Australian Competition and Consumer Law Roundup for July 2025

July 2025 was not a quiet month for Australian competition and consumer law. It was the kind of month that makes compliance teams refill their coffee, legal teams reopen their risk registers, and marketing departments suddenly develop a deep respect for footnotes. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), and the Federal Court continued to send a clear message: if a business makes a promise to consumers, competitors, or deal regulators, that promise needs to be accurate, clear, and defensible.

This roundup covers the biggest Australian competition law and Australian Consumer Law developments around July 2025, including merger reform, greenwashing claims, misleading sale pricing, drip pricing, unfair contract terms, ghost stores, insurance conduct, comparison websites, and practical compliance lessons for businesses. The short version? July was a reminder that “close enough” is not a compliance strategy. It is a future exhibit.

Why July 2025 Mattered for Australian Competition and Consumer Law

Australian competition and consumer law is built around the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and the Australian Consumer Law. These rules protect consumers, support fair trading, and promote competitive markets. In July 2025, several themes became especially visible: sharper scrutiny of digital sales practices, more pressure on businesses making environmental claims, tougher expectations for pricing transparency, and a major shift toward a new merger control regime.

The ACCC’s 2025–26 enforcement priorities had already signaled the direction of travel. Retail pricing, supermarkets, essential services, digital markets, environmental claims, unfair contract terms, motor vehicle consumer guarantees, and vulnerable consumers were all high on the list. July then showed how those priorities looked in the real world: court cases, penalties, public warnings, consultation processes, and merger decisions.

Merger Reform: Australia’s New Clearance Era Begins

One of the biggest competition law developments in July 2025 was the transition toward Australia’s new merger control regime. From July 1, 2025, businesses could voluntarily notify certain acquisitions under the new system. From January 1, 2026, notification becomes mandatory for acquisitions that meet the relevant thresholds, and parties must wait for ACCC approval before completing the deal.

This marks a major change from Australia’s long-standing voluntary merger clearance model. Under the new regime, deal teams must think earlier about Australian revenue, transaction value, control, serial acquisitions, timing, and whether an exemption may apply. For businesses used to treating Australian merger clearance as a flexible “we’ll get to it” issue, July 2025 was the calendar tapping them on the shoulder.

The ACCC has said the new regime is designed to stop anti-competitive acquisitions while allowing low-risk deals to move quickly. That sounds neat, but businesses should not underestimate the work involved. A transaction that closes after 2025 may need to be assessed under the new framework, even if planning started under the old one. In practical terms, merger strategy now belongs at the start of the deal timeline, not in a panicked email two weeks before signing.

Allianz and RAA Insurance: A Useful Merger Example

The ACCC’s decision not to oppose Allianz Australia Insurance Limited’s proposed acquisition of RAA Insurance was an important competition law example. The ACCC considered whether the deal would substantially lessen competition in South Australian home, contents, and motor insurance markets. It concluded that other insurers, including major and mid-tier competitors, would continue to constrain the merged business.

The decision does not mean insurance mergers now get a free sausage roll at the regulatory barbecue. The ACCC specifically noted that each transaction depends on its own facts. The lesson for dealmakers is simple: evidence matters. Market shares, brand strength, competitive alternatives, pricing pressure, supplier relationships, and industry conditions all need to be supported by real analysis, not optimistic boardroom vibes.

Greenwashing: “Reef Friendly” Claims Face Court Scrutiny

Environmental marketing remained one of the hottest Australian Consumer Law issues in July 2025. The ACCC commenced Federal Court proceedings against Edgewell Personal Care Australia and its U.S.-based parent company over alleged “reef friendly” claims involving Banana Boat and Hawaiian Tropic sunscreen products.

The ACCC alleged that more than 90 sunscreen products were promoted as “reef friendly” even though they contained ingredients the regulator says may harm reefs, coral, or marine life. The case also raised questions about scientific substantiation, parent-company involvement, product packaging, websites, social media, retailer catalogues, and the difference between removing a claim in one country while continuing it in another.

The key point for businesses is not that environmental claims are banned. They are not. Businesses can and should communicate genuine sustainability benefits. But “eco,” “green,” “reef safe,” “carbon neutral,” “recyclable,” and similar claims need evidence. A leafy logo and a confident adjective are not a scientific basis. If the claim cannot survive a regulator asking, “Show me the proof,” it probably should not be on the label.

