A major reform to Australian consumer law is on the horizon — and it will matter to every business that deals with consumers or other businesses.
The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 (Cth) was introduced into the Commonwealth Parliament in 2026. If passed, it will amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) to introduce a broad, principles-based prohibition on unfair trading practices — a concept that goes well beyond anything currently in the Australian Consumer Law.
This is not law yet. But the direction is clear, the legislative drafting is done, and businesses and their lawyers need to start paying attention now.
What Is the Problem the Bill Is Trying to Solve?
For decades, the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) has operated around two key prohibitions: misleading or deceptive conduct (s 18) and unconscionable conduct (ss 20–22). These have been effective tools for regulators and litigants, but they have limits.
To succeed under s 18, you must show that conduct was likely to mislead or deceive — that is, that it produced a false impression. Conduct that is manipulative, exploitative, or just plain unfair but that does not technically create a false impression may escape the provision entirely.
Unconscionable conduct under ss 20–22 is even harder to establish. Courts have set a high bar — conduct must be so against conscience as to be offensive to ordinary notions of what is fair dealing. Sharp practice, aggressive tactics, or deliberately confusing terms may not meet that threshold.
The result is a gap. Conduct that a reasonable person would recognise as deeply unfair can nevertheless fall outside both prohibitions. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) identified this gap in its Digital Platforms Inquiry (2017–2019) and has been pushing for reform ever since. Treasury followed with consultation in late 2024. The Bill is the product of that process.
What Does the Bill Propose?
The centrepiece of the reform is a new general prohibition on unfair trading practices. The Bill proposes to prohibit a person from engaging in conduct, in trade or commerce, that is an unfair trading practice. The prohibition is principles-based — it is not a list of specific prohibited acts but a broad standard against which conduct will be assessed.
In addition to the general prohibition, the Bill targets two specific practices that Treasury identified as particularly harmful:
- Drip pricing and transaction-based charges — requiring businesses to display the total price of a good or service upfront, rather than adding charges at the checkout stage. Hidden fees, booking fees, and service charges that appear only at the point of payment will be directly targeted.
- Subscription traps — strengthening protections for consumers and small businesses locked into subscription contracts, including clearer disclosure requirements and easier cancellation mechanisms.
If the Bill passes in its current form, commencement is expected on 1 July 2027.
How Does This Compare to Existing ACL Prohibitions?
The relationship between the proposed prohibition and the existing ACL provisions is important to understand — both for businesses trying to manage compliance risk and for litigants assessing whether a claim is available.
| Prohibition | What Must Be Shown | Key Limitation |
|---|---|---|
| s 18 — Misleading conduct | Conduct that was false or likely to mislead or deceive | Requires a false impression — honest but unfair conduct escapes |
| ss 20–22 — Unconscionable conduct | Conduct so against conscience as to warrant equitable intervention | High bar — courts have been reluctant to expand the concept |
| Proposed — Unfair trading practices | Conduct that constitutes an unfair trading practice in trade or commerce | New — broader, fairness-based standard; specific parameters still being worked through |
The new prohibition is explicitly designed to catch conduct that the existing provisions do not. It draws on the approach taken in the United Kingdom under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the European Union under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive — both of which have generated significant litigation and enforcement activity over the past decade.
What Practices Might Be Captured?
The Bill does not provide an exhaustive list of unfair trading practices. That is intentional — a prescriptive list becomes outdated quickly as new business models emerge. However, based on the Treasury consultation papers and the international models the Bill draws from, the following categories of conduct are in the frame:
- Dark patterns — interface design that nudges or manipulates consumers into decisions they did not intend to make (pre-ticked boxes, confusing cancellation flows, pressure tactics)
- Bait advertising — advertising products at a price knowing they are not available in reasonable quantities
- Exploiting urgency — artificially creating time pressure to push consumers into decisions (false countdown timers, manufactured scarcity)
- Opaque terms — key terms buried in lengthy, complex documents in a way designed to prevent consumers from understanding them
- Subscription lock-ins — making it unreasonably difficult to cancel an ongoing subscription or automatically rolling over contracts on unfavourable terms
- Disguised advertising — presenting paid content as independent editorial or user review
For franchisors, insurance companies, and businesses that operate in digital markets, the risk exposure is significant. Many current practices that sit in the grey zone — not technically misleading, but clearly designed to extract value from consumers who do not fully understand what they are agreeing to — will need to be reassessed.
What Are the Penalties?
The penalty regime for breach of the new prohibition is expected to align with the existing ACL civil penalty structure. For corporations, the maximum civil penalty for each contravention is the greater of:
- $50 million;
- three times the value of the benefit obtained from the conduct; or
- 30 per cent of the corporation’s adjusted turnover during the relevant period.
