Mackay Chapman November 2026 ACCC Update

In this month's ACCC update:

• Perfection Fresh admits to price fixing and agrees to a proposed $12 million cartel penalty;
• The ACCC commences proceedings against 12 major egg producers and suppliers over alleged anti-competitive conduct;
• ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb outlines the regulator's approach to competition, productivity and merger control;
• The ACCC releases new guidance on environmental and emissions claims;
• Kmart faces Federal Court proceedings over alleged product safety failures; and
• James Lane and Vuly pay $59,400 over allegedly misleading Black Friday advertising.

Perfection Fresh admits price fixing and agrees to proposed $12 million penalty

Cartel enforcement remains a priority for the ACCC. Its latest action has resulted in one of Australia's largest fresh vegetable suppliers admitting to price fixing.

Perfection Fresh Australia Pty Ltd has admitted engaging in cartel conduct involving the prices of broccoli, cauliflower and iceberg lettuce supplied to ALDI in New South Wales.

The company has agreed to jointly propose a $12 million penalty to the Federal Court for nine contraventions and one attempted contravention. The proposed penalty remains subject to Court approval.

The admissions follow proceedings commenced by the ACCC in September 2025 against Perfection Fresh, three other suppliers and three individuals.

Perfection Fresh admitted that it engaged in price fixing on eleven occasions between 2019 and 2020.

However, the proposed penalty relates to nine contraventions and one attempted contravention because one admitted contravention falls outside the period for which a penalty can be imposed.

Under the proposed orders, Perfection Fresh would also be required to continue implementing its competition law compliance programme.

The ACCC's proceedings against the other suppliers and individuals remain ongoing.

The case demonstrates the regulator's continued focus on cartel conduct in fresh food supply chains. It also highlights the significant penalties businesses can face where competitors coordinate pricing rather than make independent commercial decisions.

ACCC alleges major egg producers engaged in cartel and anti-competitive conduct

Australia's largest egg supplier is among 12 companies facing Federal Court proceedings over alleged coordination of egg production and supply.

The ACCC has commenced proceedings against Sunny Queen and 11 other producers and suppliers, alleging cartel and other anti-competitive conduct dating back to at least October 2020.

The regulator alleges the companies coordinated decisions about production volumes, supply arrangements, expansion plans and the culling of birds to manage perceived oversupply.

Specific allegations include:

• Coordination between suppliers about production and distribution.
• Restrictions on which retailers certain businesses could supply.
• Arrangements concerning the volume of eggs produced.
• The acquisition of property allegedly intended to prevent expansion by competing suppliers.

The ACCC alleges that some arrangements had the purpose or likely effect of substantially lessening competition.

Significantly, the proceedings include the ACCC's first allegations of an unlawful concerted practice since the prohibition was introduced in 2017.

A concerted practice can involve cooperation or communication between competing businesses that falls short of a formal agreement or understanding but goes beyond independent commercial conduct.

The proceedings are important because they extend beyond traditional price fixing allegations. The ACCC is challenging alleged coordination of production, supply and broader commercial strategy.

The ACCC is seeking declarations, penalties, injunctions and other orders.

The allegations have not yet been determined by the Court.

ACCC Chair outlines approach to competition and 'right-sized' regulation

Australia's competition regulator has signalled that effective regulation does not always mean more regulation.

In a speech to the 2026 Australian Competition Summit, ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb outlined the regulator's approach to balancing competition, productivity and regulatory intervention.

The central message was that regulation should respond to genuine market failures and be proportionate to the risks involved.

That may involve removing unnecessary requirements, changing existing rules or intervening more strongly where competition is threatened.

The ACCC highlighted several examples.

Merger control

The regulator reported that the first nine months of Australia's new merger control regime had demonstrated the value of earlier scrutiny and targeted intervention.

The ACCC said it was meeting its commitment to assess 80% of acquisitions within 20 business days through early Phase 1 decisions or notification waivers.

Some transactions have proceeded subject to targeted divestitures. Others have required more extensive scrutiny or have not been approved.

The ACCC also identified increasing visibility over consolidation in sectors such as veterinary services, medical practices, dental services and motor vehicle dealerships.

Competition enforcement

Cartel conduct remains a central enforcement priority. The ACCC also indicated that it is sharpening its focus on resale price maintenance following continued concerns across several industries.

The regulator pointed to recent interventions involving restrictive contracts, exclusivity arrangements and barriers to market entry.

