Every business that sells, promotes or advertises goods or services in Australia makes representations. Most of those representations are uncontroversial. But some fall within a specific list of claims that are unlawful if they are false or misleading — and a breach can attract penalties that dwarf the cost of any single marketing campaign.
Section 29 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Schedule 2 (the Australian Consumer Law, or ACL) sets out that list. Unlike the ACL's broader prohibition on misleading conduct in s 18, s 29 is precise: it names particular types of representations and makes them unlawful if false or misleading. This article explains what those representations are, the circumstances in which a business is most likely to cross the line, and how to manage the risk without putting the brakes on your marketing.
What section 29 covers
Section 29(1) of the ACL prohibits a person, in trade or commerce, from making false or misleading representations in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services. The prohibition is not limited to consumer transactions — it applies to representations made to other businesses as well.
The specific types of representations that fall within s 29 include claims about:
- the standard, quality, value or grade of goods or services
- the composition, style or model of goods, or whether goods are new
- the performance characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits of goods or services
- whether goods or services have a particular sponsorship, approval or affiliation
- the history or previous use of goods
- the place of origin of goods
- the price of goods or services, or the need for goods or services
- the availability of facilities for repair of goods, or the availability of spare parts
- testimonials by any person relating to goods or services
- the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy
The scope is deliberately broad. Representations can be made in advertising, on packaging, in contracts, by sales staff, in emails, in product listings and across social media. If the representation fits one of these categories and is false or misleading, s 29 is engaged regardless of how or where it was communicated.
The relationship with section 18
Section 18 of the ACL prohibits conduct in trade or commerce that is misleading or deceptive, or is likely to mislead or deceive. It is a general catch-all that applies even where no particular "representation" can be pinpointed.
Section 29 is narrower but sharper. Where conduct falls squarely within one of s 29's categories, the ACCC and courts can engage s 29 directly. The same conduct can contravene both provisions, but s 29's named categories are what attract specific civil penalties for marketing and sales claims.
The future matters rule
A related rule in s 4 of the ACL applies when a business makes a representation about a future matter — for example, a promise about what a product will achieve, or an outcome a service will deliver. A person making a representation about a future matter is taken to have made a misleading representation unless they had reasonable grounds for making it at the time. The burden is on the business: if you cannot show you had a reasonable basis for a forward-looking claim, the claim is treated as misleading regardless of your intentions.
What the penalties look like
Section 29 is a civil penalty provision. Courts can order pecuniary penalties for contraventions.
Following the Treasury Laws Amendment (Doubling Penalties for ACCC Enforcement) Act 2026, which applies to conduct on or after 28 March 2026, the maximum civil penalty for a corporation is the greater of:
- $100 million per contravention
- three times the value of the benefit obtained from the contravention (where the court can determine that figure)
- 30% of the corporation's adjusted turnover during the period of the breach (where the benefit cannot be determined)
For individuals, the maximum civil penalty is $2.5 million per contravention.
Beyond penalties, courts can also order corrective advertising, injunctions, and compensation. The ACCC can issue infringement notices for certain contraventions. Reputational damage from a public enforcement outcome can exceed the financial penalty itself.
Where businesses most commonly go wrong
Most contraventions of s 29 are not the product of deliberate deception. They arise from claims made without adequate evidence, inherited copy that has not been updated, or marketing teams that move faster than the legal review process can keep up with.
Quality, performance and benefit claims
Claims that a product is "clinically proven", "medically grade", or "guaranteed to achieve" a specified outcome imply tested, substantiated results. If the evidence for the claim does not exist or is thinner than the claim suggests, the representation is likely misleading. The same applies to comparative claims: asserting superiority over a competitor requires a genuine basis.
Performance claims that relate to future outcomes — "your rankings will improve", "you will see results in 30 days" — engage both s 29 and the s 4 future matters rule. If the claim goes out without reasonable grounds, it is treated as misleading by operation of the statute.
"New", composition, and history claims
Describing goods as "new" when they are refurbished, ex-display or otherwise used is a clear breach if it creates a false impression about the goods' condition. Composition claims — "100% cotton", "real leather", "all-natural" — must be accurate. Claims about prior ownership or use history ("one owner", "never used commercially") must reflect the actual history of the goods.
Country of origin and "Australian Made"
Country of origin claims are among the most scrutinised representations. A claim that goods are "Made in Australia" or "Australian owned and made" requires that the goods underwent their last substantial transformation in Australia. Importing components and assembling or packaging them here typically does not satisfy the substantial transformation test. The ACCC has taken enforcement action in a number of cases where businesses made "Made in Australia" claims that were not supported by the actual manufacturing process.
