Drip pricing and hidden fees in Australia: when add-ons break the law

You click on a headline price, work through the checkout, and the total keeps climbing: a "booking fee", a "service fee", a "processing charge". That pattern is called drip pricing. Some add-ons are lawful. Others breach the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), and where you lost money because of the breach, you may be able to recover it.

Quick answer

The most important question is when, and how clearly, the full price was shown to you. It decides which part of the law applies and what you can realistically ask for.

• A compulsory fee you could see before paying, but the headline price left it out. If the goods or services are of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption, the business may have breached the single-price rule in section 48. You can still ask the business in writing to repay the fee and report the price display to the ACCC, but section 48 doesn't itself make the fee refundable. Because you saw and accepted the total before paying, a personal compensation claim may be hard unless you can prove loss caused by the contravention.
• A fee that appeared only after you paid, or was charged without ever being part of the price or the terms you agreed to. This is first a contract question: did the terms you accepted allow the charge at all? If not, you may be able to seek its return as money you never agreed to pay. If the business represented that the stated amount was the full price, or otherwise gave a false impression of what you would be charged, the conduct may also engage section 18 and section 29(1)(i), which covers false or misleading representations about price. A section 236 damages claim is separate: you must prove loss caused by the contravention, and the amount isn't automatically the fee.
• An advertised price that was never genuinely available. A "from $X" price no one could actually get may be a false or misleading representation about price under section 29(1)(i). Depending on the facts, it may also be bait advertising under section 35.

If the business won't fix it once you've written to it, your state or territory consumer body may help if your complaint meets its criteria. A court or tribunal with jurisdiction can make binding orders; depending on the forum's powers, that may include an order to refund money. You usually claim against the business that made the price representation or took the fee (on a platform these may be different businesses), and section 236 also reaches anyone involved in the contravention. Check who that was before you write.

What the law actually says

The single-price rule (section 48). Under section 48 of the ACL, a business promoting or supplying goods or services of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption must not state part of the price unless it also specifies the single price. That figure must be given in a prominent way and as a single figure. It must be at least as prominent as the most prominent part of the price (section 48(5)).

The single price is the minimum quantifiable consideration at the time of the representation (section 48(7)). It includes:

• any charge payable to the business, unless the charge is optional and, at or before the time of the representation, you have deselected it or haven't expressly asked for it. The Act's own example shows that a pre-ticked add-on must be included until you deselect it: an airline carbon offset that is preselected in the booking system must be part of the single price;
• any tax, duty, fee, levy or charge imposed on the business in relation to the supply (GST is given as an example);
• certain government charges the business pays on your behalf.

Some limits apply. For goods, delivery charges can be left out of the single price, but if the business knows, when it states the price, the minimum delivery charge you must pay, it must state that minimum (section 48(2)–(3)). For some periodic-payment service contracts, the single price must still be stated prominently, but it need not be at least as prominent as the most prominent part of the price (section 48(6)). The rule doesn't apply to representations made only to companies or other bodies corporate (section 48(4)). Regulations can also exempt prescribed classes of representation (section 48(4A)).

Misleading conduct (sections 18 and 29). Section 18 prohibits conduct in trade or commerce that is misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive. A breach needs no intent, and the contravention itself doesn't depend on proof that you relied on the conduct. But to recover damages under section 236 you must prove loss caused by the contravention, and whether you relied on the price is often central evidence of that. Section 29(1)(i) prohibits false or misleading representations "with respect to the price of goods or services". A headline price that gives a false impression of what you will pay may fit both. Our guide to section 29 false representations covers the other paragraphs of section 29(1).

Multiple pricing. This is a different problem. Under the ACL's multiple-pricing rule, if goods have more than one displayed price, the business must not supply them for more than the lowest. That rule applies to goods only. It doesn't require the business to sell to you, because it can withdraw the goods until the price is corrected. A single price with fees added later is not a multiple-pricing issue.

Card surcharges are a separate set of rules. From 1 October 2026, the ACCC says, businesses can no longer surcharge payments made with Visa, Mastercard, American Express or eftpos credit, debit or prepaid cards. Those "no surcharge" rules are set by the card networks' scheme rules and merchant contracts, and the networks or payment service providers enforce them, not the ACCC. If you're charged one, the ACCC suggests asking the business what the charge is for and for a refund, then raising it with the card network, your bank (for eftpos) or the business's payment provider. The ACL still applies if a business disguises a card surcharge as another fee or doesn't display the total price properly. A booking, service or weekend fee that isn't based on how you pay is assessed under the provisions above.

What you can recover. A breach of section 18, 29 or 48 doesn't hand you an automatic refund. Under section 236 you can recover the amount of loss or damage you suffered because of the contravention. You can claim against the business or any person involved in the contravention. The action must be started within 6 years after the day the cause of action accrued (section 236(2)). Under section 237, a court can also make orders to compensate for, or prevent or reduce, loss or damage suffered or likely to be suffered because of the contravention, and section 243 lists orders such as refunding money or declaring a contract void in whole or part. An application for an order under section 237 must be made before the end of 6 years from the day on which the cause of action accrued (section 237(3)).

