Australian consumer law advertising rules sit in the Australian Consumer Law, Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and the ACCC's guidance states the core test plainly: every claim a business makes about its products or services is accurate, truthful and based on reasonable grounds, and the business is able to prove it. The test reaches every channel a business uses, from websites and social media to testimonials and quotations, and it makes no difference whether the business intended to mislead. Fake reviews, hidden fees, unsupported claims about the future and vague green claims each have their own ACCC business guidance. For breaches of the false or misleading representation provisions on or after 28 March 2026, the maximum for a corporation is the greater of A$100 million, three times the reasonably attributable benefit, or 30% of adjusted turnover during the breach turnover period.
What the Australian Consumer Law Covers in Marketing, and Who It Applies To
The Australian Consumer Law governs the claims any business makes about its products or services, and the ACCC applies its ban on false or misleading claims to every communication that business makes. The ACCC is an independent statutory authority that enforces the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, previously the Trade Practices Act 1974. Schedule 2 of that Act is the Australian Consumer Law, which covers misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct, unfair practices, conditions and warranties, product safety and information, and country of origin representations. The ACCC's guidance on false or misleading claims names what the rule covers: information on prices, images and descriptions of what is offered, claims about value, benefits, qualities or performance, and shipping options and delivery times. The channels include advertising, packaging, quotations, staff statements, social media, testimonials and websites.
What does the Australian Consumer Law treat as a false or misleading claim?
Any statement that creates a false impression about goods or services risks breaking the law, and the ACCC treats silence the same way when a business gives some information but leaves out details relevant to the consumer's decision. Wildly exaggerated and vague claims that no one takes seriously, which the ACCC calls puffery, are generally not considered misleading; its example is a restaurant claiming the "best steaks on earth". Specific claims about a product's quality or benefit are different. The ACCC expects a business to prove a premium claim, such as "non-toxic", "cruelty free", "100% recyclable" or "the fastest pain reliever", and warns that broad, vague terms rarely tell consumers enough and risk misleading them.
Which claims about the future need reasonable grounds?
A claim about a future matter, including a prediction or a projection, needs reasonable grounds at the moment the business makes it, and the business carries the burden of showing it had those grounds. The ACCC also expects the claim to address the range of uncertainties and variables involved. For environmental claims about the future, its guidance goes further: without a reasonable basis for the representation, the business does not make the claim at all.
What penalties apply to false or misleading claims?
Only a court sets a penalty, and for each breach of the false or misleading representation provisions the maximum for a corporation is the greater of A$100 million, three times the reasonably attributable benefit, or 30% of adjusted turnover during the breach turnover period. The ACCC's fines and penalties page states that these maximums apply to contravening conduct on or after 28 March 2026, and that earlier conduct carries the maximums in force when it happened. For individuals, the maximum is A$2.5 million. The ACCC also issues infringement notices where it has reasonable grounds to believe a business made false or misleading representations; in many cases the amount is A$21,840 (60 penalty units) for a corporation, A$218,400 (600 penalty units) for a listed corporation and A$4,368 (12 penalty units) for an individual, after the penalty unit rose from A$330 to A$364 on 1 July 2026. In an ACCC case study from June 2022, the Federal Court ordered Samsung Electronics Australia to pay A$14 million for water resistance claims in nine ads, online and in store, that showed phones in pools and sea water.
Where do financial products and health services fit?
Advertising for financial products and services answers to ASIC. Advertising of regulated health services is subject to the National Law and Ahpra's advertising requirements; advertising of therapeutic goods is subject to TGA requirements, alongside applicable Australian Consumer Law obligations. ASIC's information sheet on greenwashing names the general prohibitions on false or misleading statements and misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to financial products and services: sections 1041E, 1041G and 1041H of the Corporations Act 2001 and sections 12DA and 12DB of the ASIC Act 2001. The ASIC RG 234 guide covers financial advertising, and the Ahpra and TGA guide covers health services and therapeutic goods.
