Proposed new regime expands ACCC's enforcement toolkit 8 min read
Treasury has released draft laws introducing a new general prohibition on unfair trading practices and specific obligations targeting drip pricing and subscriptions.
As foreshadowed by government, the reforms are designed to capture conduct that Treasury says 'may fall outside the full reach' of the Australian Consumer Law (the ACL), including the general prohibitions against misleading conduct and unconscionable conduct. If passed, the proposed reforms are set to commence on 1 July 2027. Treasury's consultation process closes on 23 February 2026.
In this Insight, we summarise the key proposed changes and potential impacts for businesses if implemented.
Key takeaways
- A broad new unfair trading practices prohibition is proposed, significantly expanding the ACL to capture manipulative or distortive conduct that is likely to cause consumer detriment (whether financial or otherwise).
- The threshold for contravention is low, with no requirement for actual or material detriment, no financial loss requirement and no exception for conduct necessary to protect legitimate business interests.
- Targeted reforms address drip pricing and subscriptions, introducing new prescriptive disclosure obligations.
- Penalties are significant, with maximum penalties aligned to existing ACL settings (the greater of $50 million, three times the benefit or 30% of turnover for corporations).
- Businesses should start preparing now, particularly those operating online using mandatory fees revealed progressively during a transaction or subscription models, by reviewing policies, customer journeys, disclosures and interface design ahead of the proposed 1 July 2027 commencement.
A new general prohibition on unfair trading practices
What is prohibited?
The draft laws propose a broad, principles‑based prohibition on unfair trading practices. A contravention would arise where conduct:
- does (or is likely to) unreasonably manipulate a consumer, or unreasonably distort the environment in which a consumer makes a decision; and
- causes, or is likely to cause, detriment to the consumer (financial or otherwise).
Both limbs must be satisfied for a contravention to occur.
Who and what does it apply to?
The proposed prohibition applies to the supply or offer to supply goods or services, including advertising and marketing activities, across both online and offline settings.
It is limited to consumer transactions and does not extend to business-to-business (B2B) conduct, although the Government has foreshadowed it will consider whether similar protections should be extended to small businesses.
The draft laws include a non‑exhaustive list of examples of conduct that may contravene the prohibition, such as:
- interfering with a consumer’s ability to exercise legal rights or seek remedies;
- failing to disclose material information (or doing so in a complex or ineffective way); and
- creating environments that place unreasonable pressure on consumers or obstruct decision-making.
Treasury has said the prohibition is intended to capture so‑called 'dark patterns' (nudging or pressuring consumers into taking unintended actions). The explanatory materials cite several examples of dark patterns Treasury considers could be problematic, including using confusing menus with pre-selected checkboxes, omitting or obfuscating key information, and the 'unnecessary' display of countdown timers or low stock notifications.
Reasonableness
The exposure draft does not provide any guidance as to the factors to be taken into account when determining whether conduct 'unreasonably' manipulates a consumer or distorts the environment in which a customer makes a decision. However, the explanatory materials state that the intention of the prohibition is to restrict conduct that goes beyond legitimate and reasonable marketing practices.
Consumer detriment
Importantly, consumer detriment is not confined to financial loss and may include wasted time or other negative impacts. Further, actual consumer detriment is not required — conduct that is likely to cause detriment will be sufficient.
While the prohibition largely reflects the approach outlined in Treasury’s November 2024 consultation paper, the exposure draft adopts a lower threshold by removing the requirement that detriment be 'material'. This lowers the bar for contravention.
No carve-out for 'legitimate business interests'
The exposure draft does not include a ‘legitimate business interests’ carve‑out, meaning that conduct will not be assessed by reference to whether it is reasonably necessary to protect a business’s interests (in contrast to, for example, the Unfair Contract Terms regime).
No application to financial services businesses for now
An equivalent prohibition has not yet been proposed for financial services businesses regulated under the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001 (Cth) (the ASIC Act). However, Treasury indicated in its November 2024 consultation paper that it will consider what amendments may be required to the ASIC Act once the ACL reforms are settled.
New obligations targeting 'drip pricing'
The exposure draft proposes new disclosure obligations aimed at addressing 'drip pricing', where mandatory fees are revealed progressively during a transaction, obscuring the total price payable.
What do you need to disclose?
Where a base price is displayed and mandatory transaction‑based charges apply, businesses would be required to disclose, in a legible, prominent and unambiguous manner, and in close proximity to the base price:
- the amount of the charge (or how it is calculated if the amount cannot be determined);
- that the charge applies per transaction;
- whether the charge will or may apply; and
- whether the base price includes the charge.
