Australian Consumer Law and online reviews

The Australian Consumer Law (ACL) regulates conduct in trade or commerce. For online reviews, it is mainly a rulebook for businesses and platforms — it prohibits fake, bought, edited or suppressed reviews that give consumers a misleading picture.

Written by Konrad Weber · Reviewed by Andrew Foster, Review Removal Specialist · Updated 2026-10-11

Where the ACL sits

The ACL is Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). It applies as a law of the Commonwealth and of each state and territory, so — unlike defamation — it is effectively the same everywhere in Australia. It is enforced by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and state and territory fair trading agencies, and private parties can also bring proceedings for some contraventions.

The key limitation is the phrase "in trade or commerce". A customer writing about their own experience is not usually acting in trade or commerce, so the ACL generally does not regulate honest consumer reviews. It does regulate businesses that write reviews about themselves or competitors, pay for reviews, gate who can leave them, or run review platforms.

Section 18: misleading or deceptive conduct

Section 18 provides that a person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive. It is a broad, general prohibition: no intention to mislead is needed, and conduct includes silence and selective presentation. Fake reviews, undisclosed incentivised reviews and curated review pages that hide negative feedback can all be misleading conduct.

There is no pecuniary penalty for a breach of s 18 on its own, but courts can grant injunctions, damages and other orders, including at the suit of a private party such as an affected competitor.

Section 29: false or misleading representations, including testimonials

Section 29(1) prohibits specific false or misleading representations in connection with the supply or promotion of goods or services. Two paragraphs are aimed squarely at reviews:

s 29(1)(e): a false or misleading representation that purports to be a testimonial by any person relating to goods or services.
s 29(1)(f): a false or misleading representation concerning a testimonial by any person, or a representation that purports to be such a testimonial.

Under s 29(2), in proceedings about those paragraphs, a representation is taken to be misleading unless evidence is adduced to the contrary. In practice that means a business accused of publishing fake testimonials needs to be able to show they came from real customers. Section 29 carries civil pecuniary penalties: for a company, the maximum per contravention is the greater of $50 million, three times the benefit obtained, or (if the benefit cannot be determined) 30% of adjusted turnover during the breach period.

What the ACCC says about reviews

The ACCC's guidance for businesses rests on a few principles: do not write or commission fake reviews; disclose commercial relationships with reviewers; and recognise that removing or hiding negative reviews can be as misleading as posting fake positive ones. Businesses and review platforms should have a clear policy for publishing, editing and removing reviews, and should consider whether that policy itself could mislead. The ACCC does not resolve individual disputes about reviews.

That last principle is important for anyone offering review-removal services, including us. Seeking removal of reviews that are fake, defamatory or in breach of Google policy is consistent with an accurate review profile; trying to remove genuine negative reviews to make a business look better is not. G-DEFENCE does not challenge reviews simply because they are negative — see how we assess negative reviews and where the law draws the line for review removal services.

Enforcement examples

These are real ACCC cases decided by the Federal Court:

Meriton (2018) — $3 million. Meriton Serviced Apartments "masked" guests' email addresses so that guests it suspected would leave negative reviews did not receive TripAdvisor's review prompt. The court found misleading conduct across 13 properties and ordered a $3 million penalty.
HealthEngine (2020) — $2.9 million. The penalty covered several matters, including that the platform did not publish thousands of negative patient reviews and edited others to remove negative content.
Service Seeking (2020) — $600,000. The platform allowed businesses to write their own reviews, giving a false picture of their ratings.
Aveling Homes — $380,000. The builder ran two review websites presented as independent and held back negative reviews.
Electrodry (A Whistle & Co) (2015) — $215,000. The carpet cleaning franchisor published fake testimonials and sought to have franchisees post fake reviews on sites including Google, True Local and Yelp.

Two themes run through these cases: suppression is treated as seriously as fabrication, and the Federal Court has repeatedly accepted that review manipulation harms consumers who rely on ratings to choose a provider.

Platforms and review intermediaries

The ACL applies to review platforms and to services that manage reviews on a business's behalf, not only to the business being reviewed. Service Seeking and HealthEngine were platforms; Aveling Homes ran its own review sites. Anyone whose business model involves creating, filtering or removing reviews should assume the ACCC is interested in whether the end result gives consumers an accurate picture. Removing reviews that are fake, defamatory or in breach of the host platform's rules is consistent with that; removing honest criticism to inflate a rating is not.

Using the ACL when you are the target

If a competitor is posting fake negative reviews of your business, or fake positive reviews of their own, the ACL may be relevant because the competitor is acting in trade or commerce. Options can include a complaint to the ACCC or a state fair trading agency, or private proceedings under s 18 seeking an injunction or damages. The practical obstacles are proof and identity: you need evidence linking the reviews to the competitor. The guide to identifying fake competitor reviews covers the warning signs, and the legal position is drawn together on the fake Google reviews law page.

Google's policies independently prohibit fake engagement and conflict-of-interest reviews, so a policy complaint to Google is often the faster route even where an ACL breach is arguable.

If you suspect reviews on your profile were written by a competitor or are otherwise not genuine, request a free assessment below. We will tell you whether the evidence supports a complaint to Google.

Sources

Frequently asked questions

Can I offer customers a discount for leaving a review?

Incentives are risky. If you offer them, the ACCC expects the incentive to be disclosed and not to depend on the review being positive. Google’s own policy separately prohibits incentivised reviews, so a disclosed incentive can still breach Google’s rules.

Is it legal to ask only happy customers for reviews?

Selective solicitation is the kind of practice the ACCC has warned can create a misleading impression, and the Meriton case turned on filtering who was invited to review. Inviting all customers in the same way is the safer approach.

Can a customer be prosecuted under the ACL for a false negative review?

Generally not, because an individual consumer giving their own opinion is not acting in trade or commerce. A false review by a consumer is more likely to raise defamation or Google policy issues.

Does the ACCC remove reviews from Google?

No. The ACCC enforces the law against businesses and platforms and does not resolve individual review disputes or take down particular reviews. Removal decisions on Google are made by Google.

Can individual managers be penalised as well as the company?

Yes. The ACL allows penalties against people “involved in” a contravention, such as a manager who directed staff to post fake reviews.