In a claim by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (the ACCC), the Federal Court ordered online travel agency Webjet Marketing Pty Ltd (Webjet) to pay $9 million in penalties for making false or misleading representations about the price of flights and booking confirmations.¹ In this article, we highlight some key takeaways from the Court’s decision which are relevant to businesses when considering their ongoing compliance with Australia’s consumer laws.

Relevant facts

As an online travel agency, Webjet aggregates information from airlines so customers can compare and book flights through Webjet’s website and mobile app. The ACCC commenced proceedings against Webjet in November 2024, alleging breaches of sections 18 and 29 of the Australian Consumer Law (the ACL). Webjet admitted that, between 2018 and 2024, it contravened those provisions of the ACL by engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct and making false or misleading representations.

Webjet’s breaches of the ACL related to two representations it made to consumers: the Price Representation and the Booking Confirmation Representation. In short:

• the Price Representation which involved Webjet displaying prices for airfares as “at or from ‘$XX’” (the Promoted Price) on its website and mobile app, in promotional emails and in 144 social media posts. This Promoted Price did not include Webjet’s Servicing and Booking Price Guarantee fees (the Additional Fees), which were unavoidable additional amounts that Webjet charged its customers. Webjet admitted that it had represented to consumers that it was possible to purchase a flight by paying only the Promoted Price (without any additional fees); and
• the Booking Confirmation Representation which occurred when Webjet issued booking confirmations to some customers despite their flight bookings not actually having been confirmed by the relevant airline. These bookings were not confirmed because of changes in circumstances that were outside of Webjet’s control, and which happened in the time between these customers starting their bookings and completing them. By issuing a booking confirmation to these customers, Webjet represented that they had purchased their airfare at the relevant price (and this representation was false or misleading).

The Court’s decision

Webjet cooperated with the ACCC. The parties made joint submissions to the Court about Webjet’s liability and jointly proposed orders (including as to the penalties to be imposed on Webjet). The Court accepted the pecuniary penalty proposed by the ACCC and Webjet was ‘appropriate’, finding that it was within the permissible range of penalties that could be imposed in these circumstances.² The Court also made declarations and the other orders proposed, including that Webjet review its compliance program and pay a contribution to the ACCC’s costs. The Court declared that Webjet was to:

• pay an $8,500,000 pecuniary penalty in respect of the Price Representation;
• pay a $500,000 pecuniary penalty in respect of Booking Confirmation Representation;
• publish a corrective notice on its website and in its mobile app for 60 days outlining its contraventions of the ACL;
• review and amend its ACL compliance program; and
• pay $100,000 towards the ACCC’s costs of the proceedings.

In assessing the appropriate penalty to be imposed on Webjet, the Court had regard to Webjet having cooperated with the ACCC while it was investigating, Webjet quickly conceding liability once Court proceedings were commenced and Webjet having displayed appropriate contrition. The Court also considered the fact that, after it was notified of the ACCC’s concerns, Webjet had acted quickly to remediate its internal processes and implement changes to better ensure its compliance with the ACL.

Key takeaways

The Court’s judgment in the Webjet proceedings underscores several critical compliance failures that led to the breaches of the ACL, particularly in relation to misleading price representations.

While the contraventions were not deliberate, the case serves as a cautionary tale for businesses, highlighting the importance of staff training, clear disclosures, robust systems, and proactive compliance measures. It also offers valuable insights into practical steps businesses can take to minimise the risk of breaching ACL provisions and avoid significant penalties. These are highlighted below.

Staff knowledge & training

Webjet’s contraventions of the ACL in relation to the Price Representation were considered not to be deliberate but occurred because Webjet’s employees did not have a sufficient understanding of the relevant disclosure requirements. Some Webjet staff believed, incorrectly, that the use of an asterisk was sufficient to disclose the Additional Fees that had to be paid over and above the Promoted Price.

Asterisks must be used clearly

Although Webjet mostly displayed the Promoted Price with an asterisk attached, the text linked to the asterisk (where there was any) never explicitly clarified whether the Additional Fees were included in the Promoted Price or not. Some emails sent by Webjet used asterisks to describe “Terms & Conditions” but only provided information about the Additional Fees separately, immediately above the text that was linked to the asterisk. In these proceedings, Webjet admitted that their use of asterisks to disclose information was not sufficient to displace the Price Representation.

