Section 18 ACL deep dive: misleading or deceptive conduct explained

A business doesn't have to lie outright to break the law. Under the Australian Consumer Law, a technically true statement, a half-truth, a misleading image, or even a strategic silence can all amount to conduct that is misleading or deceptive — and give you enforceable rights. Section 18 of the ACL is one of the broadest provisions in Australian consumer law, and understanding how it works puts you in a much stronger position when a business has misled you into a purchase.

This article goes deeper than the basics. It explains what section 18 actually requires, how courts and tribunals have interpreted it, where it overlaps with the specific false-representation provisions in section 29, and what steps you can take if you think you've been misled.

Quick answer

Whether section 18 helps you turns on two separate questions. First, was the conduct, in trade or commerce, misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive a reasonable person in your position? That test is objective, and the business doesn't need to have intended to mislead you. Section 18 is breached if the answer is yes, whether or not anyone lost money. Second, if you want compensation, did you suffer loss because of the conduct? To recover damages under section 236 of the ACL, you need to show that link. If both are met, you may be able to seek compensation or other orders, though the strength of any claim will depend on the specific facts, including what was said, how it was said, and what you relied on.

What the law actually says

Section 18 of the ACL reads simply: a person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.

That's it. No list of prohibited statements, no requirement that the business knew it was misleading you, no requirement that you actually were deceived — only that the conduct was likely to mislead or deceive a reasonable person in your position. Courts have spent decades unpacking what that means, and the resulting body of case law is rich and consumer-friendly.

"In trade or commerce" — this phrase limits section 18 to conduct by businesses acting in a commercial context. A private individual selling their old couch on Facebook Marketplace is generally not acting in trade or commerce. A sole trader, a company, or a business of any size selling goods or services commercially almost always is. The test is whether the conduct is part of a commercial activity, not whether the person is a large corporation.

"Conduct" — section 18 covers far more than spoken or written statements. Conduct includes images, demonstrations, omissions (staying silent where, in the circumstances, disclosure would reasonably be expected), pricing displays, website descriptions, social media posts, and the overall impression created by a combination of elements. A car dealer who photographs a vehicle to hide rust is engaging in conduct. A hotel that posts photos of a view that no longer exists is engaging in conduct.

"Misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive" — the test is whether the conduct, viewed as a whole, would lead a reasonable person in the target audience into error. Courts ask: what overall impression does this conduct create? Is that impression false? The business doesn't need to have intended to mislead. A genuine mistake is still a breach if the conduct was objectively misleading. And "likely to mislead" means a breach doesn't depend on showing you were actually deceived — only that the conduct had that tendency. For a compensation claim, though, you'll need to show your loss was caused by the conduct, which usually means showing you were in fact misled.

Half-truths and omissions — some of the most important section 18 cases involve statements that were technically accurate but created a false overall impression. Telling a buyer that a property "has development potential" without disclosing a known planning restriction that makes development impossible can be misleading, even though the words themselves weren't false. Similarly, a business that stays silent about a material fact — when a reasonable person would expect disclosure — may be engaging in misleading conduct by omission.

Promises about the future — promises or predictions about the future (for example, "this will be finished by March") are taken to be misleading under the ACL if the business had no reasonable grounds for making them. If challenged, the business needs to point to evidence that it had reasonable grounds.

Section 29 — the specific false representations — section 18 is the general prohibition. Section 29 of the ACL lists specific types of false or misleading representations that are separately prohibited: false claims about the standard, quality, or grade of goods; false claims about price; false testimonials; misrepresentations about the need for goods or services; and others. A business that makes a false claim about a product's features may breach both section 18 and section 29. In practice, if your situation involves a specific false statement about goods or services, it's worth checking whether section 29 also applies. Your own remedies are similar, but unlike section 18, a breach of section 29 can attract civil pecuniary penalties, and the ACL has a parallel criminal offence for the same kinds of false representations.

When this applies (and when it doesn't)

Section 18 is broad, but it has limits.

Section 18 is breached when:

• A business (or person acting in trade or commerce) made a representation, created an impression, or stayed silent in circumstances where disclosure was reasonably expected.
• The conduct was objectively likely to mislead or deceive a reasonable person in your position.

To claim compensation, you also need to show you suffered loss or damage because of that conduct. That is what section 236 of the ACL requires for damages. A breach can be restrained by an injunction without anyone proving loss, and the ACCC or any other person can apply for one (section 232).

Section 18 generally does not apply when:

• The conduct was by a private individual not acting in trade or commerce. A genuine one-off private sale on platforms like Gumtree or Facebook Marketplace generally falls outside section 18, though people selling there as a business usually don't, and the platform itself may be a different matter.
• The representation was clearly a puff or opinion that no reasonable person would treat as a statement of fact. "Australia's most comfortable mattress" is likely puffery. "This mattress is made from 100% natural latex" is a factual claim — if it's false, section 18 is engaged.

A compensation claim is unlikely to succeed when:

• You weren't actually misled, for example because you knew the truth or relied on independent advice instead. If you had independent expert advice that contradicted what the business told you, and you proceeded on that advice, a court may find the business's conduct didn't cause your loss.
• The loss you suffered was not caused by the misleading conduct — causation is a required element for compensation claims.