For either route, you need evidence of the loss and a causal link to the conduct, and you can't recover the same loss twice. Under general legal principles, loss you could reasonably have avoided may not be recoverable.

Unfair contract terms (sections 23–25). If the fee comes from a term in a consumer or small business standard form contract, that term may be unfair. The unfair-terms law doesn't apply to a term to the extent that it sets the upfront price payable under the contract, which broadly means consideration disclosed at or before the contract was made, but not consideration that depends on whether a particular event happens. A properly disclosed fee forming part of that price may fall outside it, but a hidden fee, or a term letting the business impose a later or discretionary charge, isn't necessarily protected. An example is a term letting the business add charges at its discretion. An unfair term is void (section 23(1)). If the business disputes that a term is unfair, a court, or a tribunal with jurisdiction to decide it, determines the question, and the contract continues if it can operate without the term. Proposing, applying or relying on an unfair term in such a contract can also be a separate contravention (section 23(2A) and (2C)); check with your consumer body how this applies to your contract's date.

What courts and the ACCC have done. On 25 August 2026, the Federal Court found that eHarmony made misleading representations about the pricing, renewal and duration of its memberships and failed to display a single total price ([2026] FCA 1208). Penalties and redress are to be decided later. JustAnswer was ordered on 8 July 2026 to pay $10 million in penalties for misleading pricing representations. eDreams paid $59,400 in penalties on 29 June 2026 after the ACCC issued it three infringement notices; paying an infringement notice isn't by itself a finding that the law was broken, but eDreams also gave a court-enforceable undertaking admitting its conduct contravened or likely contravened the ACL. In that matter the ACCC said businesses must not advertise part of a subscription price, such as a monthly amount, without prominently displaying the total minimum cost as a single amount.

What's coming, but isn't law yet. The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Act 2026 has passed and commences on 1 July 2027. It adds specific drip-pricing rules: transaction-based charges must be shown whenever a base price is displayed. It also adds a general prohibition on unfair trading practices. These are not current law and don't apply to anything before 1 July 2027. Western Australia has a separate process for bringing later Commonwealth ACL amendments into the ACL as it applies in WA. The Commonwealth ACL applies directly to the conduct of companies, so this mainly matters for a WA trader that isn't a company, such as a sole trader or partnership. For those traders, check whether the changes have commenced in WA before relying on them. Until then, the provisions above are what apply.

When this applies (and when it doesn't)

Sections 18, 29 and 48 apply to conduct in trade or commerce. That covers businesses of every size, including most sole traders and online stores. A genuine one-off private sale between individuals is not usually trade or commerce. Section 48 has its own scope test, separate from the consumer definition in section 3. It looks at whether the goods or services are of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption, not at how you personally used them.

Use the quick reference below to see which angle is likely to fit your situation.

Some situations are usually outside this framework, or weaker:

• You chose and kept an optional extra. Where you selected an add-on and it was clearly priced, the law is unlikely to help.
• You saw the total, understood it and paid. A section 48 breach may still have happened, and you can report it. A personal damages claim may be hard, because your loss has to be caused by the contravention.
• The amount wasn't quantifiable when the price was shown. Section 48 counts only amounts quantifiable at that time. A charge that depends on choices you make later may sit outside the single price. It still can't be misrepresented.

Who you claim against. Identify who supplied what from the checkout screen, the receipt and the terms that applied when you ordered. Don't assume the site you paid is the liable party. On a booking or delivery platform, the platform may charge its own service fee while a separate business supplies the goods or services. For a contract claim, that is usually the business you contracted with and paid. For a misleading-price claim under section 236, it is the business whose conduct contravened the ACL, such as the one that made the price representation, or any person "involved in the contravention". Those may be different businesses.

For overseas sites, the ACCC says an overseas business that supplies goods or services directly to consumers in Australia must follow the ACL, including the consumer guarantees. The ACL doesn't cover you, the ACCC says, if the business doesn't directly offer its products in Australia, if the goods go to an overseas address and are then forwarded, or if the whole transaction happens overseas. Getting a remedy from an overseas business can be hard in practice. See the ACCC's buying online guidance.

