Commercial law

Changes to unfair contract terms

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

Reading Time:

4–6 minutes

The Treasury Laws Amendment (More Competition, Better Prices) Act 2022 (Cth) (Amending Act) received royal assent on 9 November 2022, introducing significant amendments to the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).  These amendments target the Unfair Contract Terms (UCT) provisions of the ACL, strengthening the rights of consumers while imposing stricter requirements on businesses using Standard Form Contracts (SFC).

Overview on unfair contract terms

Laws concerning UCTs were introduced when the ACL came into force on 1 January 2011 and replaced the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).  The ACL is contained in Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) and is applied as legislation for Commonwealth, State, and Territory consumer protection.  The laws were introduced with the purpose of preventing abuse by unfair terms in non-negotiable small business contracts (Standard Form Contracts).

What are unfair contract terms?

UCTs are clauses in non-negotiable contracts that attempt to leverage a business’ position of power over a consumer.  A term is considered an ‘unfair contract term’ if it is included in a SFC and satisfies all the following:

  • it causes a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of parties under the contract;
  • it is not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the party advantaged by the contractual term; and
  • it causes detriment or significant disadvantage to the other party.

What are standard form contracts?

There is no single definition of a SFC, however certain characteristics help identify such contracts.  An SFC is prepared by one party and there is typically no form of negotiation between the parties of the contract.  An SFC is offered on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis.  Examples where SFCs are commonly used include companies that provide subscription services, telecommunication services, and internet provider services.

When determining if an SFC exists a court will consider whether a contracting party:

  • has all or most of the bargaining power in the transaction;
  • prepared the contract without or before any discussion between the parties about the transaction;
  • could effectively only either accept or reject the terms of the contract as presented;
  • was given any real opportunity to negotiate the terms of the contract; and
  • whether the terms of the contract account for any specific features of the other party or the transaction.

Amended provisions

Schedule 2 of the Amending Act aims to reduce the prevalence of UCTs in both consumer and business contracts by altering the regime regarding UCTs in several other pieces of legislation including:

Key changes

Section 47 of the Amending Act, contained in Schedule 2, alters the previous definition of a small business contract in the ACL.  Previously, a small business contract was considered a contract with an upfront price payable not exceeding $300,000.00 (or not exceeding $1 million if the contract period surpassed twelve (12) months).  The changes alter section 23(4) of the ACL and a small business contract now exists if at least one party to the contract:

  • employs fewer than 100 persons; or
  • has an annual turnover of less than $10 million.

The  ASIC Act is also amended by section 49 of the Amending Act, contained in Schedule 2, which replaces the previous definition of small businesses contract.  The amendments to the ASIC Act at subsections 12BF(4), (5) and (6) mean that a contract is considered a small business contract if the upfront contract price does not exceed $5 million and one party either:

  • employs fewer than 100 persons; or
  • its most recent annual turnover before the contract was made was less than $10 million.

The new monetary thresholds have broadened the scope of small business contracts and encompass any standard form contract for goods or services where one party to the contract is a small business under the altered laws.

Penalties for every instance

Courts currently possess the authority to enforce significant penalties for every instance involving reliance upon, inclusion or proposal of an UCT.  This marks a departure from the previous legislative framework, which solely allowed courts to nullify UCTs or prevent a party relying on the specific contract clause.  It also means that the offending party may be fined merely for including an UCT in the contract even if it does not seek to rely on the UCT.

Penalties for businesses

Companies should be cognisant of the maximum penalties that now apply, including:

  • maximum fines of $50 million; 
  • an amount three times the value of the benefit derived from the conduct that is ‘reasonably attributable’ in the case (if that is ascertainable by the Court); or
  • an amount equal to thirty (30) percent of the adjusted turnover during the breach period in instances where the court cannot ascertain the benefit.

Penalties for individuals

Individuals may now also face a maximum penalty of $2.5 million.