A note on the ACL's consumer definition: section 18 is not limited to consumers as defined in section 3 of the ACL. It covers conduct in trade or commerce generally, so it can protect small businesses that were misled, not just individual consumers. Separately, you acquire goods or services as a consumer under section 3 if the amount paid or payable was $100,000 or less, or they were of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption (either is enough). A vehicle or trailer acquired mainly to transport goods on public roads also qualifies. For goods only, there are exclusions for goods bought for re-supply, or to use up or transform in trade or commerce in production, manufacture or repair. Check how section 3 applies to you. If it does, the consumer guarantees may also apply alongside a section 18 claim.

What to do today

If you believe a business has misled or deceived you, the following steps will put you in the strongest position.

1. Capture the evidence now. Screenshots of websites, product listings, advertising, and social media posts can disappear. Save copies immediately, with timestamps if possible. Keep any emails, brochures, or written quotes you received before purchase.

2. Write down what was said. If the misleading conduct was verbal — a salesperson's claim, a phone conversation — write down as accurately as you can what was said, when, and who said it. Do this while the memory is fresh.

3. Identify the specific conduct. What exactly was the representation? Was it a written statement, an image, a demonstration, a silence? What impression did it create? How does that impression differ from reality? Being precise about this will make your demand letter much stronger.

4. Quantify your loss. A compensation claim under section 236 is about loss caused by the misleading conduct. What did you pay? What did you actually receive? What would you have paid (or done) if the truth had been disclosed? The difference between those figures is often the starting point for a compensation claim.

5. Write to the business. A written demand letter citing section 18 of the ACL, describing the specific conduct, and stating the loss you suffered is often enough to prompt a resolution. Be factual, specific, and measured. State what you are seeking — a refund, compensation, or correction — and give a reasonable deadline.

6. Use fairgo to draft the letter. If you're unsure how to frame the section 18 claim, fairgo can generate a demand letter for you. The wizard identifies the relevant ACL provisions automatically and produces a letter you send under your own name.

For real-world examples of what section 18 conduct looks like across different industries, see our section 18 examples article.

What if the business refuses

If the business does not respond or rejects your claim, you have several escalation options.

Your state or territory consumer protection body 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). These bodies don't make binding orders in ordinary consumer disputes and can't make the business settle. Contact details are at /agencies.

The ACCC investigates systemic or widespread misleading conduct — false advertising campaigns, industry-wide practices, or conduct affecting large numbers of consumers. The ACCC does not resolve individual disputes. If your situation involves conduct that appears to be affecting many people, you can still report it to the ACCC alongside your individual claim.

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. 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, waivers or deferrals if cost is a concern. Our guide to choosing the right tribunal or court has more. Whether a particular tribunal can hear a claim for damages for misleading conduct depends on its enabling legislation, so confirm before filing.

A court can award damages under section 236, or make orders under section 237, which under section 243 can include declaring the contract void or ordering a refund. What a tribunal can order depends on its own legislation.

For property-related misleading conduct, the dynamics can be more complex — see our article on real estate misrepresentation for specifics on that context.

Common mistakes

Assuming intent is required. Many people give up on a section 18 claim because they think they need to prove the business deliberately lied. They don't. The test is objective — if the conduct was likely to mislead a reasonable person, the section applies regardless of what the business intended.

Focusing only on what was said, not the overall impression. Courts look at the overall impression created by the conduct, not individual sentences in isolation. A business that buries a crucial qualification in fine print after making a bold headline claim may still be engaging in misleading conduct, because the overall impression is false.

Confusing section 18 with the consumer guarantees. Section 18 is about being misled. The consumer guarantees (sections 51 to 62) are about the quality and fitness of what you received. These are different causes of action, and sometimes both apply — for example, if a product was falsely described and also fails to work properly. Understanding which applies to your situation helps you frame the right claim. See our overview of consumer guarantees for the distinction.

Not quantifying the loss. A section 18 claim without a clear loss figure is much harder to pursue. "I felt misled" is not enough — you need to be able to say what you paid, what you actually got, and what the difference is worth.

Waiting too long. Under section 236 of the ACL, a claim for damages for misleading conduct must be started within 6 years after the day the cause of action accrued (generally when you first suffered loss), and applications for compensation orders under section 237 have the same 6-year limit. Forums may have their own shorter time limits, and delay makes evidence and causation harder to prove. Act promptly.

Going straight to the ACCC for an individual dispute. The ACCC's role is systemic enforcement, not individual dispute resolution. For your specific claim, use your state or territory consumer body and, if needed, a tribunal or court with jurisdiction.

For a worked example of how section 18 applies to holiday and accommodation bookings — a common source of misleading conduct complaints — see our holiday accommodation article.

Related reading

• Section 18 misleading conduct — real examples across industries
• Real estate misrepresentation and the ACL
• Holiday accommodation and false advertising — your rights
• Business refused your refund? Here's what to do next

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) and forum time limits, 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.