How does the Australian Consumer Law apply to a DTC telehealth platform's marketing and subscription mechanics?
Sections 18, 29 and 33 of the Australian Consumer Law prohibit misleading or deceptive conduct, false or misleading representations and conduct liable to mislead the public. For DTC telehealth, that captures the headline claim, the price representation, the subscription mechanic, the cancellation flow, the comparative claim against alternatives and the urgency or scarcity tactic. Subscription traps and drip pricing are explicit ACCC enforcement priorities for 2025–26 and 2026–27, and the new Unfair Trading Practices regime takes effect in 2026.
Reviewed 2026-05-03Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Schedule 2, ss.18, 29, 33.
s.18 — A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive. s.29 — 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 … s.33 — A person must not … engage in conduct that is liable to mislead the public as to the nature, the characteristics, the suitability for their purpose or the quantity of any services.
The substance, in plain English.
Headline claims on a telehealth platform must be substantiated. "Australia's #1 men's health platform", "the most trusted weight-loss program", "clinically proven results" each require evidence the platform can produce on demand. Comparative claims against named or implied alternatives engage s.18 and s.29 and have to survive the same substantiation test, with the additional risk that comparative claims about clinical care intersect AHPRA s.133 — "better outcomes than your GP" is exposed under both regimes.
Subscription mechanics are an enforcement priority. The ACCC's 2025–26 and 2026–27 priorities explicitly target subscription traps, hidden auto-renewal, friction-laden cancellation flows and unfair contract terms in cancellation clauses. The published expectation is that the recurring nature of the charge, the cadence and the cancellation pathway are clear at the point of consent. "Cancel anytime" claims that resolve to "contact support during business hours, with five business days' notice before the next billing cycle" attract enforcement attention. The Treasury reform package and the Unfair Trading Practices regime arriving in 2026 raise the bar further.
"Free consult" and "first month $X" claims are tested against the ordinary consumer's expectation. If the free consult requires a paid subscription to access treatment, if the introductory price snaps to a substantially higher recurring price without prominent disclosure, if the offer expires without prominent disclosure of the post-expiry price, the headline can mislead under s.29 even where the small print is technically accurate. Drip pricing — surfacing fees only after the user has invested time in the funnel — is a current enforcement focus.
Urgency and scarcity tactics on therapeutic services attract scrutiny. "Only 50 spots this month", "price increases at midnight", countdown timers, low-stock warnings on consult slots — each is a representation about scarcity that must be true. Manufactured urgency on regulated services is captured by s.18 and is the textbook fact pattern for ACCC infringement notices. Confirm-shaming patterns and forced-continuity defaults sit inside the new Unfair Trading Practices ban.
Refund, cooling-off and the consumer guarantees apply. Telehealth services attract consumer guarantees under the ACL — the service must be rendered with due care and skill, fit for purpose and within a reasonable time. Subscriptions to therapeutic-goods supply chains are not exempt from the consumer guarantees regime. Misrepresentation of refund or cooling-off rights on prescription products engages s.29(1)(m) directly.
Maximum penalty: For body corporates: the greater of $50 million, three times the value of the benefit obtained, or 30% of adjusted turnover during the breach period. For individuals: $2.5 million per breach. Increased penalties in force from November 2022. Infringement notices typically $19,800 per corporate contravention..
Recent enforcement under this provision:
- 2025
ACCC v HelloFresh / Youfoodz — subscription trap proceedings
ACCC commenced proceedings against HelloFresh and Youfoodz alleging subscription traps and unfair contract terms in cancellation clauses. Reference matter for the regulator's posture on recurring-charge mechanics in DTC consumer services.
- 2025
ACCC v Dendy Cinemas — drip pricing infringement
Paid $19,800 infringement notice for alleged ACL breach by failing to prominently display the total price of online tickets as a single figure. Reference enforcement on drip pricing — directly applicable to telehealth funnels that surface fees after the user has invested time.
- 2024
ACCC subscription-trap warning to consumers
ACCC issued public warning that consumers should beware of subscription traps, signalling enforcement focus on auto-renewal mechanics, friction-laden cancellation and hidden recurring charges across digital subscription businesses including health and wellness DTC.
- 2026
Unfair Trading Practices regime — 2026 commencement
New general prohibition against practices that manipulate consumer decision-making and cause harm, with specific targeting of subscription traps, hidden fees, drip pricing and confirm-shaming dark patterns. Treasury draft legislation finalised early 2026.
A worked example.
An Australian women's telehealth platform runs a Meta hook reading "Free menopause consult — book in 2 mins". The funnel collects payment details on screen one ("$0 today, $79 monthly after"), surfaces a $39 admin fee at checkout that was not in the headline, locks the cancellation behind a five-business-day notice window in clause 14 of the Ts&Cs, and runs a 24-hour countdown timer on the booking page that resets when the user revisits. Five separate ACL exposures: "free consult" misleading under s.29 because the consult requires a paid subscription, drip pricing on the admin fee under s.18, hidden auto-renewal mechanics, friction-laden cancellation, and manufactured scarcity through the resetting timer. The compliant rebuild is straightforward — surface the recurring price and the total first-month spend prominently in the headline, build cancellation parity with sign-up (one-click cancel from the account page), remove the timer if the deadline is not real, and run a single substantiation file on every comparative claim. Conversion drops are usually in the low single digits; CAC stabilises and refund-fraud falls.
The questions that come next.
Does "cancel anytime" need to mean one-click cancel?
The ACCC's published view is that cancellation friction matters. "Cancel anytime" that resolves to multi-step contact-support flows, business-hours-only restrictions, mandatory phone calls or notice periods longer than the billing cadence is exposed under s.18 (representation versus reality) and the new Unfair Trading Practices regime. The safest position is parity — if sign-up is one click, cancel is one click.
Can we run a 24-hour countdown timer on the booking page?
Only if the deadline is real and the consequence of missing it is material. Resetting timers, recurring "24 hours" without honouring the expiry, and timers attached to no actual price change are misleading under s.18 and are textbook ACCC enforcement patterns. The new Unfair Trading Practices regime targets these specifically as dark patterns.
Are comparative claims against "traditional clinics" or "the public system" allowed?
Comparative claims must be substantiated against current evidence and not mislead by selection. "Faster than your GP" requires comparative data the platform can produce. Comparative claims that intersect clinical-care quality also engage AHPRA s.133 — "better outcomes" is exposed under both regimes. The cleanest pattern is comparing service mechanics (booking time, price transparency, hours of access) rather than clinical quality.
Do we need to display the full subscription price upfront?
Yes. Drip pricing — adding mandatory fees after the headline — is a current ACCC enforcement focus. The total price for the first billing cycle, including any non-optional fees, must be prominently disclosed at the same level as the headline. "From $79" claims must surface the typical or maximum price without burying it in fine print.
Does the ACL apply to platforms that operate as marketplaces between patients and prescribers?
Yes. The marketplace structure does not transfer ACL exposure. The platform's representations about the service, pricing, comparative quality and consumer guarantees engage the ACL regardless of who the contracting prescriber is. Marketplace operators have been ACCC enforcement targets across other categories on the same basis.
Read it for yourself.
Brief us with the regulator already in line one.