How does the Australian Consumer Law apply to cosmetic clinic marketing, pricing and consumer guarantees?
The ACL runs in parallel with AHPRA s.133 and TGA s.42DLB. Section 18 prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce. Section 29 prohibits false or misleading representations about services, including price, performance characteristics and approvals. Section 34 (the services-equivalent of s.33) prohibits conduct liable to mislead the public as to the nature, characteristics, suitability or quantity of services. Consumer guarantees on cosmetic services and deposit/cancellation rules sit on top.
Reviewed 2026-05-03Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Schedule 2 — Australian Consumer Law, s.18(1).
A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.
Source: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 — ACL (Federal Register of Legislation)
The substance, in plain English.
Section 18 is the catch-all and the most-litigated provision. It captures any conduct in trade or commerce that is misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive — including silence, half-truths, partial disclosure and the overall impression of a campaign rather than the literal text of a single ad. For a cosmetic clinic the live-fire areas are headline pricing that omits add-ons, before-and-after imagery that misrepresents typical outcomes, and "award-winning" or "#1" claims that cannot be substantiated.
Section 29(1) prohibits specific false or misleading representations about services — including price, performance characteristics, sponsorship or approval, and the existence or effect of any warranty or guarantee. ACCC has been clear that "results not typical" disclaimers do not cure a misleading headline; the test is the dominant impression on a reasonable consumer. Comparative advertising ("better than [competitor]") in cosmetic carries elevated risk because the substantiation evidence rarely exists at the claim's level of specificity.
Section 34 — the services-equivalent of s.33 for goods — prohibits conduct liable to mislead the public as to the nature, characteristics, suitability or quantity of services. For cosmetic clinics this is the rule that catches headline service descriptions that imply non-surgical procedures are surgical-grade, that energy-based devices are FDA-equivalent without basis, or that an injectable produces structural changes when the evidence is for soft-tissue volume only.
Consumer guarantees apply to cosmetic services. Section 60 requires services to be rendered with due care and skill. Section 61 requires services to be reasonably fit for any particular purpose made known to the supplier. These are non-excludable and run on top of any service contract terms. For cosmetic services the guarantees mean a deposit is generally not forfeitable when the practitioner cannot perform the service, and a botched procedure can be a breach of statutory guarantee — actionable independently of professional-negligence law.
Deposits, cancellation fees and pricing disclosure intersect with the AHPRA September 2025 total-price rule. The ACL position: cancellation fees must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, deposits must not be styled as non-refundable when the practitioner cannot deliver, and from-pricing or partial-pricing without a clear path to total cost can breach s.18 and s.29. "Compulsory" booking-platform fees that are not disclosed in the headline price are a frequent ACCC target.
Maximum penalty: Civil penalty up to the greater of $50 million, three times the benefit obtained, or 30% of the body corporate's adjusted turnover during the breach period — for each breach. $2.5 million per breach for individuals. ACCC may also seek injunctions, corrective advertising orders, and consumer redress orders..
Recent enforcement under this provision:
- 2023
ACCC — Cosmetic compliance and the ACL (regulator address)
ACCC delivered a public address on cosmetic compliance and the Australian Consumer Law setting out the regulator's enforcement posture: substantiation, comparative claims, headline pricing and consumer guarantees as the priority areas for the cosmetic sector.
ACCC — Cosmetic compliance and safety and the Australian Consumer Law (address)
- 2018
ACCC v weight-loss promoter
Federal Court found that a weight-loss promoter and its director engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in promoting slimming services, with representations about results unsupported by appropriate scientific or accepted research — directly relevant to cosmetic-adjacent body-contouring claims.
- 2022
ACL penalty regime uplift
Maximum civil penalties for breach of the ACL increased to the greater of $50M, three times the benefit obtained, or 30% of adjusted turnover during the breach period — a substantial uplift from the prior $10M maximum, signalling regulator and parliamentary intent for higher-value enforcement.
A worked example.
A Perth cosmetic clinic runs a homepage banner: "Australia's #1 rhinoplasty clinic — from $4,995, results guaranteed, 5-star reviews". The package includes the surgeon's fee and theatre fee, but excludes the anaesthetist (typically $1,200–$2,400), surgical garments, and a $300 booking deposit described as "non-refundable". Four ACL exposures sit on the banner: "#1" is unsubstantiated under s.18 and s.29; "results guaranteed" misrepresents the existence of a warranty under s.29(1)(m) and breaches s.34 on service characteristics; "from $4,995" without a clear path to total cost intersects s.18 and the AHPRA September 2025 total-price rule; the non-refundable deposit is unenforceable under s.60 if the clinic cannot deliver. ACCC penalty exposure reaches the greater of $50M, 3x benefit, or 30% of turnover for the body corporate. The clean version: a credentialed practitioner identifier, a price range with the all-in components named, no "#1" or "guaranteed" language, and a deposit policy that distinguishes refundable cases (clinic cancellation, force majeure) from non-refundable cases (patient cancellation outside notice).
The questions that come next.
Can a cosmetic clinic say "award-winning" or "voted best" in marketing?
Only if the claim is specific, current, substantiable, and the awarding body is named. "Voted best clinic in [Suburb] 2025 by [Awarding Body]" is the kind of substantiated claim that survives s.18 / s.29 review. "Award-winning" or "voted best" without context is a substantiation breach and a near-certain ACCC complaint trigger if a competitor surfaces it. The cosmetic sector is one of the ACCC's flagged priority areas for substantiation.
Is a non-refundable booking deposit enforceable for a cosmetic procedure?
Conditionally. The deposit can be retained where the patient cancels outside the agreed notice window, provided the amount reflects a genuine pre-estimate of the clinic's loss. It cannot be retained where the clinic cancels, where the clinic cannot perform the service, or where the deposit functions as a penalty rather than a pre-estimate. The consumer guarantee under s.60 (due care and skill) and s.61 (fitness for purpose) cannot be contracted out of.
Are "results not typical" disclaimers enough to cure a misleading before-and-after?
No. The ACCC's position, supported by Federal Court decisions across multiple sectors, is that small-print disclaimers do not cure a headline that conveys a misleading dominant impression to a reasonable consumer. The test is the impression as a whole. AHPRA's September 2025 results-may-vary requirement is a minimum, not a safe harbour from s.18.
Can we run a comparative ad against a competitor cosmetic clinic?
Possible but high-risk. Comparative advertising is permitted under the ACL provided every comparison point is substantiated at the level of specificity claimed. In cosmetic the substantiation evidence rarely exists in the form needed (price comparisons go stale, outcome comparisons are not standardised, technology comparisons depend on contested specifications). ACCC has flagged comparative advertising in regulated services as an enforcement priority.
How do ACCC and AHPRA priorities interact on cosmetic-clinic pricing claims?
They overlap and stack. AHPRA s.133 captures false or misleading advertising of a regulated health service; ACL s.18 and s.29 capture misleading conduct and false price representations more broadly. The September 2025 cosmetic-procedure guideline imposes a total-price disclosure rule that lines up with the ACL substantiation posture. A pricing breach can attract regulatory action under both regimes simultaneously.
Read it for yourself.
Brief us with the regulator already in line one.