For businesses, the speech offers a useful indication of how the ACCC intends to exercise its powers. The focus is on the commercial arrangements and practices that restrict competition, with intervention directed at the source of the potential harm.

ACCC releases new guidance on emissions and environmental claims

Businesses promoting their environmental credentials need to consider more than whether their claims are technically accurate.

The ACCC has released new guidance on emissions claims, warning that businesses must consider how ordinary consumers are likely to understand their marketing.

The guidance addresses claims about greenhouse gas emissions, reductions, offsets and carbon credits.

The regulator is particularly concerned about claims that may give consumers a misleading impression of a business' actual environmental performance.

Businesses are encouraged to:

• Use credible and recognised emissions accounting methods.
• Avoid broad, vague or selective claims.
• Explain when claimed reductions rely on purchased carbon credits.
• Avoid double counting emissions reductions.
• Distinguish voluntary action from compliance with legal requirements.
• Ensure claims about future emissions reductions have reasonable grounds.

The ACCC has also warned against marketing that suggests purchased carbon credits are equivalent to directly reducing emissions without an adequate basis for that claim.

The guidance follows several significant ACCC greenwashing actions, including the Federal Court's $8.25 million penalty against Clorox Australia for misleading claims about certain GLAD products.

Environmental and sustainability claims remain an ACCC enforcement priority.

Businesses making emissions claims should review not only the underlying evidence but also the overall impression their advertising creates. A technically accurate statement may still be misleading if it gives consumers the wrong impression.

Kmart faces Federal Court action over alleged product safety failures

The ACCC has commenced Federal Court proceedings against Kmart Australia over alleged failures involving cosmetic nail glue and products containing button batteries.

The case raises important questions about how retailers respond to known safety risks and ensure products meet mandatory standards.

The ACCC alleges that Kmart sold millions of units of cosmetic nail glue without adequate warnings about the risk of burns when the product came into contact with fabric.

According to the regulator, consumers reported injuries between August 2017 and December 2024. Some required hospitalisation and skin grafts.

The ACCC alleges Kmart knew about the risk but failed to provide adequate warnings until December 2024.

The proceedings also concern button battery products sold under Kmart's Anko brand.

The ACCC alleges that:

• Approximately 64,000 watches were supplied without the testing required under mandatory button battery safety standards.
• More than 800 GPS tracking Smart Tags were supplied without all required button battery safety warnings.

Kmart recalled the Smart Tags in 2024 following ACCC engagement.

The ACCC is seeking penalties, declarations, costs and other orders.

The allegations have not yet been determined by the Court.

The proceedings highlight the risks for retailers and suppliers that fail to address known product safety concerns or verify compliance with mandatory standards before products are sold.

James Lane and Vuly pay $59,400 over allegedly misleading Black Friday sales

With Black Friday approaching, the ACCC has warned retailers against advertising discounts with artificial deadlines or misleading countdown timers.

Furniture retailer James Lane and children's play equipment retailer Vuly have paid a combined $59,400 in infringement notice penalties following an ACCC investigation into their 2025 sales promotions.

James Lane

James Lane paid $19,800 after the ACCC alleged it misled consumers about when a sale would end.

The retailer advertised that its Black Friday sale would finish on 3 December 2025. However, the discounted products continued to be advertised and sold at the same prices for another week.

The ACCC found that James Lane had decided before the sale began that the promotion would continue beyond the advertised end date.

Vuly

Vuly paid $39,600 following two infringement notices concerning its Click Frenzy and Black Friday sales.

The ACCC alleged that Vuly used countdown timers suggesting discounts were about to end, even though the promotions continued or were replaced with equivalent or greater discounts.

In one instance, a promotion advertising discounts of up to 30% was immediately replaced by another offering up to 45% off.

During its Black Friday promotion, Vuly advertised discounts of up to 45% alongside a countdown timer. When the timer expired, the discounts continued and the timer reset.

Both retailers have committed to improving their advertising practices.

Payment of infringement notices is not an admission that the Australian Consumer Law was contravened.

The ACCC has made misleading pricing practices an enforcement priority and is continuing to monitor sales advertising.

Businesses should ensure promotional deadlines, limited-time offers and countdown timers accurately reflect the terms of their promotions.

The contents of this update do not constitute legal advice, 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 publication, for general informational purposes only. You should seek legal or other professional advice concerning any particular legal matters you or your organisation may have.

‍