The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has reinforced its stance against the publication of false testimonies and reviews online instituting proceedings against A Whistle (1979) Pty Ltd trading as Electrodry Carpet Cleaning (Electrodry).
Electrody is a franchise business that offers carpet and upholstery cleaning services. The ACCC alleges Electrodry engaged a contractor to publish fictitious reviews online constituting misleading and deceptive conduct. The fake reviews appeared on a number of popular internet review websites such as True Local, Word of Mouth and Google. As a franchisor Electrodry is said also to have encouraged franchisees to publish false testimonials online.
In 2013, the ACCC released guidelines include a broad set of ‘principles’ that are aimed at reducing the number of misleading, solicited and fictitious reviews online. The publication of false or misleading information may also be in violation of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA).
According to section 18 of Schedule 2 of the CCA: “a person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading and deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive” The ACCC is seeking a declaration that Electrodry breached the CCA, as well as penalties, injunctions and the publication of corrective notices. There are steps businesses can take to avoid breaching the CCA and ACCC guidelines:
- Where a business has an arrangement or commercial relationship with a reviewed business it is important to clearly inform consumers of the extent of that relationship and how it influences the review;
- While incentives may be offered to users to submit reviews, these incentives must apply equally to positive and negative reviews. Businesses should specify at the point of submission that the incentive is not response dependent;
- Reviews should be displayed in a way that does not distort their value. For example, if a product or service is rated then the total number of reviews submitted should be clearly displayed.
- Businesses should not submit reviews concerning themselves or encourage family or friends to do the same.
Links and further references
Legislation
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)
Competition and Consumer Legislation Amendment Act 2011 (Cth) Schedule 2
Cases
Other links
ACCC Advertising your business – Social Media
ACCC Guide for business and review platforms
Further information
If you need further information, contact us for confidential and obligation-free discussion:
Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS.
Legal Practice Director
T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred)
M: +61 419 726 535
E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au
Disclaimer
This article contains general commentary only. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances.
Related insights about litigation and disputes
-
Federal Court publishes GenAI Practice Note
On 16 April 2026, the Federal Court of Australia (Court) published the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note (GPN-AI) (Cth) (GenAI Practice Note).
-
Evidence of economic loss required in defamation cases
Australian Security Academy Pty Ltd v Australasian Institute of Chartered Loss Adjusters Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] FCA 924 (Australian Security Academy) involved alleged defamatory imputations against Australian Security Academy Pty Ltd (Applicant) by the Australian Institute of Chartered Loss Adjusters Pty Ltd (Respondent). The decision highlights that no defamatory imputations will exist where no…
-
Apple and Google misused market power to monopolise app stores
On 12 August 2025, Justice Beach of the Federal Court of Australia (Court) delivered four (4) landmark judgments. The decisions of Epic Games, Inc & Anor v Apple Inc & Anor (EG v Apple) and Epic Games, Inc & Anor v Google LLC & Ors (EG v Google), together the (EG Cases), alongside Anthony &…
-
What is a concise statement?
A concise statement is a brief, plain language document, often drafted in narrative form, used by the Federal Court of Australia (Federal Court) to ‘triage’ a case.[1] Concise statements were introduced as part of the Federal Courts Commercial and Corporations Practice Note (Practice Note), which came into effect on 25 October 2016. Its stated purpose…
-
Default judgment – contumacious non-compliance with Court orders
The recent Federal Court case of Pieman v Monks Resources PL v Monks [2025] FCA 88 (Pieman v Monks v Monks) shows the lengths a plaintiff must go to before the Court will order default judgment based on ongoing failure by a defendant to comply with orders. The case involved allegations of misleading and deceptive…
-
Appointment of experts by arbitral tribunal
Article 26 (Article 26) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (Model Law) empowers an arbitral tribunal (Tribunal) to appoint its own expert in a dispute.[1] The expert’s role is to create a report and provide oral testimony. While parties may appoint their own experts, doing so can contravene principles of impartiality and…
-
Point in time valuation and minority shareholder oppression
Shareholder oppression, or minority shareholder oppression, is generally thought to occur when the majority shareholders misuse their power to oppress or control the minority.
-
Tortious contract interference – injunctive relief
The wrongful or “tortious” interference with a contract occurs when a third party intentionally causes a contracting party to commit a breach of contract. The third party will be liable if they intentionally induced or disrupted a party’s ability to perform the terms of a binding contract. Remedies for tortious interference are available to ensure…
-
Software developer obtains Court order – names behind IP addresses
Justice Burley of the Federal Court of Australia in the case of Siemens Industry Software Inc v Telstra Corporation Limited [2020] FCA 901 ordered that Telstra, within fourteen (14) days, provide to Siemens all documents in its control relating to the identity of certain Telstra Account holders. Those account holders were suspected by Siemens of…
