legal landscape in consumer law and reinforce the importance of protecting consumer rights. From record-breaking penalties to groundbreaking rulings on misleading consumers and unfair practices, these cases have clarified the scope of consumer laws in Australia and illustrated the serious consequences for businesses that fail to comply.

This article highlights the top 10 consumer law enforcement actions of 2024, in chronological order, and offers key insights into the regulators’ actions, the court's reasoning, the penalties imposed, and the broader implications for businesses and consumers.

While some of these proceedings are still ongoing, they provide valuable insights into the current regulatory priorities and enforcement trends.

1.   ACCC v Mazda: Navigating the impact of record penalties

In February 2024, the Federal Court fined Mazda Australia Pty Ltd $11.5 million for engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct and making false or misleading representations about their consumer guarantee rights, breaching sections 18(1) and 29(1)(m) of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) commenced proceedings against Mazda back in 2019, and in 2021, the Federal Court found that Mazda had made 49 false or misleading representations to nine consumers who encountered recurring and significant faults with their vehicles within two years of purchase. Despite multiple unsuccessful repair attempts, Mazda ignored or rejected requests for refunds or replacement vehicles, and told those consumers that repair was the only available remedy.

The ACCC appealed against the Federal Court’s decision to dismiss the ACCC’s allegation of unconscionable conduct. Mazda also appealed against the Federal Court’s decision that it had made 49 false or misleading representations. Both appeals were dismissed.

In its ruling, the Federal Court held that Mazda:

• did not genuinely consider and apply the consumer guarantee provisions under the ACL
• did not make any sufficient attempt to seek technical advice about the issues experienced by the consumers when applying the consumer guarantee provisions
• prioritised commercial negotiations over consumer rights.

The Court also considered that the contraventions were serious because of the distress, disruption, and inconvenience caused to consumers.

In addition to the $11.5 million penalty, Mazda was ordered to pay $82,000 in compensation to five of the consumers and it also agreed to pay a further $3,000 in compensation per vehicle.

Key takeaways

Besides reviewing your returns policy and procedures, to comply with the ACL, businesses should:

• train employees about consumers’ rights and ensure they do not misrepresent those rights to consumers;
• ensure that consumer guarantees are not excluded or limited under your returns policy—they cannot be contracted out of and these exclusions thus misrepresent the consumers’ rights
• ensure that consumer guarantees are are in addition to any manufacturer’s warranties or extended warranties purchased or given to consumers
• ensure “final sale” items are not marked as “cannot be returned for exchange or refund”. All items regardless of whether they are marked “final sale” may be returned if defective or faulty.

2. ACCC v Clorox: Cleaning up misleading recycling claims

In April 2024, the ACCC commenced Federal Court proceedings against Clorox Australia Pty Ltd, the manufacturer of GLAD-branded kitchen tidy and garbage bags, for engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct and making making false or misleading representations about certain kitchen and garbage bags, in contravention of sections 18, 29(1)(a), 29(1)(g), and 33 of the ACL.

The ACCC alleges that between 2021 and 2023, Clorox misrepresented that its GLAD Kitchen Tidy Bags and Garbage Bags contained 50 percent “ocean plastic” collected from an ocean or sea. Instead, the products were made up of approximately 50 percent resin from recycled plastic collected from Indonesian communities up to 50 kilometres from a shoreline, and not from the ocean or sea at all.

The ACCC also alleges that Clorox made false or misleading representations about the products’ composition and associated environmental benefits, and engaged in conduct likely to mislead the public about the nature, the manufacturing process and the characteristics of, each product.

The ACCC says that Clorox took advantage of consumers’ concerns about the environment and plastic pollution in the ocean to deprive them of the opportunity to make an informed purchase decision. The regulator also claims that Clorox’s conduct undermined competition because it sought to promote its products as being more environmentally beneficial than its competitors.

The ACCC is seeking declarations, penalties, injunctions, an order to implement a compliance program, corrective notices and costs. The ACCC commenced these proceedings after stating that environmental and sustainability claims are an enforcement priority for 2024 and 2025. The case is ongoing.