Endorsements, sponsorships and affiliations
Words like "official partner", "endorsed by" or "as recommended by" carry specific meaning. If the claimed relationship does not exist, has expired, or is being characterised more broadly than the underlying agreement permits, the representation is false. Using a logo, seal or certification mark in a way that implies an approval or association your business does not hold is also caught by s 29.
Price claims
Price representations must be accurate and complete. "Was/now" pricing requires a genuine basis for the "was" price — it cannot be a nominal or inflated figure used solely to make the discount look larger. If mandatory fees or charges apply, they must be presented in a way that does not cause the headline price to be misleading. Drip pricing — where additional charges are revealed progressively through a checkout process — has been the subject of ACCC scrutiny under the ACL's pricing provisions.
Testimonials and reviews
Testimonials must be genuine and must accurately reflect the experience they describe. Editing a review to remove negative qualifications, presenting a sponsored post as an independent opinion, or using testimonials that do not reflect the typical experience of customers can each constitute a false or misleading representation about testimonials under s 29. Where an influencer is paid to promote a product, the commercial relationship should be clearly disclosed.
Consumer guarantees and warranty language
Section 29 also prohibits false or misleading representations about the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy. In practice, this means businesses cannot tell customers that no refund or replacement is available if the ACL's consumer guarantees apply. Under s 64 of the ACL, any term of a contract that purports to exclude consumer guarantees is void. Telling a customer they have waived their ACL rights — whether in a terms and conditions document, on a returns policy page, or verbally — can be a separate contravention of s 29.
How businesses can manage the risk
Good s 29 compliance is less about legal sign-off on every post and more about building habits into the way your marketing operates.
The following steps reduce the risk without making marketing slower than it needs to be:
- Keep a substantiation file. Every factual claim in your marketing — performance statistics, quality grades, certifications, origin statements, testimonials — should have an underlying record. Lab tests, supplier certifications, certification body correspondence and dated screenshots of prior pricing are all examples. If a claim is challenged, you need to be able to produce the basis for it promptly.
- Audit live claims regularly. Product pages, FAQs, packaging and email templates can carry outdated claims long after the underlying facts change. Build a review cadence into your content calendar, particularly when products, prices or supplier relationships change.
- Write qualifiers that actually qualify. If a performance claim applies only in certain conditions, or a testimonial reflects an atypical outcome, say so — and say so close to the claim, not in fine print on a separate page. A qualification that is not prominent enough to affect a customer's understanding does not reduce your exposure.
- Standardise pre-launch review. A short internal checklist — evidence attached, disclaimers present, origin claims checked, relationships disclosed — applied before campaigns go live catches most problems before they become complaints.
- Train sales, social and support staff. Representations are made by people, not just by your website. Sales scripts, social media responses and customer service interactions can all generate s 29 exposure. Staff who understand the basic categories are less likely to cross the line.
- Act quickly if you find a problem. Correcting a misleading claim, updating affected customers where appropriate, and documenting what you did reduces the severity of any enforcement outcome.
How Artificer Legal can help
The categories in s 29 are broad, and whether a particular claim is "misleading" depends on context — how the claim is likely to be understood by those who see it, not just what it literally says. A claim that is accurate in a technical sense can still be misleading if the overall impression it creates is false.
An Artificer Legal practitioner will typically assist by:
- reviewing your advertising, product pages and marketing materials against the s 29 categories to identify live exposure
- assessing specific claims — including future-facing statements, origin claims and testimonials — against the evidence you hold
- advising on the structure of disclaimers and qualifiers to ensure they are effective
- reviewing customer-facing documents, including terms and conditions, returns policies and warranty language, to ensure they do not create additional s 29 exposure by misrepresenting consumer guarantee rights
- putting in place an internal approval framework or checklist that your team can operate without needing legal sign-off on each individual piece of content
Early advice is significantly less expensive than remediation after a complaint or ACCC inquiry.
In summary
Section 29 of the ACL is the provision that turns specific marketing and sales claims into legally enforceable obligations. It prohibits false or misleading representations about quality, composition, origin, price, endorsements, testimonials, and consumer rights — whether made to consumers or to other businesses.
Key points to carry away:
- The prohibition applies in any trade or commerce context and is not limited to consumer-to-business dealings.
- Both corporations and individuals can be penalised: up to $100 million per contravention for corporations (from 28 March 2026) and up to $2.5 million for individuals.
- The future matters rule in s 4 of the ACL means that forward-looking claims — promises about outcomes — are treated as misleading if the business cannot show it had reasonable grounds when it made them.
- Country of origin claims, "was/now" pricing, testimonials and consumer guarantee representations are particularly high-risk categories.
- Compliance is primarily a matter of substantiation and process: holding evidence, building review steps into your workflow, and training the people who make representations on your behalf.
If you would like Artificer Legal to review your marketing materials or advise on s 29 compliance, contact us to arrange a consultation.