This bill adds a standalone prohibition on 'unfair trading practices' to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, requires clearer display of transaction-based charges (so-called drip pricing), and creates a new regime for subscription contracts that mandates upfront disclosures and accessible exit routes. It also inserts tailored definitions, exemptions, and penalty rules, and ties the new provisions into existing civil pecuniary penalty machinery.
Why it matters: if enacted, the amendments rewrite how businesses present prices and contract terms to consumers and many small businesses. Online retailers, marketplaces, payment providers and any supplier using recurring or auto-renewing charge models will face new disclosure and UX requirements and new exposure to civil penalties.
The design leaves substantial questions for regulators and courts about what constitutes manipulation or an ‘unfair’ interface.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates a general civil prohibition on engaging in conduct that manipulates consumers or unreasonably distorts their decision environment and causes detriment. It requires the display of transaction-based charges whenever a base price is shown, and establishes specific disclosure, ongoing information and exit requirements for subscription-style contracts.
Who It Affects
Online and bricks‑and‑mortar suppliers who show base prices and add separate fees at checkout, digital platforms and UX designers using interface design to influence choices, firms selling subscriptions (including free‑trial and discounted intro offers), and payment processors tied to per‑transaction fees.
Why It Matters
The new unfair trading headroom is deliberately broad and captures design, timing and information practices that regulators have previously challenged only piecemeal; the drip‑pricing and subscription rules create bright procedural duties that compliance teams must operationalise, while leaving substantive boundaries to case law and regulation.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill does three things in high-level terms: it introduces a civil prohibition on unfair trading practices toward consumers; it requires clearer visibility of transaction-specific charges whenever a base price is displayed; and it builds a detailed framework for subscription contracts including what counts as a subscription, mandatory pre‑contract and in‑contract disclosures, and exit mechanics. Each new obligation is framed as civil (pecuniary penalties possible) and is woven into the existing penalty and application provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
The unfair trading prohibition is intentionally functional rather than rule‑based: a supplier breaches it where, in connection with supply or an offer to supply to a consumer, the supplier either manipulates the consumer or unreasonably distorts the decision environment and that conduct causes or is likely to cause detriment. The bill explicitly lists examples — from impeding legal rights to using design elements that place consumers under pressure — but leaves scope for courts to develop the standard.
Corporations acting as consumers and supplies made in the course of a consumer carrying on a business are excluded, but the party asserting those exclusions must put forward evidence.On price transparency, the bill forces suppliers who display a base price for consumer goods or services to show transaction‑based charges at the same time the base price is displayed. That disclosure must be legible, prominent and unambiguous and placed in close proximity to the base price; where the exact amount cannot be calculated a method for determining the charge must be shown.
The definition of transaction‑based charge is tethered to timing (payable at the time of purchase) and excludes voluntary optional charges, certain taxes and payment surcharges, with a regulation headroom to adjust the list.The subscription regime focuses on recurring liabilities and automatic payment traps. Contracts become 'subscription contracts' if they feature indefinite recurring supplies with automatic liability, fixed‑term renewals that roll on automatically, free introductory periods that convert into paid subscriptions, or introductory discounts that escalate automatically unless the subscriber acts.
For subscription contracts that meet consumer or defined small business criteria, suppliers must disclose pre‑contract information, provide prescribed in‑contract information at set times, and give easy, straightforward exit methods — including an online exit option where the contract was entered online. The Act presumes standard‑form status for suspected contracts and sets objective tests for small business status (under 100 employees or turnover below $10 million).
The Minister must review the subscription amendments after two years and table a report.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The new unfair trading prohibition applies only to supplies to natural persons (consumers); corporate consumers and supplies made in the course of a consumer’s business are excluded, with the claimant bearing the evidential burden for those exceptions.
Civil penalties for contravening Part 24 are built into the existing penalty framework and include scaleable penalty units (600 units for listed corporations, 60 for other corporates, 12 for individuals) and a monetary cap mechanism that can involve amounts up to $2,500,000.
The 'drip pricing' rule requires that any transaction‑based charge be displayed while the base price is shown, in a legible, prominent and unambiguous way and in close proximity to the base price; where exact amounts cannot be calculated the supplier must disclose the method for calculating the charge.
A contract is a subscription contract if it creates automatic recurring liability (including automatic renewals, free trials that convert or escalating post‑trial prices); excluded categories include leases, hire‑purchase, childcare and prescribed classes of contracts.
Suppliers of subscription contracts meeting the consumer or small‑business tests must (a) give pre‑contract statements and disclosures, (b) provide in‑contract information at prescribed times, and (c) provide easy, straightforward exit methods — including an online exit where the contract was entered online; a statutory review is required two years after commencement.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
New Part 24 — Unfair trading practices
Section 28B creates a general civil prohibition: conduct in trade or commerce that manipulates consumers or unreasonably distorts the decision environment and causes or is likely to cause detriment is an 'unfair trading practice'. The provision is outcome‑focused and supplemented with non‑exhaustive examples (impeding legal rights, failing to disclose material information, delivering material information in a confusing way, and using design elements to pressure or obstruct). Practically, this gives regulators a flexible tool to challenge UX dark patterns, bundled disclosures and timing or placement strategies that were previously harder to characterise under specific ACL provisions.