Advice to businesses

Businesses are strongly encouraged to obtain legal advice to review their contracts and avoid inadvertently being exposed to the new penalties.  Businesses should amend their standard forms and small business contracts to conform to the amended legal framework.  This includes:

  • new contracts entered into from 9 November 2023; and
  • existing contacts that are varied or renewed on or after 9 November 2023.

Links and further references

Legislation

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)

Treasury Laws Amendment (More Competition, Better Prices) Act 2022 (Cth)

Further information about unfair contract terms

If you need advice on unfair contract terms, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:


Related insights about unfair contract terms

  • WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context

    WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context

    The recent case of WIJOAV Services Pty Ltd v Goldstone Private Equity Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 622 (WIJOAV v Goldstone) involved a claim of shareholder oppression under section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).  The case established that a shareholder in a private equity fund may be oppressed by a co-investor where…

    Read more …

  • Federal Court dismisses continuous disclosure claim

    Federal Court dismisses continuous disclosure claim

    The Federal Court recently dismissed Australia Securities and Investment Commission’s (ASIC) claim in Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Nuix Limited [2026] FCA 490 (ASIC v Nuix) that Nuix Limited breached its obligations under section 674 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).  Nuix Limited (Nuix) successfully contested ASIC’s allegation that it had breached…

    Read more …

  • Does your start-up meet the ESIC tax-offset criteria?

    Does your start-up meet the ESIC tax-offset criteria?

    Federal government introduced the Tax Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives for Innovation) Act 2016 (Cth) to provide tax incentives for investors in an eligible early stage innovation company (ESIC), including 20% up-front non-refundable tax offset and capital gains tax (CGT) exemption for all types of investors meeting criteria.

    Read more …

  • Valuing ESS Interests

    Valuing ESS Interests

    A company, whether listed or unlisted, can grant its employees an interest in its equity (ESS Interest), including through an employee share scheme (ESS) or employee share option plan (ESOP).  There are restrictions contained in both the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) and Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) (ITAA) that determine the price…

    Read more …

  • ESS vs ESOP – what’s the difference?

    ESS vs ESOP – what’s the difference?

    Employee share schemes (ESS) and employee share option plans (ESOP) are commonly used by corporations to incentivise employees and align performance with company growth by providing them with an interest in the company.  While the terms are often used interchangeably, they have distinct legal and structural differences under Australian law.  This article explains the key…

    Read more …

  • Disputed ESOP – Selak v National Tiles Co Pty Ltd

    Disputed ESOP – Selak v National Tiles Co Pty Ltd

    In the case of Selak v National Tiles, the Vic Supreme Court considered whether a company breached an option agreement governed by the terms of an Employee Share Option Plan (ESOP) by requiring an option holder to execute an undisclosed shareholders’ agreement as a condition of exercising vested options.  

    Read more …

  • Can a unit trust be wound up by the oppression remedies

    Can a unit trust be wound up by the oppression remedies

    The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corps Act) grants the Courts the power to award remedies under section 233, specifically designed to address situations of oppression within corporate entities under section 232.  These remedies, also known as the “Oppression Remedies”, aim to resolve situations where a company’s conduct unfairly prejudices its members or shareholders.  While primarily…

    Read more …

  • Directors’ obligations to comply with Accounting Standards

    Directors’ obligations to comply with Accounting Standards

    Directors are personally liable for ensuring their company operates in accordance with corporate governance and accounting standards.  Obligations contained in part 2M.2 and 2M.3 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) outline obligations for companies to keep financial records and prepare annual financial and director’s reports.  Sections 180 and 344 of the Corporations Act…

    Read more …

  • Accounting standards matter: the company’s obligation

    Accounting standards matter: the company’s obligation

    Australian accounting standards (Accounting Standards) are often considered solely the domain of auditors and accountants.  However, they are a crucial aspect of corporate law and governance in Australia.  For directors, officers, and their professional advisers, the key issue is not the technical details of the Accounting Standards, but rather their legal enforceability.  A failure to…

    Read more …


Posted

in

,
Send this to a friend