Ghost Stores: Digital Retail Gets a Consumer Protection Warning

July 2025 also brought a strong warning about online “ghost stores.” The ACCC issued public warning notices about several websites it alleged were falsely presenting themselves as local Australian boutiques. These sites allegedly claimed to be based in places such as Melbourne, Adelaide, or Double Bay, told emotional closing-down stories, and sold products that were not of the advertised quality.

The ACCC reported at least 360 consumer reports about 60 online retailers since the start of 2025, with concerns that many more ghost stores were operating. Common warning signs included fake local backstories, social media ads, recently created pages, AI-generated images, no ABN or ACN, overseas return addresses, poor refund practices, and product photos copied from other sites.

This issue shows how consumer law is adapting to modern e-commerce. A store can look polished, local, and emotionally convincing while being little more than a digital costume. For honest retailers, ghost stores create unfair competition and reputational harm. For consumers, they turn “support a local boutique” into “surprise, your dress came from nowhere and fits like a folded umbrella.”

Pricing Transparency: Drip Pricing, Fake Discounts, and Sale Urgency

Pricing was one of the dominant consumer law themes of the month. The ACCC continued to focus on whether advertised prices gave consumers a clear and honest picture of what they would actually pay.

Webjet and Misleading Airfare Pricing

On July 28, 2025, the Federal Court ordered online travel agency Webjet to pay $9 million in penalties for making false or misleading statements about airfare prices and booking confirmations. Webjet admitted that it advertised airfares excluding compulsory fees between 2018 and 2023. It also admitted that it provided misleading booking confirmations to 118 consumers for flights that had not actually been confirmed, later requesting additional payments from some customers to complete bookings.

The Webjet case is a classic reminder that “from $18” is not a magic phrase that makes compulsory fees disappear. If a fee is unavoidable, it must be clearly disclosed. Consumers should not have to scroll, squint, or perform archaeological research to discover the real price.

Dendy Cinema and Drip Pricing

Dendy Cinema paid a $19,800 infringement notice after the ACCC alleged it failed to prominently show the total online ticket price, including an unavoidable booking fee, at the earliest opportunity. This practice is commonly known as drip pricing: a low headline price appears first, and unavoidable charges drip in later, usually after the consumer has already invested time in the purchase process.

The lesson for online sellers is straightforward: show the total minimum quantifiable price early. Booking fees, service fees, unavoidable add-ons, and mandatory charges should not be hidden until checkout. If the final price arrives like a plot twist, the pricing process needs work.

Emma Sleep and “Was/Now” Sale Claims

Emma Sleep admitted making false or misleading representations about sale prices for mattresses, bed frames, pillows, and accessories. The ACCC’s case focused on strikethrough prices, percentage discounts, claimed savings, and countdown timers that allegedly created a false sense of urgency. Some products had not previously been sold at the higher strikethrough price, while others had almost never been sold at that price.

Discount marketing can be powerful, but it must be real. If a product is always “50% off,” the sale is not a sale; it is interior decoration for a website. Countdown timers that reset after reaching zero can also create urgency that does not reflect reality. Consumers are allowed to enjoy a bargain without being placed inside a psychological escape room.

Michael Hill, MyHouse, and Hairhouse Online

The ACCC also issued infringement notices to Michael Hill, MyHouse, and Hairhouse Online over alleged misleading Black Friday “sitewide” or “everything” sale claims. Each retailer paid $19,800. The ACCC alleged that the promotions suggested broader discounts than were actually available.

The takeaway is simple: “sitewide” should mean sitewide. “Everything” should mean everything. If exclusions apply, they need to be clear, prominent, and not buried in fine print like a legal Easter egg.

Unfair Contract Terms: Mable and the Platform Economy

Unfair contract terms continued to be a major ACCC priority. Mable Technologies, an online platform connecting people seeking care support with independent support workers, admitted breaching the Australian Consumer Law by using unfair contract terms. The platform serves clients including NDIS participants, elderly people, and others requiring care support.