Key takeaways

• The ACCC is targeting greenwashing claims, particularly in industries marketing sustainability or recycled materials.
• Proactive compliance with the ACCC’s Greenwashing Guidelines is essential to mitigate risks.

3. Not so Good Guys: ACCC cracks down on misleading store credit and ‘StoreCash’ promotions

In July 2024, the ACCC commenced Federal Court proceedings against The Good Guys Discount Warehouses (Australia) Pty Ltd for allegedly misleading consumers about its store credit and ‘StoreCash’ promotions, and for not providing store credit to thousands of eligible consumers, in contravention of the ACL and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (ASIC Act). See our case summary here.

If the ACCC is successful, The Good Guys face significant financial penalties. For contraventions that occurred after November 2022, the ACL allows fines of up to the greater of $50 million or three times the value derived from the relevant breach, or, if the value derived from the breach cannot be determined, 30 percent of the company’s turnover during the period it engaged in the conduct. The conduct alleged by the ACCC against The Good Guys straddles the introduction of these higher penalties. The regulator is seeking consumer redress, penalties, declarations, compliance orders, and publication orders. This case is still ongoing and is likely to go to trial late this year.

Key takeaways

• Ensure that all promotional materials outline any terms and conditions. Avoid fine print that may mislead consumers about the true nature of the offer.
• Promotions should reflect genuine offers that provide real value to consumers. Avoid exaggerated claims that could lead to misunderstandings.
• Ensure that all staff are knowledgeable about promotions and can accurately explain offers to customers.
• Conduct regular audits of marketing and promotional practices to ensure compliance with consumer law and address any potential issues before they escalate..

4. ACCC v Secure Parking: Penalties for misleading reservation promises

In August 2024, Secure Parking Pty Ltd was fined $10.95 million for engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct and making false or misleading representations to consumers its “Secure-A-Spot” service. Secure Parking claimed that consumers booking a car park through would have a reserved parking space at the time, date, and location specified in their booking, when this was not the case. This conduct breached sections 18, 29(1)(g), and 34 of the ACL.

Secure Parking made several statements about its “Secure-A-Spot” service including:

• “Book Now” (used in the context of “Secure-A-Spot”)
• “BOOK PARKING IN ADVANCE AND SAVE”.

Secure Parking’s system relied on forecasted vacancy levels that it believed would be accurate.But under its system, no individual spots were reserved and there were no restrictions on the number of non-booking customers let into car parks. This caused car parks to reach full capacity which meant customers with a Secure-a-Spot booking would arrive at their pre-booked time but would find there was no parking space available for them. 

Secure Parking was unaware of how many customers who had booked a spot were turned away, but received more than 1,000 complaints from affected consumers. From this the Court inferred that Secure Parking’s conduct from 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2022 likely inconvenienced thousands of people. And so the Court could not determine the exact losses suffered by affected customers.

The outcome of the proceedings represented a significant victory for the ACCC: it demonstrated the regulator’s ability to hold large corporations accountable for misleading conduct under the ACL. Secure Parking was not only penalised financially but was also required to publish corrective notices, pay $50,000 to cover the ACCC’s costs and review and maintain a compliance program.

Key takeaways

• If reservations or bookings are subject to change, businesses should disclose this in clear terms upfront to avoid misleading consumers.
• Even if misleading conduct is unintentional, businesses may still face enforcement action and penalties.

5. ASIC v Mercer: Federal Court imposes $11.3 million penalty in ASIC’s first greenwashing case

In August 2024, the Federal Court ordered Mercer Superannuation (Australia) Limited to pay $11.3 million in penalties for misleading consumers about the nature and characteristics of financial services that it offered through seven different “Sustainable Plus” investment options (Sustainable Plus Investment Options).

Between 12 November 2021 and 1 March 2023, Mercer falsely claimed these its Sustainable Plus Investment Options excluded investments in companies involved in, or deriving profit from, the production and sale of alcohol, gambling, and the extraction or sale of carbon intensive fossil fuels. Yet six out of seven of the Sustainable Plus Investment Options invested in these industries and Mercer’s investment policies permitted such investments. See our case summary here.