Penalty and scope plumbing
The bill amends multiple Schedule 2 entries to slot Part 24 into the existing civil penalty architecture. It sets penalty‑unit scales for listed corporations, other corporations and individuals and introduces a table row (2B) referencing a pecuniary cap (including $2.5m as a benchmark figure). The bill also adds new definitions (eg, 'unfair trading practices', 'base price' and 'transaction based charge') that operationalise the substantive duties in the drip‑pricing and subscription parts.
Mandatory display of transaction‑based charges
Section 48A targets situations where a supplier displays a base price but adds charges only later in the purchase flow. If a base price is displayed for consumer goods or services, the supplier must simultaneously display each transaction‑based charge (or the method for calculating it), state that it is a per‑transaction charge, indicate whether it is or may be payable, and say whether the base price includes it. The disclosure must be legible, prominent and near the base price. The section defines which fees are transaction‑based and lists exclusions (optional charges, payment surcharges, taxes and prescribed items), while giving the regulation‑maker power to refine exclusions.
Definition, disclosure, in‑contract information and exit rights
Division 4A defines 'subscription contracts' through a set of functional tests: indefinite recurring supplies with automatic liability, fixed periods that roll on automatically, free trials that convert to paid liability, and introductory discounts that escalate. It excludes certain categories (leases, licences for real property, hire‑purchase, childcare, and school tuition). Suppliers offering contracts that would be subscriptions must give a clear statement and specified information before entry, and if the contract meets the consumer or small‑business test they must also provide prescribed ongoing information and ensure that exit methods are easy, straightforward and require only reasonable steps — with an online exit required where entry occurred online.
Standard form presumption and small‑business thresholds
For this Division only, the bill creates a rebuttable presumption that an alleged contract is a standard form contract and sets matters the court must consider when deciding that question (supplier bargaining power, whether the supplier prepared the contract, opportunity to negotiate, and whether terms are tailored to the subscriber). It also defines the small‑business test (fewer than 100 employees or turnover below $10 million) and gives guidance on counting employees and calculating turnover, a practical detail that determines which contracts attract the subscription‑specific protections.
Commencement, retrospective conduct, constitutional carve‑outs and review
The Act commences on 1 July 2027. The unfair‑trading prohibition applies to conduct on or after its commencement even if the offer or supply began earlier; subscription rules apply to contracts entered on or after commencement, but renewals or variations on or after commencement bring older contracts into the regime. There is an express acquisition‑of‑property carve‑out tied to s51(xxxi) of the Constitution. The Minister must commission a statutory review of the subscription amendments covering two years of operation and table the report within six months of completing the review.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Economy across all five countries.
Explore Economy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Individual consumers purchasing goods or services: they gain clearer, contemporaneous visibility of per‑transaction fees and stronger rights to end recurring contracts, which reduces surprise charges and friction in cancelling subscriptions.
- Small business subscribers that meet the statutory test (fewer than 100 employees or turnover under $10m): they receive the same disclosure and exit protections as individual consumers when locked into standard‑form subscription deals, addressing automatic renewals and conversion from free trials.
- Competitors and new entrants: firms that price transparently and avoid manipulative UX will benefit from a levelled playing field, as the reforms raise the compliance baseline for pricing presentation and subscription practices.
Who Bears the Cost
- Retailers, platforms and digital marketplaces: they must audit price presentation across all customer touchpoints, update front‑end UI/UX to display transaction charges alongside base prices, and maintain records to justify method‑of‑calculation disclosures.
- Subscription businesses and payment service providers: they must implement pre‑contract notices, ongoing in‑contract communications at prescribed times, and straightforward exit paths (including online cancellation flows), which may require product, billing and customer‑service changes.
- Compliance teams, legal advisers and regulators (ACCC): suppliers will need legal and UX expertise to interpret the broad unfair‑trading standard; regulators must establish enforcement priorities and guidance, increasing their workload and resource needs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma: protect consumers from subtle, design‑driven manipulation and hidden recurring charges while giving businesses enough predictability to run dynamic pricing and subscription services; the bill leans toward broad consumer protection, but that breadth shifts key boundary‑drawing to regulators and courts, creating compliance uncertainty and potential enforcement pressure on both small suppliers and large platforms.
The unfair trading prohibition is deliberately open‑ended: it targets manipulation and 'distortion' of the decision environment but does not enumerate strict bright lines. That ambiguity is double‑edged.
On one hand, it lets regulators pursue novel digital practices and dark patterns; on the other, it creates legal uncertainty for firms trying to design compliant interfaces. The Act attempts to cabin the provision with examples and evidential burdens on parties asserting exclusions, but many critical boundaries — for example, how much pressure in a UI equals an unreasonable distortion — will be set through litigation and regulator guidance.
The subscription and drip‑pricing rules create prescriptive duties but leave substantial parameters to regulation (eg, prescribed contract classes, prescribed manners and times for in‑contract notices, and prescribed exceptions). That delegation is practical but means businesses are operating against a moving regulatory target.
Another tension is proportionality: smaller suppliers face the same disclosure architecture as large platforms, yet the penalty structure scales by corporate status; how regulators will balance deterrence, remediation and proportionality in enforcement is unclear. Finally, the constitutional acquisition‑of‑property carve‑out signals litigation risk for measures that effectively alter existing contractual entitlements, so some businesses may litigate scope and retrospectivity questions before substantive enforcement occurs.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.