General guidance, not legal advice.
What the Australian Consumer Law Means for Your Marketing and SEO Copy
Service pages, meta descriptions, price tables, review widgets, social posts and paid influencer content all sit inside the ACCC's list of channels, so each one carries the same obligation as a printed advertisement. The table maps common search-copy claims to the ACCC guidance.
| Claim type | What the rule says | What to check | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Benefits, quality and performance | Claims are true, accurate and based on reasonable grounds, and the business is able to prove any claim it advertises | Each outcome, speed or quality claim has evidence on file before it goes live | ACCC, False or misleading claims |
| "Free" and fine print | Fine print and qualifications do not conflict with the overall message; "free" with an extra payment in the fine print is likely to mislead | Every offer, headline and meta description against its own terms | ACCC, False or misleading claims |
| Was and now prices | Savings mislead where the product never sold at the higher price, or sold only in limited amounts at it just before the sale | Price history behind every strikethrough price | ACCC, False or misleading claims; Price displays |
| Total price and drip pricing | The total price shows as a single figure, with taxes, duties and unavoidable or pre-selected fees, and fee types are disclosed at the start of the purchase | Landing pages, pricing pages and checkout flows | ACCC, Price displays |
| Comparisons with competitors | A comparison misleads when it is inaccurate or does not compare products fairly | Like-for-like basis and date for every comparison table | ACCC, False or misleading claims |
| Reviews and testimonials | Creating fake or misleading reviews, or arranging for others to, is against the law; undisclosed reviews by family, staff or paid people mislead | Source and relationship behind every quoted review | ACCC, Online reviews for product and services |
| Environmental claims | Greenwashing is any claim, or omission, that makes a product or service seem better for the environment than it really is | Evidence, conditions and scope behind each green claim and logo | ACCC, Environmental and sustainability claims |
| Influencer and paid posts | The same rules apply to posts a business pays for or offers influencers incentives to make | Briefs, disclosures and the claims influencers repeat | ACCC, Social media promotions |
Sources: ACCC, False or misleading claims, updated 11 July 2026; ACCC, Online reviews for product and services, updated 15 July 2026; ACCC, Price displays, updated 2 October 2026; ACCC, Environmental and sustainability claims, updated 13 October 2026; ACCC, Social media promotions, updated 15 July 2026. All checked 24 October 2026.
When are reviews and review incentives misleading?
Creating fake or misleading reviews, or arranging for others to create them, is against the law, and the ACCC expects any incentive for a review to apply whether the review is positive or negative and to be clearly disclosed. Reviews from family, employees or paid reviewers mislead when the personal connection or commercial relationship is not disclosed. The ACCC's online reviews guidance adds two more cases: a review written by someone who has not used the product or service, and a review edited by someone else after it was written. Suppressing, editing or removing genuine negative reviews misleads where it creates a false impression of customer feedback. Star ratings show the number of reviews behind them, in the ACCC's example "3 stars, 24 reviews". The ACCC's case studies include HealthEngine, ordered to pay A$2.9 million in penalties, including for publishing misleading patient reviews, and Service Seeking, ordered to pay A$600,000 for publishing reviews that businesses on its platform drafted themselves.
What does the ACCC count as greenwashing?
The ACCC counts any claim that makes a product or service seem better or less harmful for the environment than it really is as greenwashing, and leaving out key information counts as well. In December 2023 the ACCC published eight principles for environmental claims: make accurate and truthful claims, have evidence to back them up, do not hide or omit important information, explain any conditions or qualifications, avoid broad and unqualified claims, use clear and easy-to-understand language, keep visual elements from giving the wrong impression, and be direct and open about a sustainability transition. Its environmental claims guidance recommends avoiding broad terms such as "green", "environmentally friendly", "eco friendly" and "sustainable", and treats colours, logos and symbols such as the mobius loop as part of the claim.
