Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Schedule 2
For Australian marketing teams working out how the Australian Consumer Law treats misleading claims in ads, labels and online. This page covers what you need to know and ways to avoid running into issues.
What we've seen reported
The Australian Consumer Law, Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, prohibits in section 18 misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce, which the ACCC applies to ads, packaging, websites and social media.1,3
Last updated October 2026 · General information only, not legal advice. Sources.
What the rules cover
These are the kinds of wording the ACCC's guidance on false or misleading claims under the Australian Consumer Law describes, and how they tend to show up in ads, labels and listings.3
| Phrase or term | In practice |
|---|---|
| "Free" | Shown with an extra payment in the fine print, which the ACCC says is likely to mislead. |
| "Storewide", "X% off all products" | Excluded products or brands mentioned only in the fine print. |
| "Was $275, now $149" | A higher "was" price the product never sold at, or sold only briefly before the sale. |
| "Non-toxic", "cruelty free", "100% recyclable" | Premium claims the business can't back up with evidence when asked. |
| "Against animal testing" | Vague wording the ACCC says may not tell consumers whether this product was tested. |
| "Cheaper than", "better than" | A comparison that is inaccurate or unfair to the products compared. |
| "Swiss chocolate", "Belgian beer" | Place-of-origin wording that doesn't match where the product comes from. |
| "Delivered in 2 days", "will save you" | Claims about the future made without reasonable grounds at the time. |
The Federal Court has already ordered penalties over misleading sale claims under the Australian Consumer Law.
A bedding retailer was ordered to pay penalties over online "sale" prices showing savings that did not exist, and "ending soon" claims for offers that kept running.
Where it goes wrong
One approved claim ends up in many channels, markets and languages. Along the way it gets shortened, translated and reworded, and some versions end up using the very phrases you are trying to avoid.
"Save 20% on selected bedding until March 31."
How Arbitr helps
Manually review everything? Or do what modern teams do and use AI to check that what you publish matches what you approved.
FAQ
Well beyond the ad itself. The ACCC says its guidance covers packaging, quotes, staff statements, social media, testimonials and websites,3 and we usually find claims that need checking in:
Treat each condition as part of the approved claim, not a footnote. The ACCC notes that fine print and qualifications should not conflict with the overall message of an ad,3 and conditions are the first thing lost when a claim is cut down for a banner or a post. Check every short version still carries them. More on this is on our brand compliance page.
One record per claim: the approved wording, the evidence behind it, any conditions, who approved it and where it runs. The ACCC says it can require businesses to back up the claims they make,3 so a trail you can produce quickly beats an inbox search. Update the record whenever prices or products change.
How it applies to a specific claim is a question for your legal adviser. Where that claim appears across your markets and languages is a question Arbitr answers.
Most of the markets you sell in. Teams selling in the UK will find consumer protection rules of their own under the DMCC Act, and environmental wording in Australia has separate ACCC guidance, covered on our Australian greenwashing rules page. Brief each local team with your own approved claims rather than a generic checklist.
On January 1, 2011, according to the Australian Government's consumer law site. It replaced the Trade Practices Act 1974 and earlier state and territory consumer laws, and sits in Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.2
Generally not, according to the ACCC, which describes puffery as wildly exaggerated, vague claims no one could treat seriously, such as a restaurant claiming the "best steaks on earth". Specific claims about price, quality or performance are a different matter.3
In some circumstances, the ACCC says, particularly where a business gives some information but leaves out important details a consumer would need to make their decision.3
Arbitr checks your content against the rules, claims and terms your team has approved, and reports where something doesn't match, by channel, market and language. It reports matches against your rules, not legal verdicts. What to do with each one stays with your team.