This landmark case is the first greenwashing case that Australian Secruities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has brought before the Federal Court. It emphasises the importance of ensuring that accurate environmental, social and governance (ESG) claims are made, given the regulatory scrutiny that such claims are likely to attract.

Key takeaways

• Greenwashing has been identified as a key regulatory and enforcement priority by ASIC and there is likely to be a rise in ESG-related investigations.
• The Mercer case is a landmark ruling for ASIC and sets a strong precedent for the financial services industry, demonstrating ASIC's commitment to addressing greenwashing behaviour.
• This case highlights the critical need for companies to ensure that any ESG-related claims are accurate to avoid the risk of misleading consumers.

6. ASIC v Vanguard: Federal Court fines Vanguard $12.9 million for greenwashing conduct

In September 2024, the Federal Court ordered Vanguard Investments Australia Ltd to pay a $12.9 million penalty for misleading consumers about its investment fund, the Vanguard Ethically Conscious Global Aggregate Bond Index Fund (Hedged) EFT. See our case summary here.

The penalty exceeded the $11.3 million fine imposed on Mercer Superannuation (Australia) Limited for engaging in greenwashing conduct.

This is the highest penalty awarded in a greenwashing case to date and underscores the growing regulatory scrutiny on environmental claims made by investment firms. It also highlights the importance of transparency and accountability when promoting sustainability-related investment products.

Key takeaways

• The Vanguard decision highlights ASIC’s focus on enforcement in this area and provides further insights into the factors that courts will consider in greenwashing cases. This includes the courts’ willingness to grant discounts to cooperative respondents and its emphasis on companies having robust compliance policies and senior management involvement.
• Corporations need to be vigilant about the potential repercussions of inadequate compliance frameworks and mechanisms.

7. Down, down… to court we go: Coles and Woolworths in hot water over 'price drops'

In September 2024, the ACCC commenced separate proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd and Woolworths Group Limited for engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct and making false or misleading representations in respect of their 'Down Down' and 'Prices Dropped' promotions, in breach of sections 18 and 29(1)(i) of the ACL.

The ACCC alleges that Coles and Woolworths misled customers by offering illusory discounts on their products by temporarily increasing the price of products before placing them on promotion at prices which were higher than, or the same as, the price at which each product had originally been offered for sale before the temporary price spike. See our case summary here.

This action against Coles and Woolworths aligns with the ACCC’s published enforcement priorities, which include addressing pricing concerns in the supermarket sector, particularly in relation to food and groceries. The regulator is seeking declarations, pecuniary penalties, non-punitive orders and costs from both Coles and Woolworths. The proceedings are still ongoing.

Key takeaways

• Businesses must ensure that any advertised price reductions or discounts are genuine.
• Businesses must avoid increasing the price of products before a promotional period to create the impression of a discount where none exists.
• Businesses should communicate promotions and pricing strategies to consumers. Retailers should avoid any ambiguity or misleading claims in advertising materials.

8. ACCC v Qantas: $100 million penalty – a high-flying price for misleading conduct

In October 2024, the Federal Court of Australia ordered Qantas to pay $100 million in penalties for selling tickets for flights it had decided to cancel and failing to promptly inform existing ticketholders of its decision. The Court found Qantas engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and made false or misleading representations to consumbers by in breach of sections 18, 29(1)(b), 29(1)(g), and 34 of the ACL. See our case summary here.

This decision is among the first to apply the higher penalty regime introduced in November 2022 under the ACL. These amendments increased the maximum penalties for breaches of the ACL with the aim of strengthening deterrence against corporate misconduct.

In determining whether a penalty of $100 million was appropriate, the Court considered a number of factors which included:

• that Qantas was aware of how its system functioned regarding the removal of cancelled flights from sale and the notification process for consumers about flight cancellations. Senior managers, each overseeing different aspects of Qantas' systems and operations, were thus aware of at least one or more of these issues
• that consumers may have incurred greater costs in making alternative arrangements closer to their scheduled departure date and may have had more alternative options available to them if they had been promptly notified of the cancelled flight
• mitigating factors such as Qantas’ cooperation, that Qantas sought to remedy the system deficiencies that led to the breaches, and that Qantas took extensive steps to improve its compliance system.