Who is responsible for comments on your social media pages?
Your business is responsible for false or misleading comments and posts that other people make on its social media pages, as well as for its own posts. The ACCC's guidance on social media promotions asks businesses to set clear posting rules and display them prominently, block users who break them, and remove or respond to posts, reviews included, that are false or misleading. A response has to be enough to override the false impression of the original post, so the ACCC states that removing the comment is usually safer.
General guidance, not legal advice.
What the Australian Consumer Law Means for AI Answers and AI-Generated Content
Copy drafted with an AI tool meets the same consumer law tests as any other draft once your business publishes it, because the ACCC's guidance applies to any communication a business makes and treats intention as irrelevant. In Aemorph's reading of that guidance, the drafting method does not change the test: the claim, the impression it creates and the evidence behind it are what count.
Which ACCC checks matter most for AI-drafted copy?
The ACCC's list of what a business avoids works as a checklist for AI drafts: guessing the facts, leaving out relevant information, ambiguous or contradictory statements, vague claims, promises the business is unable to keep and predictions without solid evidence. The ACCC's list of what a business does is the other half: give current and correct information, be specific, back up claims with facts and evidence, note important limitations, check that the overall impression is accurate and be prepared to prove every claim. A fabricated review that falsely presents first-hand customer experience falls within the ACCC's guidance on fake or misleading reviews, whether a person or an AI tool drafted it.
What do AI assistants repeat about your business?
In Aemorph's working model, ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Perplexity describe a business from the public sources they find, your own pages and profiles among them, so an unsupported claim on your site becomes material for their answers. The free Hallucination Report compares what the AI engines say about your business with what your website currently says, and flags where they conflict.
General guidance, not legal advice.
How Aemorph Checks Marketing Claims Before Publication
Aemorph uses testimonials only where the law permits, has a subject-matter expert at your firm validate technical and factual claims, and publishes a regulated claim only after your nominated point of contact signs it off. Aemorph is not a law firm. It does not review your copy against the Australian Consumer Law or the ACCC's guidance, and it does not confirm that any advertisement complies: as the business making the claims, your business holds those obligations. The ACCC also states that it does not provide legal advice, and its guidance points businesses to the ACCC for information or to their own legal adviser.
| Check | Applies to | Standard | Checked against | When |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Testimonials and reviews | Pages that quote your clients | Used only where the law permits | Your point of contact's sign-off | Before publication |
| Technical and factual claims | Practice-area pages and showstopper answers | Validated by a subject-matter expert at your firm | Your firm's expert, then your point of contact's sign-off | Before publication |
| Financial or insurance claims | Firms that publish them | Disclaimers present, no guaranteed financial outcomes | Your point of contact's sign-off | Before publication |
| Every regulated claim | Every client | Approved by the person your business nominates | Your point of contact's sign-off | Before Aemorph publishes |
Source: Aemorph compliance practice, October 2026.
Who signs off the claims on your pages?
You decide who signs off: the managing partner, the chief marketing officer or the risk team. Aemorph publishes a regulated claim only after that person approves it, and the facts in your verified record are the facts your business supplies and approves. Inside the Showstopper Sensor (Sprint 1), a 30-day showstopper-answer sprint for ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Perplexity, the same sign-off covers the showstopper answers before they go live.
General guidance, not legal advice.
Professional Services Firms: Start With a Free Strategic Conversation
Professional services firms that want search and AI visibility built on claims their own reviewers have approved start with a free strategic conversation with Aemorph. Aemorph is headquartered in Singapore, serves Australian clients remotely in Australian business hours and replies to every message within 24 hours. The professional services page sets out how Aemorph runs SEO, AEO and GEO for Australian law, accounting and advisory firms.
Disclaimer: This article reflects Aemorph's reading and understanding of the laws, regulations and official guidance cited, based on the sources and review dates stated. It provides general information, not legal advice, and does not assess compliance for your specific circumstances.