The ACCC was concerned about terms that could impose a minimum $5,000 fee in certain circumstances, deem service logs approved unless disputed within 24 hours, allow changes to fees and terms without reasonable notice, and limit Mable’s liability. Mable amended its terms and gave a court-enforceable undertaking, including commitments around clearer communication and an Australian Consumer Law compliance program.

This matter is especially important because platform businesses often sit between consumers, contractors, small businesses, and vulnerable users. Standard-form contracts are efficient, but efficiency is not a license to tilt the table. If one party writes the rules and the other party can only click “accept,” fairness must be designed into the contract from the beginning.

Unconscionable Conduct: Optus and Bupa Raise the Stakes

July’s legal commentary also focused heavily on major unconscionable conduct matters involving Optus and Bupa. Optus admitted to unconscionable conduct connected with telecommunications sales to hundreds of consumers and agreed to a $100 million penalty, subject to court approval at the time. The concerns included pressure selling, products consumers did not need or could not use, affordability issues, coverage issues, and harm to vulnerable consumers.

Bupa also faced Federal Court proceedings after admitting misleading or deceptive conduct and certain unconscionable conduct connected with private health insurance benefit entitlements. The ACCC and Bupa jointly proposed a $35 million penalty, with Bupa continuing remediation for affected members, medical providers, and hospitals.

These matters show that the ACCC is not only chasing technical advertising errors. It is also focused on business systems that create serious harm, especially where consumers are vulnerable, confused, pressured, or denied rights. Sales incentives, complaint handling, staff training, debt collection, and internal escalation systems all matter. A business cannot outsource conscience to the terms and conditions page.

Product Claims: Jayco and the Meaning of “Off-Road”

The ACCC commenced proceedings against Jayco over allegedly misleading representations about certain recreational vehicles advertised in off-road conditions. The ACCC alleged that RVs marketed as Outback, All Terrain, and CrossTrak models were shown in conditions that suggested they were suitable for off-road or 4WD-only tracks, when the regulator alleges they were not designed for those uses and warranties did not cover them.

This case matters beyond caravans. Product imagery, lifestyle marketing, influencer content, trade show displays, brochures, and social media can all create representations. A business may never write “this product can cross rivers, climb rocks, and survive your cousin’s camping trip,” but if the imagery strongly implies it, the law may still care.

Marketing teams should compare claims with engineering limits, warranty documents, user manuals, and customer service scripts. If the ad says “adventure” but the warranty says “please avoid adventure,” someone needs to call a meeting.

Comparison Websites: ASIC’s Choosi Case

ASIC’s case against Choosi added another consumer protection lesson. ASIC alleged that Choosi misled prospective customers through funeral and life insurance comparison services by suggesting it compared products from a range of insurers, while allegedly comparing policies issued by a single insurer for most of the relevant period. ASIC also alleged thousands of policies were sold and substantial commissions were received.

Comparison websites occupy a position of trust. Consumers visit them because they want help making a decision. If the comparison is narrow, sponsored, affiliated, commission-driven, or not a true market comparison, that limitation must be clear. A “comparison” tool that compares almost nothing is not a helpful shopping assistant. It is a sales funnel wearing glasses.

Insurance Monitoring: Premium Relief, But Affordability Concerns Remain

On July 22, 2025, the ACCC released its fourth insurance monitoring report on the cyclone reinsurance pool. The report found that the pool had moderated increases in insurance premiums for households and small businesses in medium to high cyclone-risk areas, with benefits more pronounced in the highest-risk regions. However, the ACCC also noted that premiums remained very high for many consumers and were generally rising in most parts of the country.

This development fits into the broader competition and consumer law picture because insurance affordability affects consumer welfare, small business resilience, and regional markets. It also shows the ACCC’s role is not limited to litigation. Market monitoring, reports, inquiries, and policy feedback can shape competition settings just as much as courtroom outcomes.

Key Compliance Lessons from July 2025

1. Claims Need Evidence Before They Need Creativity

Whether a business says a product is reef friendly, off-road ready, discounted, local, or better value, the claim needs evidence. Marketing creativity is welcome, but it should not outrun the facts like a toddler with scissors.

2. Price Must Be Clear Early

Drip pricing, hidden compulsory fees, confusing surcharges, and fake discounts remain enforcement risks. The total minimum price should be clear before consumers invest time, emotion, or credit card details.