What is captured?
These obligations apply to offers to supply goods or services ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use, which means only consumer transactions and a limited set of B2B transactions will be captured. Certain charges, such as optional charges, payment surcharges and delivery fees, are expressly excluded.
Although Treasury previously consulted on whether dynamic pricing should be specifically prohibited, the exposure draft does not introduce any specific obligations in relation to this. Dynamic pricing practices would instead be assessed under the new general unfair trading practices prohibition.
Subscription contracts: disclosure, notice and cancellation
The draft laws further propose a suite of disclosure, notification and cancellation requirements for subscription contracts. These requirements would apply to consumer and small business subscriptions, including fixed‑term, ongoing and free‑trial or promotional subscriptions, with tailored obligations depending on the subscription type.
Key proposals include:
- upfront disclosure of prescribed information, including pricing, term, renewal arrangements, notice periods and cancellation steps;
- ongoing notifications at specified points in the subscription lifecycle; and
- a requirement to provide an easy‑to‑find and straightforward method for cancellation.
Mandating easy cancellation
Where a subscription is entered into online, cancellation must also be available online and exit steps must be limited to those reasonably necessary to end the contract and protect the subscriber’s interests.
While the draft largely adopts the options canvassed in the November 2024 consultation paper, it does not introduce an 'opt in' requirement, being a requirement that businesses seek an active ‘opt in’ from a customer before the end of a free trial or introductory offer period, in order to sign the customer up to an ongoing subscription.
Recent ACCC enforcement signals this conduct is already a priority
Recent ACCC enforcement action sheds light on the kinds of conduct the ACCC may consider is problematic under the proposed laws. The below actions involved allegations under the current misleading conduct laws.
HelloFresh and Youfoodz
In its current proceedings against HelloFresh and Youfoodz, commenced in December 2025, the ACCC alleging that consumers were led to believe they could easily cancel their subscriptions online before a cut‑off date and avoid receiving or paying for their first delivery. In the ACCC's view, online cancellation was either unavailable or ineffective, with consumers required to contact customer service to prevent charges and delivery. The ACCC alleges this led to consumers making poorly informed decisions when providing payment details, experiencing frustration and wasted time when attempting to cancel, and being charged for unwanted deliveries.
JustAnswer
The ACCC’s proceeding against JustAnswer, commenced in September 2025, involves allegations relating to subscription contracts. The ACCC alleges that consumers were led to believe they could obtain expert advice for a $2 one‑off fee when the use of the service required consumers to enter into an ongoing monthly subscription that, in the ACCC's view, was disclosed with insufficient prominence or too late in the sign‑up process. The ACCC also alleges consumers were charged recurring fees unless they contacted customer service to cancel.
Dendy Cinemas
The ACCC’s action against Dendy Cinemas involved allegations about drip pricing and add‑on fees. Dendy agreed to pay a penalty in June 2025 after the ACCC alleged it failed to prominently display the total price of movie tickets online and revealed an unavoidable per‑ticket booking fee at the final stages of the transaction. The ACCC was concerned that displaying only part of the price upfront could undermine consumers’ ability to make informed decisions and has since flagged it is looking at pricing practices in the cinema industry more broadly.
Actions you can take now
- Engage early on draft legislation, particularly companies that use online business models, dynamic pricing, mandatory fees disclosed progressively in a transaction process or subscription‑based offerings.
- Map end‑to‑end customer journeys across online and offline channels to identify points where consumers may be pressured, nudged or impeded in making decisions (including onboarding, checkout, renewals and cancellations).
- Review pricing disclosures, particularly where base prices are displayed, to assess whether any mandatory transaction-based charges are clearly, prominently and transparently communicated early in the purchasing process.
- Audit website and app design for potential 'dark patterns', including false urgency cues, confusing navigation, buried disclosures or customer support links, and complex or obstructive decision flows.
- Re‑examine subscription models, including free trials and auto‑renewing arrangements, to ensure pricing, renewal terms, notice periods and cancellation steps are clearly disclosed and easy for customers to understand.
- Assess cancellation processes to confirm they are easy to find, straightforward to complete and no more onerous than reasonably necessary, particularly where subscriptions are entered into online.
- Review internal governance and sign‑off processes for marketing, user design and pricing strategies to ensure consumer detriment risks are identified and escalated early.