Misleading & Deceptive Conduct Lawyers — s 18 ACL — All States
Misleading & Deceptive Conduct Lawyers — Section 18 ACL. No Intent Required. Compensation Available.
Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law prohibits conduct in trade or commerce that is misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive. You do not need to prove the other party intended to mislead you — if the conduct was objectively misleading, you may be entitled to compensation, contract rescission, or injunctive relief. A consumer law lawyer advises on whether the s 18 threshold is met and the most effective remedy for your situation.
⚠ ACL damages claims (s 236) are subject to a 6-year limitation period from the date the cause of action accrues. If you have suffered loss from misleading conduct, get advice before the limitation period expires.
Section 18 ACL
Misleading and deceptive conduct — the legal framework
Section 18(1) of the Australian Consumer Law (Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)) provides: "A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive." The provision is deceptively simple — but its interpretation by the courts over more than 45 years (since the equivalent provision in the Trade Practices Act 1974) has produced a detailed body of case law.
The key elements are: (1) conduct — which includes statements, representations, omissions, and silence (where there is a duty to speak); (2) in trade or commerce — which excludes purely private transactions between individuals who are not in business; and (3) misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive — which is assessed objectively by reference to the likely effect of the conduct on a reasonable member of the target class.
Critically, s 18 does not require proof of intent, negligence, or even carelessness. An honest, reasonable, and genuine representation can still be misleading if it creates a false impression in the mind of the recipient — for example, a half-truth that, while literally true, omits material information that is necessary to correct a false impression. The High Court in Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 592 confirmed that silence can constitute misleading conduct where the person had a duty to disclose.
The remedies for a breach of s 18 include: (1) compensation (s 236 ACL) — for loss or damage caused by the misleading conduct, assessed as the difference between what the claimant received and what a reasonable person in the claimant's position would have paid; (2) injunction (s 232 ACL) — restraining the defendant from continuing the misleading conduct; (3) contract rescission (s 243(a) ACL) — void the contract as if it were never made; and (4) corrective advertising (s 243(h) ACL) — requiring the defendant to publish a corrective statement.
Misleading Conduct Matters
Misleading and deceptive conduct claims we handle
Business sale misleading conduct
Vendors who misrepresent the turnover, profitability, stock, goodwill, or contractual arrangements of a business being sold — exposing the vendor and its agents to significant s 18 liability.
Property sale misrepresentation
Real estate agents who make misleading representations about property dimensions, planning approvals, flood risk, heritage listings, or council zoning — and developers who misrepresent off-the-plan properties.
Investment product misrepresentation
Financial advisers who make misleading representations about the risk, return, or nature of investment products — governed by the equivalent provision in s 12DA ASIC Act for financial services.
Franchise disclosure misrepresentation
Franchisors who misrepresent the performance of existing franchises, the support provided, or the exclusivity of the territory — in franchise disclosure documents or during negotiations.
Online and social media misleading conduct
Online retailers, influencers, and social media advertisers who make misleading claims about products, services, or endorsements — an increasingly regulated area of ACL enforcement.
Supply chain misleading conduct
Manufacturers and distributors who make misleading claims about the origin, composition, or qualities of products — including country of origin claims and "natural" or "organic" labelling.
Frequently Asked Questions
Misleading and deceptive conduct questions answered
Does the other party need to have intended to mislead me for s 18 ACL to apply?
No — s 18 ACL does not require proof of intent, dishonesty, or carelessness. The question is whether the conduct was objectively misleading or deceptive to a reasonable member of the target class. An honest, genuine representation can still be misleading if it creates a false impression — making s 18 significantly easier to establish than common law misrepresentation, which typically requires fraudulent or negligent misstatement.
What damages can I recover for misleading conduct under s 236 ACL?
Section 236 ACL allows recovery of compensation for loss caused by misleading conduct. In a transaction, damages are typically the "reliance loss" — the difference between what you received (the value of what was acquired) and what you paid. The claimant must establish causation — that they relied on the misleading conduct and suffered loss as a result. Additional remedies under s 243 ACL include contract rescission, variation, and corrective orders.
Can silence or failure to disclose information be misleading conduct?
Yes, in certain circumstances — where the silence gives rise to a false impression in context (a half-truth that is literally accurate but overall misleading), where a previously made representation became false and was not corrected, or where a specific duty of disclosure exists. A consumer law lawyer advises on whether the silence or omission meets the s 18 threshold.