3. Vulnerable Consumers Require Better Systems

Optus, Bupa, Mable, and unsolicited selling concerns all point to the same principle: businesses must design systems that protect people who may be more exposed to harm. Training, escalation, refunds, scripts, incentives, and complaints data should be reviewed regularly.

4. Fine Print Does Not Fix a Misleading Headline

If the headline says “sitewide,” “all terrain,” “from $18,” or “reef friendly,” small disclaimers may not cure the overall impression. The main message must be accurate on its own terms.

5. Deal Teams Need Earlier Competition Analysis

With mandatory merger notification approaching, Australian competition law analysis needs to move earlier in transaction planning. Waiting until the deal is nearly cooked may leave everyone eating regulatory leftovers.

Practical Experiences and Real-World Takeaways for Businesses

One practical experience from this July 2025 roundup is that most consumer law problems do not begin in the courtroom. They begin in ordinary business meetings where people are trying to sell more, close faster, reduce friction, or simplify a message. Someone suggests a countdown timer because urgency boosts conversions. Someone proposes “sitewide” because it looks cleaner than listing exclusions. Someone wants to call a product “eco-friendly” because competitors are doing it. Someone says a comparison tool sounds better if it feels broad. None of those decisions may feel dramatic in the moment. But Australian Consumer Law often judges the final impression created for the consumer, not the internal intention behind the campaign.

For retailers, the most useful habit is to run a “consumer impression test” before a promotion goes live. Ask what a reasonable shopper would believe after seeing the homepage banner, social ad, email subject line, product page, checkout screen, and refund policy. If the likely answer is broader, cheaper, greener, more local, more urgent, or more comprehensive than the truth, the campaign needs revision. This is not about making marketing boring. It is about making it durable.

For digital platforms and marketplaces, July 2025 showed that regulators are increasingly interested in the systems behind the transaction. A platform may not write every message between users, but it can still influence incentives, contract terms, dispute pathways, identity checks, and complaint handling. The Mable matter is a useful reminder that standard-form terms should be reviewed not only by lawyers but also by people who understand how the platform works in real life. A clause that looks efficient on paper may be harsh when applied to an elderly customer, a disability support client, or a sole trader with limited bargaining power.

For sustainability teams, the Edgewell sunscreen case is a strong warning to build evidence files before launching environmental claims. That file should include scientific support, scope notes, assumptions, limitations, third-party certifications where available, and a review schedule. Environmental claims can age badly. A claim that looked acceptable in 2020 may be risky in 2025 if science, standards, or overseas labeling practices have changed. “We have always said it this way” is not evidence; it is just tradition wearing a lanyard.

For merger teams, the experience is about timing. Australian competition review can no longer be treated as an optional side quest for deals that obviously look fine from a commercial perspective. Revenue thresholds, control issues, serial acquisitions, local market effects, and industry concentration should be mapped early. The new regime rewards preparation and punishes last-minute optimism.

Finally, for leadership teams, July 2025 offered a governance lesson. Compliance is not a department that says “no” after everyone else has finished saying “yes.” It is a design function. Good compliance helps businesses make claims they can defend, prices consumers can understand, contracts people can live with, and deals that can survive scrutiny. In a regulatory environment like this one, the best businesses will not be the quietest. They will be the clearest.

Conclusion

The Australian competition and consumer law roundup for July 2025 shows a regulator focused on clarity, fairness, evidence, and market integrity. The month brought action on greenwashing, ghost stores, misleading prices, drip pricing, unfair contract terms, unconscionable conduct, comparison services, product claims, insurance affordability, and merger reform. Different industries were involved, but the message was consistent: businesses must be honest about what they sell, how they price it, what their products can do, and how their contracts affect consumers and small businesses.

For companies operating in Australia, July 2025 should be treated as a practical compliance checklist. Review environmental claims. Test sale language. Show unavoidable fees early. Reassess standard-form contracts. Check product imagery against real product capability. Strengthen protections for vulnerable consumers. And if a merger is on the horizon, bring competition analysis into the room before the champagne is ordered.

Note: This article is for general informational and SEO publishing purposes only. It summarizes public competition and consumer law developments and should not be treated as legal advice.