In April 2026 the Australian Government introduced the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026, aiming to strengthen consumer protections against unfair trading practices (UTPs). The Bill includes a new general prohibition on UTPs targeting consumers and specific reforms addressing unfair subscription practices, 'drip pricing' and other hidden transaction-based charges.
These are harmful practices - particularly in digital and subscription-based markets - that, in the government's view, may not be adequately addressed by existing prohibitions on misleading and deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct and unfair contract terms in the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).
UTPs (which are distinct from UCTs, or unfair contract terms, which we wrote about here) have been on the Government's agenda since September 2022, when the Commonwealth commenced a public consultation to address UTPs across all jurisdictions.
The Treasury released the Protecting Consumers from Unfair Trading Practices Consultation Regulation Impact Statement in August 2023, seeking submissions from stakeholders on the nature and extent of UTPs and detriments to consumers and small businesses that were arising from potential gaps in the ACL.
In late 2024, the Treasury released a supplementary consultation paper seeking submissions on whether Australia should introduce general UTP protections for consumers or targeted reforms for subscription traps and drip pricing.
Finally, a draft version of the Bill was released on 9 February 2026 for feedback and the Bill, which incorporated both general UTP protections and targeted reforms, was introduced into parliament in April 2026.
The Bill has been introduced, in part, in response to concerns from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) about conduct that exploits cognitive or behavioural biases, creates false urgency or imposes unnecessary obstacles or friction to manipulate consumer behaviour.
The Bill also provides protections against drip pricing, a practice where consumers are shown an initial base price, but only discover unavoidable fees later in the transaction process. This undermines price transparency and impairs consumers' abilities to compare offers and make informed decisions.
In addition, the Bill addresses subscription traps, a practice where online retailers treat a consumer's decision to make a single purchase as consent to signing them up to a paid, ongoing subscription service without adequately disclosing ongoing fees.
The Bill also includes a "grey list" of conduct that might constitute UTPs, including:
The Bill proposes a new section 28B in the ACL which would provide that a person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services to a consumer that:
Both limbs of the provision must be satisfied for it to be contravened.
This section would only apply to individual consumers and would not apply if the consumer was a body corporate or carrying on a business.
An explanatory memorandum accompanying the Bill defines conduct which manipulates a consumer as conduct that changes a consumer's behaviour, decision-making or action in a way that is against their interests. This manipulation can manifest in ways that exploit common cognitive or behavioural biases and does not need to be dishonest to contravene the provision. Conduct which unreasonably distorts the environment is that which encourages a consumer to make economic decisions about proceeding with a transaction where they otherwise would have been unlikely to do so.
The inclusion of conduct which is 'likely' to cause detriment lowers the evidentiary burden and enables the ACCC to intervene at an earlier stage, before harm has been caused to a consumer. Detriment is given a wide definition, and can include wasted time, frustration or diminished consumer choice.
Some argue that the provision is too wide. The Australian Industry Group has flagged that the provision's wideness (especially its application to non-financial issues) creates uncertainty about what constitutes manipulation and may cause accepted marketing practices which are common now to be retrospectively judged as unlawful.
Other industry bodies have questioned whether additional legislation prohibiting UTPs is necessary at all. The Competition and Consumer Committee of the Law Council of Australia (LCA) has suggested that the UTPs identified are already addressed by current ACL provisions. The Australian Banking Association emphasised that the financial services sector is already subject to extensive and overlapping regulation under the Corporations Act, Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act, National Consumer Credit Protection Act and the Privacy Act. With so much legislation already in place affecting unfair trading practices, there is a risk that further legislation will lead to further restriction and confusion without providing any meaningful protections for consumers.
These protections are intended to ensure consumers are informed of the full cost of a transaction before making a purchasing decision. It is proposed to insert a new section 48A into Part 3-1 of the ACL, which deals with unfair practices. The provision would use the concepts of base price and transaction based charges. Base price means the amount that is payable for a good or service itself. A transaction based charge is one payable by a consumer in relation with the supply of goods and services (rather than for the goods and services themselves). It is calculated by reference to the particular transaction or way that the transaction is carried out (such as a booking or service fee), rather than forming part of the advertised base price. Charges payable at the option of the purchaser or charges imposed on the supplier are not considered transaction based charges.
The provision would require that a person who offers goods or services at a base price:
These requirements would apply only to offers to supply goods and services of a type ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption, and would not apply to offers made exclusively to a body corporate.
Stakeholders largely support the objective of increasing price transparency, but differ on whether additional legislative reform is necessary. The LCA said that drip pricing was already adequately covered by protections against misleading and deceptive conduct, and noted that the ACCC has successfully taken enforcement action against drip pricing practices using existing legislation. On the other hand, the Consumer Policy Research Centre has commented that the government should consider adding further obligations to cover personalised and dynamic pricing.
Proposed division 4A - also in Part 3-1 of the ACL - would define subscription contracts and set out certain requirements for a person offering them, including that they:
Unlike the previous provisions, these are designed to protect both consumers and small businesses entering into subscription contracts.
Business groups are concerned about the breadth of the proposed provisions and whether they are necessary or simply create more hoops for businesses to jump through. Consumer bodies considered previous iterations of the provisions to be overcomplicated and lengthy, running the risk of making it difficult for consumers to enter into subscription contracts at all.
Contraventions of the new UTP provisions would be subject to the civil penalty regime under the ACL.
Maximum penalties under the regime for a body corporate would be the greater of:
The maximum penalty for a contravention by an individual is $2.5 million.
A court could also make an adverse publicity order requiring that the offender disclose their own wrongdoing or disqualify a person from managing corporations on the application of the regulator. An infringement notice could be issued for an alleged contravention of the general prohibition on UTPs.
This bill, if passed, will have a significant impact on a variety of issues for franchisors. It may affect:
Franchisors will need to ensure that network-wide practices do not create unfair pressure, confusion or artificial urgency, even if those practices have previously been lawful. With franchise businesses often engaging with large numbers of consumers, any breaches could expose franchisors to significant risk, both financial and reputational.
In its current form, the Bill proposes provisions that largely protect individual consumers from the conduct of businesses. On 3 June 2026, the Australian Government released a consultation paper seeking feedback on whether the proposed UTP protections should be extended to or modified for small businesses and franchisees. This would essentially treat small businesses as consumers and protect small businesses where they acquire goods or services as a consumer.
The Government is also seeking feedback on UTPs that occur in business-to-business dealings, what factors affect whether a small business is likely to be harmed by UTPs in business-to-business dealings and how small businesses would respond to an economy-wide UTP prohibition that applies to business-to-business conduct.
The Government is accepting public input on the paper until 10 July 2026. It can be found here: https://consult.treasury.gov.au/c2026-764649
If you have any questions about how these new provisions could affect your business or franchise, please reach out to us here.