Mackay Chapman October 2026 ACCC Update

In this month’s ACCC update:

• the ACCC and AFP strengthen collaboration to combat scams;
• the ACCC signals its future enforcement priorities;
• Neptune Blanket pays $59,400 over alleged misleading statements about consumer guarantees;
• Bayswood Timber Wholesalers pays $19,800 over alleged bushfire-suitable timber claims; and
• digiDirect pays $99,000 and admits making misleading discount claims.

ACCC and AFP strengthen collaboration to combat scams

The ACCC and Australian Federal Police have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to strengthen information sharing about scam activity.

The agreement provides a framework for ongoing collaboration between the agencies, including sharing information that may help identify, investigate and disrupt scams.

The ACCC’s National Anti-Scam Centre reported that Australians lost approximately $2.18 billion to scams in 2025.

The ACCC says improved data sharing will support activities such as identifying and removing scam websites, while giving the AFP greater access to information relevant to law enforcement investigations.

The agreement reflects the increasingly coordinated approach regulators and law enforcement agencies are taking to scam activity, particularly where online platforms, financial institutions and criminal conduct intersect.

ACCC signals future enforcement direction

ACCC Commissioner Luke Woodward has outlined the regulator’s approach to enforcement as markets and business practices continue to evolve.

The ACCC says cartel enforcement will remain a cornerstone of its competition work, while it will also continue examining restrictive arrangements and conduct that may make it harder for competitors to enter markets or compete effectively.

On the consumer side, the regulator expects to pay increasing attention to the systems, incentives and business practices that produce consumer harm, particularly in digital markets.

That includes practices such as social proofing, upselling, online nudges and other so-called dark patterns, as well as the governance and commercial incentives behind those practices.

The ACCC also indicated that investigations may increasingly examine how decisions are made within organisations, what information decision-makers had available and how compliance risks were managed, rather than looking only at an individual advertisement or representation.

Litigation will remain an important enforcement tool, but the ACCC says infringement notices, remediation and other regulatory responses will also continue to play a role.

For businesses, the direction is significant. Consumer and competition law compliance is increasingly about more than reviewing individual statements or contract terms. Regulators are also looking at the systems, incentives and governance arrangements that sit behind them.

Neptune Blanket pays $59,400 over alleged consumer guarantee claims

Online retailer Dysck Pty Ltd, trading as Neptune Blanket, has paid $59,400 in penalties after the ACCC issued three infringement notices.

The ACCC alleged Neptune Blanket made misleading statements to two consumers about their rights under the Australian Consumer Law.

Those statements allegedly suggested that returns or exchanges were discretionary or limited to store credit, that products needed to be unopened and unused to qualify for an exchange, and that customers were responsible for return shipping costs.

The ACCC also issued an infringement notice over the alleged failure to include mandatory consumer guarantee wording in a warranty against defects published on Neptune Blanket’s website.

Following contact from the ACCC, Neptune Blanket stopped using the statements, added the mandatory warranty wording and updated its processes.

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

The action is a reminder that a business’s own returns or warranty policy cannot limit rights consumers may have under the statutory consumer guarantees. Businesses offering warranties against defects also need to ensure the prescribed consumer guarantee wording is included.

Bayswood Timber Wholesalers pays penalty over bushfire-suitable timber claims

Victorian timber importer and wholesaler Bayswood Timber Wholesalers Pty Ltd has paid a $19,800 penalty after the ACCC issued an infringement notice relating to allegedly false or misleading claims about its Meranti timber.

The ACCC investigated claims that the timber had a density of 400 kilograms per cubic metre and was suitable for certain building applications in areas subject to the BAL-12.5 bushfire standard.

The ACCC alleges the timber did not have sufficient density to satisfy the relevant requirements for some BAL-12.5 applications, including certain door frames, window assemblies and external cladding.

The Australian Standard for construction in bushfire-prone areas imposes minimum timber density requirements for particular applications, with those requirements incorporated into relevant building regulation through the National Construction Code and state and territory laws.

The ACCC also contacted other timber suppliers during its investigation, with those businesses changing public material containing potentially misleading BAL claims. State and territory building regulators have been informed of the investigation.

Payment of the infringement notice is not an admission that Bayswood contravened the Australian Consumer Law.

For builders and suppliers, the matter highlights the importance of verifying technical claims about building products rather than relying simply on species names or general product descriptions. Characteristics such as timber density can vary and may directly affect whether a product complies with applicable building standards.

digiDirect pays $99,000 and admits misleading discount claims

Electronics retailer Digital Imaging Express Pty Ltd, trading as digiDirect, has paid $99,000 in penalties and admitted making misleading discount claims.

The ACCC issued five infringement notices relating to products advertised with higher prices struck through and descriptions such as “price slashed”.

According to the ACCC, the products were rarely advertised and almost never sold at the higher prices, meaning consumers may have been given the impression they were receiving a greater

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.

‍