How does the Australian Consumer Law apply to dental practice marketing?
The Australian Consumer Law (Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010) is the second compliance layer for dental marketing, sitting alongside AHPRA's National Law. Section 18 prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct in trade. Section 29 prohibits false or misleading representations about goods and services. Section 33 prohibits conduct liable to mislead the public about the nature or characteristics of services. The ACCC has scrutinised before-and-after imagery, outcome claims, comparative advertising, package pricing and the consumer-guarantee position on cosmetic dental work — and has taken Federal Court action against companies operating in the dental space.
Reviewed 2026-05-03Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Schedule 2 (Australian Consumer Law), s.18 and s.29.
A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive … A person must not, in trade or commerce, in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services … make a false or misleading representation … (g) that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits …
Source: Australian Consumer Law — Federal Register of Legislation
The substance, in plain English.
Section 18 prohibits any conduct in trade or commerce that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive. The test is the impression created on a hypothetical reasonable member of the target audience, not the literal truth of the words. A dental ad that is technically accurate but creates a misleading overall impression — "From $850 veneers" anchoring expectations of a full upper-arch makeover at $850 — is captured. The test is independent of intent.
Section 29 prohibits specific categories of false or misleading representation: about price, quality, standard, sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, place of origin, the existence of warranties or rights. In the dental context, ACCC enforcement has focused on representations about who is providing the service (registered Australian-trained clinicians vs. offshore manufacture), what is included in advertised pricing, and rebate / health-fund claims that are not borne out in practice. Representations must be capable of being substantiated.
Section 33 prohibits conduct liable to mislead the public as to the nature, characteristics, suitability for purpose or quantity of services. "Pain-free implants", "24-hour smile makeover" and similar service descriptors that misrepresent the actual experience or outcome are direct s.33 territory. So is comparative advertising that implies a specific clinical edge over a named competitor without substantiation.
Consumer guarantees under sections 60–63 of the ACL apply to dental services. Services must be supplied with due care and skill, fit for any disclosed purpose, and provided within a reasonable time. For cosmetic dental work the consumer-guarantee position interacts awkwardly with clinical outcomes — patients have remedy rights for service-quality failures distinct from any clinical-malpractice claim. Cooling-off rights apply to specific contract types (e.g. financed treatment plans signed off-premises) and depend on state-level fair-trading legislation.
Package pricing transparency is being actively enforced. Headline prices used as anchors must reflect the genuine total of what the consumer will pay, including taxes and standard ancillary services. Buy-now-pay-later, finance and "smile pay" payment options must disclose total amount payable and conditions in the same advertisement. Tiered package advertising ("silver / gold / platinum smile makeovers") needs the inclusions and exclusions of each tier specified, not buried in a downstream consultation.
Maximum penalty: For body corporates, the greater of $50 million, three times the value of any benefit obtained, or 30% of adjusted turnover for the relevant period (post-2022 amendments). For individuals, $2.5 million per breach. Each contravention is a separate offence, and the ACCC may also seek injunctions, compensation orders, infringement notices and corrective advertising..
Recent enforcement under this provision:
- 2022
ACCC v SmileDirectClub LLC [2022] FCA 1343
Federal Court ordered SmileDirectClub Aus Pty Ltd and parent SmileDirectClub LLC to pay $3.5m in penalties on 11 November 2022 for s.18 and s.29 contraventions over representations that consumers were entitled to private health rebates for clear-aligner treatment, when 98.5% of Australian private health insurers did not in fact cover the service.
- 2020
ACCC v EZ Smile Pty Ltd
ACCC issued an infringement notice and EZ Smile paid a $12,600 penalty on 29 October 2020 over website representations that aligner treatment plans were supplied by Australian-registered orthodontists, when the aligners were manufactured in China. EZ Smile removed the misleading statements in April 2020 prior to the penalty notice.
ACCC — EZ Smile pays penalty for alleged misleading statements on its website
- 2025
ACCC false-or-misleading-claims framework
ACCC's published guidance confirms misleading-claims enforcement remains a permanent priority, with the test based on overall impression rather than literal accuracy. Health and dental services explicitly referenced as a focus area where outcome claims, before-and-after imagery and rebate representations attract scrutiny.
- 2022
Privacy and consumer-law penalty uplift (legislative)
Treasury Laws Amendment (More Competition, Better Prices) Act 2022 lifted maximum penalties for ACL contraventions to $50m / 3x benefit / 30% turnover for body corporates, raising financial exposure for dental groups, DSO chains and aligner companies operating at scale.
Treasury Laws Amendment (More Competition, Better Prices) Act 2022
A worked example.
A national clear-aligner platform launches an Australian campaign positioning its product as "orthodontist-supervised treatment from $1,995" with a health-fund rebate calculator showing patients an average $700 reimbursement. Three layers of ACL exposure stack up. First, if the orthodontist supervision is in fact a single offshore review without face-to-face consultation, s.29(g) and s.33 are triggered on the nature of the service. Second, if the rebate calculator overstates the share of insurers who actually cover the service — as the ACCC found in the SmileDirectClub Federal Court action — s.18 and s.29(m) are triggered on entitlements. Third, if the "$1,995" headline excludes scans, retainers and required follow-ups that bring the genuine total to $3,500, the package-pricing-transparency limb is triggered. Each is a separate contravention; penalties stack per representation per consumer reached.
The questions that come next.
Does the ACL apply on top of AHPRA s.133, or instead of it?
On top. AHPRA s.133 and the Australian Consumer Law operate in parallel — a single misleading dental ad can breach both. AHPRA enforces under the National Law; the ACCC enforces under the ACL; the same conduct can attract regulatory action under both regimes simultaneously. The SmileDirectClub Federal Court action is the cleanest example: the conduct sat outside the AHPRA register because the corporate entity wasn't a registered practitioner, but it was squarely inside the ACL.
Are before-and-after photos a problem under the ACL specifically?
They can be. Section 18 captures any imagery that creates a misleading overall impression, even if technically accurate. Heavily edited before-and-after content, atypical results presented as standard, or imagery selected to imply a specific outcome from a treatment package, all attract s.18 risk on top of any AHPRA exposure. The ACCC's published framework highlights health and dental services as a focus area for outcome-claim scrutiny.
Do consumer guarantees apply to cosmetic dental work?
Yes. Sections 60–63 of the ACL apply to dental services — services must be provided with due care and skill, fit for any disclosed purpose, and supplied within a reasonable time. For cosmetic work the consumer-guarantee position runs alongside any clinical-negligence claim: a patient has remedy rights for service-quality failures distinct from any AHPRA notification. Practices should be careful that internal "no refunds on cosmetic work" policies do not purport to override these statutory rights.
Can we run comparative advertising against a competitor?
It is permitted but tightly constrained. Comparative claims must be substantiated, current and accurate. "Faster than" or "more affordable than" a named competitor requires a defensible substantiation file. Section 33 captures comparative advertising that misleads about service characteristics; section 29(g) captures comparative claims about performance. The combined risk is sufficient that most dental groups avoid named-competitor comparative ads in favour of factual capability claims.
What does "total price" mean for a smile-makeover package?
The genuine total amount payable by the consumer for the standard package, inclusive of taxes and ancillary services typically required (consultation, scans, lab fees, follow-up appointments). Headline anchors that exclude these items create a misleading impression and trigger s.18. Where finance is offered, the total payable amount, interest rate, term and any early-repayment costs must be disclosed in the same advertisement. "From $X" pricing requires the headline figure to be genuinely available, not theoretical.
Read it for yourself.
Brief us with the regulator already in line one.