Mackay Chapman ACCC September 2026 Update

In this month’s ACCC update:

• Federal Court finds eHarmony misled consumers over subscription pricing and automatic renewals;
• ACCC appeals dismissal of its case against Magnamail;
• Subaru faces court action over access to vehicle repair information;
• Full Federal Court upholds City Beach’s $14 million button battery penalty;
• Debt collector Marshall Freeman pays penalties over alleged harassment and misleading conduct; and
• ACCC executes search warrant at WiseTech Global.

eHarmony found to have misled consumers over subscriptions

The Federal Court has found dating platform eHarmony engaged in misleading conduct in relation to the pricing, renewal and duration of its online subscriptions.

The Court found eHarmony breached the Australian Consumer Law through representations concerning a number of aspects of its membership offering, including automatic renewals, the availability of one-month memberships, cancellation rights and subscription pricing.

One significant issue was the way eHarmony described the duration of its premium memberships. Consumers selecting six, 12 or 24-month subscriptions could be left with the impression that their membership would run only for that period. In fact, subscriptions automatically renewed for a further 12-month period and, in some cases, at a substantially higher price.

The Court also found that eHarmony failed to clearly display the minimum total price payable alongside statements advertising subscriptions at a monthly price. Before additional disclosures were introduced in July 2024, eHarmony also represented that plans could be purchased by paying the advertised monthly amount when a mandatory additional fee applied to monthly payments.

The decision is another warning for businesses using subscription models that important conditions around renewals, lock-in periods, cancellation and total pricing need to be clearly disclosed. Important terms buried in small print or complex terms and conditions may not be enough to correct an otherwise misleading overall impression.

Penalties, consumer redress and other orders will be determined at a later date.

ACCC appeals Magnamail decision

The ACCC has appealed the Federal Court’s July decision dismissing its case against mail order retailer Magnamail.

As covered in our August update, the ACCC had alleged that promotional material sent to hundreds of thousands of consumers in connection with prize promotions represented that consumers who placed an order had a right to claim, were eligible for, or had qualified for major prizes. The prize draws had already occurred before consumers received the promotional material, meaning only a small number of pre-drawn consumers could claim a major prize.

The Federal Court rejected those allegations and also dismissed the ACCC’s case against Magnamail’s parent company, Direct Group Pty Ltd.

The ACCC has now appealed the decision concerning Magnamail. It is not appealing the dismissal of its case against Direct Group.

Subaru in court over access to repair information

The ACCC has commenced Federal Court proceedings against Subaru Australia, alleging the car manufacturer failed to provide independent repairers with the same access to service and repair information as Subaru dealerships.

The proceedings concern the Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Information Sharing Scheme, which requires vehicle manufacturers and other data providers to make certain diagnostic, service and repair information available to Australian repairers on fair and reasonable commercial terms.

The ACCC alleges that between July 2022 and August 2024 Subaru failed to provide independent repairers with access to some information on the same basis as its dealer network.

The alleged conduct includes requiring independent repairers to purchase additional hardware to use particular software, making information available only on an annual subscription basis when shorter access periods were required, and failing to provide information immediately, or at all, following requests from two repairers.

The proceedings are the first court action brought by the ACCC for alleged breaches of the Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Information Sharing Scheme.

The allegations have not yet been determined. The ACCC is seeking penalties, declarations, costs and other orders.

City Beach’s $14 million button battery penalty upheld

The Full Federal Court has dismissed an appeal by retailer City Beach against a $14 million penalty imposed for breaches of mandatory button battery safety and information standards.

In December 2025, the Federal Court found that City Beach sold more than 60 types of non-compliant products containing button batteries on more than 54,000 occasions between June 2022 and October 2024.

The products included toys, digital notepads, keyrings, lights and accessories, with a number marketed to or intended for children.

City Beach admitted that its conduct breached the Australian Consumer Law but appealed the size of the $14 million penalty on the basis that it was manifestly excessive.

The Full Court rejected that argument.

Importantly, the Court accepted that the penalty did not need to bear a close relationship to the profit made from the products. The serious safety risk created by non-compliant button battery products and the need for deterrence were significant factors.

The original $14 million penalty, the first imposed for breaches of the mandatory button battery standards, will remain in place.

The case is a useful reminder that product safety compliance cannot be treated simply as a question of the value of the products sold or profit generated. Where non-compliance creates serious safety risks, penalties can be significant.

Debt collector pays penalties over alleged harassment and misleading conduct

Debt collection company Marshall Freeman Collections has paid $59,400 in penalties and provided a court-enforceable undertaking following ACCC concerns about alleged undue harassment and misleading conduct.

The ACCC was concerned that between July 2024 and June 2025 Marshall Freeman continued demanding payment from some consumers without adequately responding to requests for information or disputes about the debts.

The ACCC also alleged that letters sent to consumers stated that Marshall Freeman had been instructed by creditors to commence legal proceedings when it had not received those instructions.

In its court-enforceable undertaking, Marshall Freeman admitted that its conduct breached, or was likely to breach, the Australian Consumer Law.

The company has undertaken to improve the way it deals with consumer disputes and queries, update its debt collection processes and implement an Australian Consumer Law compliance program.

The action follows separate Federal Court proceedings commenced by the ACCC earlier this year against debt collection agency ARMA Group Holdings and related legal practice Force Legal over allegedly misleading debt recovery notices.

Debt collection remains an area of active regulatory attention. Businesses pursuing debts need to ensure representations about legal proceedings, enforcement rights and the status of debts accurately reflect the steps that have actually been authorised and can lawfully be taken.

ACCC executes search warrant at WiseTech Global

The ACCC has executed a search warrant at the premises of ASX-listed logistics software company WiseTech Global as part of an investigation into alleged contraventions of the Competition and Consumer Act.

WiseTech disclosed that the warrant required it to produce documents and electronic data concerning the supply of global logistics services and software. The company said it intends to fully cooperate with the investigation.

WiseTech shares fell sharply following the announcement.

Separately, WiseTech had already been subject to ACCC scrutiny over its acquisition of e2open.That acquisition included logistics software business Expedient, which competed with WiseTech’s CargoWise product in Australia and New Zealand.

Following an investigation, the ACCC accepted a court-enforceable undertaking requiring WiseTech and subsidiary BluJay Solutions to divest Expedient. The ACCC said at the time that it considered WiseTech already held substantial market power in the supply of logistics software and was concerned the acquisition had removed an important competitive constraint.

There has been no finding of a contravention in relation to the current investigation, and the ACCC has not publicly provided further detail about the conduct being investigated.

The contents of this article do not constitute legal advice and are not intended to be a substitute for legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. They are designed and intended as general information in summary form, current at the time of publication, for general informational purposes only. You should seek legal or other professional advice in relation to any particular legal matters you or your organisation may have.

‍