Misleading advertising of prices is a serious issue

Webjet incurred a substantial penalty for the Price Representation in part because those ACL contraventions “went to the core” of its business model, by enticing consumers onto Webjet’s website and mobile app with misleading price advertising.³ In its reasons, the Court also stressed the importance of consumers being made aware of all fees they will be charged so that they can make informed decisions.

Technological errors

The Booking Confirmation Representation resulted from a technological error in Webjet’s back-end systems, and the Court noted that Webjet’s booking confirmation process was not intentionally designed to mislead consumers (although it did have that effect in relation to some people).⁴

The Court made clear that it was unacceptable for a large, sophisticated business like Webjet to operate systems which allowed the technological issue to occur and go unnoticed for an extended period of time (five years in Webjet’s case). As the Court explained, ACL contraventions that arise from “inadequate systems or processes will have consequences“.⁵

Practical steps for businesses

Businesses should consider implementing the following measures to minimise their risks of breaching the ACL:

• Provide targeted training to staff responsible for marketing, pricing, and consumer communications to ensure they have a clear and accurate understanding of ACL obligations.
• Ensure clarity in qualified pricing by reviewing the use of asterisks or other symbols in advertising. Any qualifications or disclaimers should be prominently displayed and clearly explain whether additional fees apply.
• Conduct regular system audits to identify and rectify any technological or process-related issues that may result in misleading representations. Businesses should have mechanisms in place to detect and respond to errors promptly. Businesses should also regularly review their terms and conditions and any related and/or underlying policies.
• Adopt transparent pricing practices that present the total cost of goods or services upfront. Ensure mandatory fees or charges are clearly and prominently disclosed in the advertised price.
• Undertake sector-specific compliance reviews, particularly in industries such as travel, where pricing practices are under increased regulatory scrutiny. Businesses should ensure that all consumer-facing materials are accurate, complete, and not misleading by omission.

The judgment also demonstrated the importance of cooperating with regulators early and proactively taking steps to address any issues once raised. Businesses should be aware that how they engage and cooperate with the ACCC in relation to ACL compliance issues, and any steps they take in remediation of those issues, can inform how the regulator chooses to proceed and the quantum of any penalty they may have to pay in the event that Court proceedings are subsequently commenced.

How can we assist?

We have extensive experience advising clients on ACL compliance and representing businesses in regulatory investigations and enforcement proceedings brought by the ACCC and state-based consumer law regulators across all sectors. Our team regularly assists clients in:

• responding to regulatory notices, investigations, and proceedings, including preparing submissions, negotiating outcomes, and managing litigation risk;
• reviewing marketing and promotional materials, terms and conditions, pricing disclosures, and internal compliance frameworks and policies;
• designing and implementing internal compliance frameworks, policies, and training programs tailored to the business’s risk profile and operational structure (including providing training to employees);
• undertaking risk assessments of internal systems, such as digital platforms, booking systems, and automated communications to identify and address potential sources of misleading or deceptive conduct; and
• providing advice on reputational and strategic considerations arising from consumer law The ACCC’s enforcement and compliance priorities include competition and consumer issues in both the aviation sector and the digital economy.⁶

If you or your business require advice in respect of rights and obligations under the Australian Consumer Law, please contact a member of our team for further information on how we can assist you.

This article was written by Alexandra Douvartzidis, Special Counsel, Jonathan Parsalidis, Solicitor and Sarthak Prashar, Solicitor and reviewed by Peter Campbell, Partner

¹Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Webjet Marketing Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 867 (Button J) (Judgment).

²Judgment, [26], quoting Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2021) 284 FCR 24, [125]–[129] (Wigney, Beach and O’Bryan JJ).

³Judgment, [66].

⁴The Booking Confirmation Representation was also only made to a very small proportion of Webjet’s customers — 118 customers were affected, out of 2 million unique customers who made bookings with Webjet during the relevant period

⁵Judgment, [84].

⁶Available at: Compliance and enforcement priorities | ACCC.