Mackay Chapman July 2026 ACCC Update
Plenty to read up on in this month’s ACCC update:
- New water market manipulation and insider trading prohibitions commence
- Lactalis pays penalties over allegedly misleading fresh milk labels
- Amazon faces proceedings over Prime Video contract changes
- eDreams pays penalties over subscription pricing representations
- Online retailer penalised over discount pricing and refund claims
- ACCC alleges misleading debt notices were sent to consumers
- Health program provider and CEO face unfair contract term proceedings
New water market manipulation and insider trading prohibitions commence
New rules prohibiting market manipulation and insider trading in Murray-Darling Basin water markets commenced on 1 July 2026.
The reforms prohibit conduct that artificially distorts water markets and trading in water rights while in possession of market-sensitive information that is not publicly available. Government agencies and irrigation infrastructure operators must also announce certain decisions that could materially affect water trading activity.
These provisions operate alongside the Water Markets Intermediaries Code and statutory trust accounting requirements that have applied since October 2025.
Water brokers and other intermediaries are already required to meet minimum standards when handling client transactions, including acting in good faith, managing conflicts and, where applicable, maintaining trust accounts.
Lactalis pays penalties over allegedly misleading fresh milk labels
Lactalis Australia has paid $59,400 in penalties after the ACCC issued three infringement notices concerning the labelling of two milk products.
The ACCC alleged that Golden North “Country Fresh” milk and Ferguson Valley “WA DAIRY FRESH” milk were represented as fresh despite containing substantial quantities of reconstituted powdered ingredients.
Lactalis removed the word “fresh” from the relevant labels after the ACCC raised its concerns.
The infringement notices concerned alleged false or misleading representations about the nature or characteristics of goods under the Australian Consumer Law. Payment of an infringement notice penalty does not amount to an admission that the law was contravened.
Amazon faces proceedings over Prime Video contract changes
The ACCC has commenced Federal Court proceedings against Amazon Commercial Services Pty Ltd over terms contained in its annual Prime subscription contracts.
The ACCC alleges that contracts with more than one million annual subscribers contained unfair terms permitting Amazon to make detrimental changes during a fixed subscription period without providing an adequate remedy.
It further alleges that Amazon relied on one or more of those terms when it introduced advertising to Prime Video in July 2024. Subscribers who wanted to retain an ad-free service were required to pay an additional monthly fee, despite having already paid for an annual subscription.
Amazon’s US entity is also alleged to have been knowingly concerned in the conduct through its involvement in drafting the contracts and implementing the global advertising decision.
The allegations have not yet been determined by the Court. The ACCC is seeking penalties, declarations, consumer redress and other orders.
The proceedings are among the first contested cases under the unfair contract terms penalty regime applying to contracts made or renewed from 9 November 2023.
eDreams pays penalties over subscription pricing representations
Online travel agency eDreams has paid $59,400 in penalties and provided a court-enforceable undertaking following ACCC concerns about its subscription sign-up process.
The ACCC alleged that eDreams promoted a 15-day free trial without adequately disclosing that the offer was limited to first-time subscribers. Some consumers were assessed for eligibility only after completing the checkout process and were immediately charged where they were found to be ineligible.
eDreams also admitted that it displayed monthly pricing for an annual subscription without prominently stating the minimum total amount payable over the full 12-month term.
Under its undertaking, eDreams will provide refunds or account credits to eligible consumers, update its practices and implement an Australian Consumer Law compliance program.
Online retailer penalised over discount pricing and refund claims
HSK United Pty Ltd, which operates the Pain Free Aussies and Modern Aussies websites, has paid $79,200 in penalties following four ACCC infringement notices.
The ACCC alleged that certain products were advertised using crossed-out higher prices even though they had not been sold at those prices for an extended period. The representations may therefore have conveyed that customers were receiving genuine savings when the claimed comparison price was not an established selling price.
The ACCC also raised concerns about statements that clearance items and products purchased using store credit were non-refundable. Consumer guarantee rights may still entitle a customer to a refund or another remedy where goods fail to comply with the Australian Consumer Law, regardless of whether they were discounted or purchased using a voucher.
Businesses using strikethrough or “was/now” pricing should retain evidence showing that the higher price was genuine and used for a reasonable period.
Returns policies must also distinguish discretionary change-of-mind arrangements from statutory consumer guarantee rights, which businesses cannot exclude.
ACCC alleges misleading debt notices were sent to consumers
The ACCC has commenced Federal Court proceedings against debt collection agency ARMA Group Holdings Pty Ltd and related legal practice Force Legal Pty Ltd.
The regulator alleges that the businesses sent more than 320,000 debt enforcement notices containing misleading representations over a period of more than three and a half years.
The allegations include that some consumers were told they owed debts that were no longer outstanding or were outside the applicable statutory limitation period. Force Legal is also alleged to have sent communications suggesting that legal action had been authorised, that deductions could be made from wages without a court process or that consumers would automatically be responsible for legal costs and interest.
The ACCC further alleges that some correspondence gave the impression that Force Legal operated independently from ARMA when the entities were related, and that ARMA staff arranged for communications to be issued using Force Legal’s letterhead.
The allegations remain before the Court. The ACCC is seeking penalties, injunctions, compensation and other orders.
Health program provider and CEO face unfair contract term proceedings
The ACCC has instituted Federal Court proceedings against health and wellbeing program provider Miyagi Pty Ltd and its founder and chief executive officer.
The ACCC alleges that Miyagi used unfair contract terms that prevented consumers from cancelling programs and made misleading representations about cancellation and refund rights.
It also alleges that sales representatives made statements that conveyed they held professional health or medical affiliations when they did not possess formal medical or health qualifications. Consumers were allegedly encouraged to review and accept lengthy program contracts during sales calls, limiting the time available to consider the terms.
The programs cost between approximately $1,800 and $7,500 and were marketed to consumers experiencing conditions including diabetes, heart disease, menopause and sleep apnoea.
The ACCC alleges that the chief executive was involved in the conduct through his approval of contract terms and sales scripts. It is seeking penalties, consumer redress and an order disqualifying him from managing a business.
The case has not yet been determined.
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.
