Mackay Chapman April ACCC Update

In this month’s ACCC update:

• Franchising disclosure failures lead to penalty action
• Attempted cartel conduct results in significant fines
• Scam losses remain above $2 billion despite coordinated efforts
• Airline cooperation approved on an interim basis
• Travel disruption rights remain a key consumer focus

Read on for the full scope.

Franchising disclosure failures lead to penalty action

The franchisor of OPSM and Laubman & Pank has paid a penalty after the ACCC alleged breaches of disclosure obligations under the Franchising Code of Conduct.

The ACCC found that the franchisor failed to provide prospective franchisees with up-to-date and compliant disclosure documents within the required timeframes. The Franchising Code, which sits under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, imposes strict obligations on franchisors to ensure transparency before franchise agreements are entered into.

Disclosure documents are intended to give prospective franchisees sufficient information to assess risks, costs and the overall viability of the business model. Failures in this area go directly to informed decision-making. 

The enforcement action reinforces the ACCC’s continued focus on franchising conduct, particularly where information asymmetry may disadvantage smaller or less sophisticated parties.

Attempted cartel conduct results in significant fines

Oil and gas services company Qteq and its chairman have been collectively fined $6 million following findings of attempted cartel conduct.

The case involved alleged attempts to enter into arrangements with competitors relating to pricing and market allocation. Even though the conduct was not successfully implemented, the Court found that attempting to make or give effect to a cartel provision can itself contravene the Act, even where the arrangement is not ultimately implemented.

Cartel conduct is prohibited under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, including provisions that capture not only actual agreements but also attempts to fix prices, restrict output or allocate markets.

The penalties highlight that enforcement is not limited to completed cartel arrangements. Attempted coordination between competitors can be sufficient to attract significant consequences, particularly where it indicates an intention to undermine competitive market conditions.

Scam losses remain above $2 billion despite coordinated efforts

Australians lost more than $2 billion to scams in 2025, based on data compiled through the National Anti-Scam Centre (see report).

More than 480,000 scam reports were recorded across multiple agencies, with over 274,000 involving financial losses totalling approximately $2.18 billion.

The most significant losses came from investment scams, followed by payment redirection, romance scams, phishing and remote access scams. Together, these categories accounted for around 60 per cent of total losses.

The report highlights the increasingly complex and adaptive nature of scam activity, with criminal networks evolving tactics and leveraging digital platforms. It also emphasises the importance of cross-sector collaboration between government, financial institutions, technology platforms and law enforcement.

Despite some reduction from peak loss levels in earlier years, the scale of losses continues to reinforce scams as a major consumer and regulatory issue.

Airline cooperation approved on an interim basis

The ACCC has granted interim authorisation to allow cooperation between Qantas and American Airlines in relation to their international operations (see update: https://www.accc.gov.au/about-us/news/media-updates/accc-grants-interim-authorisation-to-qantas-and-american-airlines).

Interim authorisation allows the parties to coordinate certain aspects of their services while the ACCC considers a final determination. This can include cooperation on scheduling, pricing, capacity and revenue sharing on specified routes.

Such arrangements would ordinarily raise competition concerns under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, as they involve coordination between competitors. However, authorisation can be granted where the ACCC is satisfied that the public benefits outweigh any detriment to competition.

In the airline context, these benefits are often framed in terms of improved connectivity, more efficient scheduling and enhanced service offerings, particularly on international routes.

The interim approval reflects the ACCC’s willingness to allow coordinated conduct in certain circumstances, while retaining oversight through the authorisation process.

Travel disruption rights remain a key consumer focus

The ACCC has continued to emphasise consumer rights in relation to travel delays and cancellations, particularly in the context of ongoing disruption across the aviation sector (see guidance).

Under the Australian Consumer Law, consumers are entitled to remedies where services are not provided with due care and skill, or are not delivered within a reasonable time. This can include refunds, replacements or compensation depending on the circumstances.

Airlines and travel providers cannot exclude these rights through their terms and conditions. Where flights are cancelled or significantly delayed, consumers may be entitled to remedies even where disruption is caused by factors outside the airline’s control.

The ACCC’s continued focus in this area reflects the high volume of complaints and ongoing scrutiny of airline conduct, particularly following recent enforcement actions and consumer dissatisfaction.

The bigger picture

The ACCC continues to focus on both structural competition issues and consumer protection outcomes. Cartel enforcement remains a priority, including in cases involving attempted conduct, while franchising and disclosure obligations are being actively monitored.

There is also a clear willingness to allow cooperative conduct where public benefits can be demonstrated, balanced against ongoing scrutiny of sectors such as aviation where consumer outcomes remain under pressure.

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

‍