Individuals who are involved in a contravention may also be personally liable. The ACCC will have enforcement powers, and private litigants will be able to bring claims for damages and injunctions.
This is not a compliance notice. These are serious commercial consequences.
What This Means for Commercial Litigation in Queensland
From a litigation perspective, the proposed prohibition is significant for several reasons.
First, it creates a new cause of action. Once the Bill passes, claimants who could not bring a case under s 18 or ss 20–22 will have an additional basis for a claim. This will expand the pool of commercial disputes that are litigable — including disputes involving franchise agreements, subscription services, digital platform conduct, and consumer-facing businesses.
Second, the fairness-based standard introduces a degree of flexibility that the existing prohibitions do not have. Courts assessing whether conduct constitutes an unfair trading practice will look at the whole picture — the nature of the conduct, the parties involved, the relevant market, and the effect on consumers or businesses. This is a more contextual assessment than the technical tests under s 18 and s 21.
Third, the prohibition will interact with other ACL claims in complex ways. A claimant who has a strong s 18 claim will likely also have a strong unfair trading practices claim, and vice versa. Pleading both in the alternative — and understanding how the provisions overlap — will be important in any ACL litigation commenced after 1 July 2027.
Fourth, businesses in sectors with a history of aggressive or opaque practices — insurance, franchising, digital subscriptions, debt collection, telecommunications — should expect increased regulatory scrutiny and a rise in private litigation once the prohibition is in force.
What Should Businesses Do Now?
The Bill has not passed. But the direction of travel is clear, and the compliance window is shorter than it looks. If commencement is 1 July 2027, businesses have approximately 14 months to review and adjust their trading practices, customer-facing documentation, and marketing materials.
Practically speaking, businesses should be asking:
- Are our pricing disclosures transparent from the first interaction with the customer, or do charges appear only at checkout?
- Are our subscription terms — including cancellation rights and automatic renewal conditions — clearly disclosed and easy to act on?
- Do any of our digital interfaces use design elements that could be characterised as manipulative or confusing?
- Are our advertising and promotional materials honest about product availability and pricing?
- Do our standard form contracts contain terms that, while not technically unfair contract terms, could be characterised as unfair trading practices under the proposed standard?
For franchise operators specifically, the interaction between the proposed prohibition and the Franchising Code of Conduct will need careful analysis. Franchisors who impose obligations on franchisees that a court might characterise as unfair trading practices — particularly in relation to marketing fees, termination rights, or restraint of trade clauses — should take advice early.
Boss Lawyers Is Tracking This Development
Mark Harley and the Boss Lawyers team are monitoring the progress of the Bill through Parliament and will publish updates as the legislative process unfolds. If you have a commercial dispute involving conduct that may fall within the proposed prohibition — or if you want advice on reviewing your current trading practices for compliance — contact Boss Lawyers for a confidential discussion.
The ACL is about to get bigger. Make sure you are ready.
Frequently Asked Questions
When will the Unfair Trading Practices Bill 2026 become law?
The Bill has been introduced into the Commonwealth Parliament but has not yet passed. If passed without amendment, commencement is expected on 1 July 2027. The timing of passage through Parliament remains uncertain and may change.
Does the new prohibition replace the existing misleading conduct and unconscionable conduct provisions?
No. The proposed prohibition is intended to sit alongside the existing provisions in the ACL, not replace them. Claimants will be able to rely on whichever provision or provisions best suit their facts. The new prohibition fills the gap in conduct that does not meet the existing thresholds.
Will the prohibition apply to business-to-business dealings?
The primary focus of the general prohibition is consumer-facing conduct. However, small businesses are separately protected through the enhanced subscription and pricing provisions. Treasury has also indicated that future reforms may extend coverage to small business dealings more broadly.
What is drip pricing and why is it targeted?
Drip pricing is the practice of advertising a product or service at an initial price and then adding fees, charges, or surcharges progressively during the purchase process — so that the final price paid is significantly higher than the price advertised. The Bill will require businesses to display the total price upfront, including all mandatory charges.
Can I bring a private claim under the new prohibition?
Yes, if the Bill passes in its current form. In addition to ACCC enforcement action, individuals and businesses who suffer loss or damage as a result of an unfair trading practice will be able to bring private proceedings for damages and injunctions in the Federal Court.
For experienced representation in commercial litigation, contact the team at commercial litigation lawyers Brisbane — Boss Lawyers. Call 1300 267 711 or complete our online enquiry form.
Related Reading
This is general information only and is not legal advice. You should obtain professional advice specific to your circumstances. If you have questions about the Unfair Trading Practices Bill 2026 or the Australian Consumer Law, contact Boss Lawyers on 1300 267 711 or request a consultation online.