Key takeaways

• The Court said that consumers reasonably expect businesses to notify them of any changes that will significantly impact them, especially after payment has been made.
• Consumers expect businesses not to continue offering services that have already been cancelled.
• Businesses must provide accurate and timely information about cancellations, delays or service unavailability.
• Business should conduct regular audits of their marketing, booking, and customer service practices, and ensure that their systems effectively manage refunds, credits, or other remedies for affected consumers.

9. ASIC v QBE Insurance: Discount claims that didn’t add up

In October 2024, ASIC commenced proceedings against QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited for allegedly misleading customers about the value of discounts offered on certain general insurance products, in breach of sections 12DF(1) and 12DB(1) of the ASIC Act.

Between at least 1 July 2017 and 24 September 2022, QBE allegedly made statements promising discounts to the premium payable on various general insurance products, including home, contents and car insurance, via more than 500,000 renewal notices to retirees, QBE policy holders (including loyalty customers), QBE shareholders, as well as through product disclosure statements on QBE’s website.

During that time, however, QBE used pricing mechanisms that effectively reduced the value of these promised discounts, preventing customers from receiving the full value or benefit of discounts they were led to expect. Customers who bought insurance products were also denied the opportunity to make properly informed decisions and may have formed mistaken views about the value of those products. QBE self-reported these failures to ASIC in October 2022.

ASIC seeks declarations, pecuniary penalties, and adverse publicity orders against QBE.

Key takeaways

• ASIC is committed to holding companies accountable for misleading representations about discounts. Businesses should expect continued scrutiny, particularly in industries offering complex financial or insurance products.
• Businesses should ensure they have adequate processes to identify and rectify misleading statements or processes before they reach consumers.

10. ACCC v Webjet: False claims on the flight path to penalties

In November 2024, the ACCC commenced Federal Court proceedings against Webjet Marketing Pty Ltd for allegedly engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct and making false or misleading representations by promoting flights at unavailable prices and confirming to some consumers that they had purchased ticket(s) at the price paid, only to later request additional payments to complete the booking. As a result, the ACCC alleges that Webjet is in breach of sections 18 and 29(1)(i) of the ACL.

Webjet allegedly misrepresented airfare prices by failing to inform consumers that the promoted price did not account for the service or price guarantee fees. This affected 382 bookings, with additional payment ranging from $770 to $21,764.

Although some promotional prices did contain asterisks, the additional fees were not outlined on the materials or the website “in a sufficiently clear, prominent or proximate manner to neutralise the false, misleading or deceptive effect” of the promoted price.

Webjet is also alleged to have breached the ACL by displaying a confirmation page and sending a confirmation email after receiving payment for a flight booking even though the consumers had not secured the flight with the airline. In these instances, Webjet allegedly later requested additional payment from the affected consumers to finalise the booking or offered a refund. This case is ongoing, with the parties due to attend mediation in February 2025.

Key takeaways

• Businesses must ensure that all fees, surcharges, and additional costs are disclosed upfront and not added late in the booking process.
• Businesses operating in e-commerce should expect greater regulatory scrutiny and should ensure that all of their platforms and modes of communication including their websites, confirmation emails and text messages, and social media posts comply with the ACL.

How can business remain compliant in 2025?

These cases emphasise the ongoing efforts by regulators to ensure businesses operate with transparency, fairness, and accountability. These outcomes highlight the severe consequences for businesses that violate the ACL, including significant financial penalties and reputational damage.

To stay off the regulators’ radar in 2025, businesses should review current advertising and sales practices, and uphold consumer guarantee rights. This includes accurately representing prices, disclosing all relevant fees, and ensuring any promotions are genuine.

For consumers, these actions reinforce the importance of staying informed and vigilant about their rights, knowing that regulators are committed to pursuing businesses in cases of non-compliance. Together, these enforcement actions contribute to a more robust and fair marketplace for everyone.

If you have any questions about the above cases or whether your business practices comply with current consumer laws, please get in touch with our team below.

Disclaimer
The information in this article is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this article is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future.

Published by:

Joanne Jary

Caitlin Waldron

Mia Loukas

Share this