Over the last calendar year, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has pursued its enforcement agenda.
This article provides a recap on the ACCC’s enforcement within the past 10 months, resulting is outcomes ranging from infringement notices to a $55 million penalty.
Google’s anti-competitive conduct
On 2 December 2025, Moshinsky J awarded a $55 million penalty against Google in the case of ACCC v Google Asia Pacific Pte Ltd [2025] FCA 1554.
The Federal Court found that Google engaged in anti-competitive conduct by reaching understandings with Telstra and Optus for Google Search to be pre-installed exclusively on Telstra and Optus’ Android phones. In return, Telstra and Optus received a share of the advertising revenue generated when consumers used Google Search on those devices.
Moshinsky J found in favour of the ACCC’s argument that Google’s conduct substantially lessened competition by excluding rival search engines.
Luxottica’s failure to comply with the Franchising Code’s administrative obligations
In early 2026, Luxottica Franchising Australia paid a penalty of $19,800 after being issued with an ACCC infringement notice.
The ACCC issued Luxottica Franchising Australia (which trades as OPSM and Laubman & Pank) with an infringement notice for failing to maintain an up-to-date profile on the Franchise Disclosure Register, in breach of section 93 of the Franchising Code of Conduct.
Under section 93, franchisors are required to update or reconfirm the accuracy of the information of their profile annually.
Coles and Brownes’ alleged breaches of the Dairy Code
Also in early 2026, the ACCC issued infringement notices to Coles and to dairy processor Brownes for separate breaches of the Dairy Code; a mandatory industry code regulating supply relationships between dairy farmers and major milk purchasers.
Coles published milk supply agreements that required the supplier to supply milk exclusively to Coles, while also capping the maximum volume that could be produced. Brownes published milk supply agreements that did not clearly specify the minimum prices applying throughout the supply period, and failed to justify the reasons for those prices.
Coles and Brownes each paid a penalty of $39,600.
Coles’ misleading and deceptive conduct: “Down Down” promotions
On 14 May 2026, O’Bryan J handed down his decision in the case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 598.
The Federal Court found in favour of the ACCC in its case alleging that Coles had misled customers on pricing. The claim concerned a practice in which Coles increased the prices of several common products for relatively short periods before advertising them under its “Down Down” promotion at prices that were the same as, or higher than, the original price.
Penalties and other orders by the ACCC are yet to be determined by the Court.
Amazon’s alleged unfair contract terms
On 29 June 2026, the ACCC commenced proceedings against Amazon AU and Amazon US.
The ACCC alleges Amazon provided contracts to consumers with unfair contract terms. Specifically, the ACCC alleges terms allowing Amazon to unilaterally vary its services without any corresponding consumer entitlement to a refund or compensation.
Amazon relied on these terms when introducing advertisements into its paid Prime subscription in July 2024, charging customers an additional $2.99 to remove the advertisements.
HSK United: alleged misleading pricing and returns policy
The ACCC issued four infringement notices to HSK United Pty Ltd, the operator of online retailers ‘Pain Free Aussies’ and ‘Modern Aussies’. HSK United subsequently paid $79,200 in penalties.
Two notices regarded “strikethrough” pricing, where a higher price is crossed out and replaced with a lower price.
The ACCC alleged that products were advertised with strikethrough prices even though the higher price had not been charged to consumers for over one year.
The remaining two notices related to a HSK United returns policy stating that clearance items and items purchased with store credit were non-refundable.
The ACCC alleges this conduct misled consumers about their rights to a refund under the Australian Consumer Law.
Alleged cartel conduct by Australian egg producers and suppliers
On 13 October 2026, the ACCC commenced proceedings in the Federal Court against 12 egg producers and suppliers.
The ACCC alleges that, since 2020, the respondents coordinated on production volumes, distribution, expansion plans and culling to manage perceived oversupply in a manner that substantially lessened competition in breach of s 45 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).
The alleged effects include artificially reducing the supply of eggs, raising barriers to entry or expansion, and reducing competition between the companies involved.
Key takeaways:
Franchisors must not neglect administrative requirements and should ensure they update their Annual Franchise Disclosure Register
Businesses and their legal advisors should ensure unfair contract terms are not included in their standard form contracts.
Advertising needs to be accurate and not misleading. If it is not really a discount then do not say it is.
Business operators should ensure that they do not engage in cartel conduct by making agreements which limit competition between them without having the necessary approval to do so.
The ACCC’s activity over the past 10 months demonstrates a commitment to investigating and prosecuting business misconduct. For franchisors and their legal advisors, now is an opportune time to review standard terms, pricing practices and code compliance processes.
Sladen Legal is able to assist you in navigating franchisee compliance obligations. For further information, please contact:
This article was prepared with the assistance of Chris Downes and Tony Huang Paralegals.