What to do today

1. Capture the price trail. Screenshot the advert or listing, every checkout step showing the price, any pre-ticked boxes, and the final confirmation. Prices and pages change, so do this before anything else.
2. Keep the paperwork. For a supply of $75 or more (excluding GST), the business must give you proof of transaction as soon as practicable. For a smaller supply, you can request one as soon as practicable after the supply, and it must be given within 7 days of your request (section 100). For services, you can request an itemised bill showing how the price was calculated within 30 days after the later of supply or receiving the bill. The supplier must provide it within 7 days, free of charge (section 101). A bank statement may be enough as evidence of the charge, depending on whether it identifies the business, the transaction and the amount clearly enough.
3. Check the terms you accepted. Find the terms in force when you ordered and look for any clause covering the fee. A fee not mentioned anywhere strengthens a contract argument. A fee buried in the fine print may raise transparency and unfair-term questions.
4. If you paid recently by card, ask your card issuer now. Contact the business first, then ask your issuer whether a chargeback may be available. Describe the dispute accurately: a fee you disagree with is not necessarily an unauthorised transaction. A chargeback may be weak where you saw and accepted the total, and card scheme rules give no valid chargeback right for a change of mind. If you used buy now pay later, ask the provider about its own dispute process, which is not a chargeback. Time limits follow the card scheme's or provider's rules, not the ACL, so check them now. Neither outcome is guaranteed.
5. Write to the business. State what was advertised, what you were charged, and when the extra charge first appeared. Cite section 48 and sections 18 and 29(1)(i) where they fit, and ask for the specific amount back. Give a deadline such as 14 days (a practical default, not an ACL requirement). fairgo can generate a demand letter for you that you send under your own name.

What if the business refuses

Your state or territory consumer protection body. It may help, for example by contacting the business or conciliating, if your complaint meets its criteria. Most expect you to have tried to resolve the matter with the business first, and eligibility rules vary by state and dispute type. In the ACT, for example, statutory conciliation applies only where the remedy you seek is worth $5,000 or less and you agree, and Access Canberra is running it as a pilot for complaints the Commissioner for Fair Trading selects. These bodies don't make binding orders in ordinary consumer disputes and can't make the business settle. Contact details are at /agencies.

A tribunal or court with jurisdiction. In NSW, Victoria, Queensland, the ACT and the NT, a tribunal (NCAT, VCAT, QCAT, ACAT or NTCAT) hears many consumer claims within its limits. In Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania, ordinary consumer claims go to the Magistrates Court. Jurisdiction depends on each forum's enabling legislation, the type of claim and the amount, so confirm the forum and its current thresholds on the official site before filing. If you and the other party are individuals living in different states, a state tribunal that isn't a "court of a State" may lack power to decide the dispute, because it falls within federal jurisdiction; confirm jurisdiction with the forum before filing, as the claim may need to go to a court. This issue doesn't arise where the business is a company. You can usually run a claim without a lawyer, though some forums restrict legal representation (QCAT, for example, requires permission). Check current filing fees on the official site, and ask about fee exemptions, reductions or deferrals if cost is a concern. Our guide to choosing the right tribunal or court has more.

The ACCC. The ACCC investigates systemic conduct rather than individual disputes, so it won't resolve your claim. Drip pricing may reflect a pattern of conduct, though, so reporting it can still be worthwhile. The ACCC can also apply to a court for orders on behalf of consenting injured people (section 237(1)(b)).

If the business offers something. Read any offer carefully. A "full and final" settlement or release may end your claim, and writing "under protest" does not necessarily preserve your rights. Get advice before signing anything described as final. A partial credit or voucher is not the same as getting your money back.

Common mistakes

• Treating every add-on as illegal. Optional extras you chose, and delivery charges where the minimum was stated, are usually lawful. Focus on compulsory or pre-selected charges left out of the headline price, or charges you never agreed to.
• Overclaiming loss. Damages under section 236 are for loss caused by the contravention. If you'd have paid the total anyway, claim what you can show, not a penalty. Penalties are imposed by a court on the regulator's application, or paid under a regulator's infringement notice; they aren't something you can claim.
• Assuming a breach proves your loss. The business can breach section 48 even if you weren't misled. A personal claim still needs loss caused by the conduct.
• Calling it fraud with your bank. Misdescribing a pricing dispute as an unauthorised transaction can undermine it. Stopping a payment also doesn't end a contract.
• Waiting. Section 236 claims have 6 years from accrual, and a contract claim is subject to limitation laws and forum rules, but screenshots, page versions and card dispute windows disappear far sooner.
• Relying on the 2027 rules. The new drip-pricing rules don't apply until 1 July 2027. Build your claim on sections 18, 29 and 48 as they stand.

Related reading

• Section 18 deep dive: misleading or deceptive conduct
• Section 29: false representations about goods and services
• Business refused your refund? Here's what to do next
• Price error online: must they honour it?
• Section 18 misleading conduct examples
• Your rights when buying online

This article is general information about Australian Consumer Law, not legal advice. It also touches on complaint and escalation pathways (state and territory consumer bodies, tribunals and courts, the ACCC, card chargeback rules and buy now pay later providers' dispute processes) and limitation laws, whose scope, rules, thresholds and processes sit outside the ACL or can change. Confirm the current position with the relevant body before lodging. For advice on your specific case, see your state or territory consumer body — full list at /agencies.