With the recent crackdown by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) on unfair contract terms in online contracts, the question whether website operators terms and conditions are contractually binding has risen again. This is commonly referred to as the click wrap vs browse wrap debate.
Despite the paucity of Australian case law on this issue, the case of eBay International AG v Creative Festival Entertainment Pty Limited (ACN 098 183 281) [2006] FCA 1768 (18 December 2006) (eBay) provides guidance on how a court is likely to determine whether or not the terms and conditions on a website will form a binding contract.
In eBay, the question for determination was whether the operator of the website (Creative) had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by including a condition that tickets resold via online auction sites could be cancelled if onsold. The Court held that the relevant conditions “conveyed a misleading representation that the seller is legally entitled to and would detect and cancel any ticket which is resold for profit and the holder of that ticket would be refused entry to the event“.
What was the Court’s reasoning?
In arriving at the conclusion that it did, the Rares J cited various cases which were authority for the principle that the parties cannot rely on the terms and conditions of contract unless at the time the contract was made, the issuer did “all that was reasonably necessary to bring the terms to the other party’s attention“. In case this it was held to be misleading and deceptive to purport to rely on conditions which were not adequately brought to the attention of purchasers.
This case highlights the importance of getting the basics right in preparing online contracts particularly in light of the consumer protection provisions contained in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).
Further information
If your business needs more information about online contracts, contact us for a 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 online law
-
Telegram terror content: eSafety alleges Online Safety Act breach
Australia’s eSafety Commissioner has commenced civil penalty proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia (Court) against Emirati-based Telegram FZ-LLC (Trade License Number 94349) (Telegram), alleging that it failed to comply with obligations to detect, deter and disrupt the distribution of pro-terror material and remove unlawful material from its messaging service. The proceedings, eSafety Commissioner v…
-
Privacy Amendment Bill 2026 proposes Privacy Act amendments
On 31 August 2026, the Australian Government published a Consultation Paper and released an exposure draft of the Privacy Amendment (Personal Data Protection) Bill 2026 (Bill), proposing amendments to the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act). The Bill proposes amendments to the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) codified in Schedule 1 of the Privacy Act. The…
-
Digital Duty of Care Bill 2026
The Australian Labor party has introduced an exposure draft of the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 (Digital Duty of Care Bill/Draft Bill) for “consultation”. The Digital Duty of Care Bill proposes to make a number of minor (and major) amendments to the Online Safety Act 2021(Cth) (Online Safety Act) and adds…
-
AI compliance programs: one size does not fit all
Australia does not have any standalone legislation addressing how businesses can safely implement Artificial Intelligence (AI). Use of AI by Australian businesses is, however, regulated, not by a patchwork combination of Federal and State legislation, industry-specific legislation and standards, professional body rules and guidance issued by government departments and other regulators. This article discusses the…
-
AI evidence misleading Court: Ba v Sterling Parts Australia
On 17 June 2026, Symons J delivered judgment in the case of Ba v Sterling Parts Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FedCFamC2G 1245 (Ba v Sterling Parts). Ba v Sterling Parts was a proceeding brought by Weiman Ba (Applicant) in the second division of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Court). Symons J dismissed…
-
Office of AI announced by Federal Government
On 15 July 2026, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (Prime Minister) announced by media release an expansion of the Federal Government’s (Government) existing artificial intelligence (AI) governance framework, including the establishment of a new Office of AI as well as plans to legislate national standards governing large-scale data centres, AI training and the use of Australian…
