section 29 ACL: false or misleading representations about goods explained

You saw an advertisement. The product was described in detail — its features, its origin, its performance, its approval by some authority. You bought it. Then you discovered the description was wrong, or at least significantly overstated. Now the business is telling you the listing was just "marketing language" and there's nothing you can do. That's not how Australian Consumer Law works.

Section 29 of the ACL is one of the most specific false-representation provisions in the statute. It prohibits businesses, in trade or commerce, from making false or misleading representations about goods or services across a defined list of categories. Unlike the broader prohibition in section 18, section 29 is targeted — it names the particular types of representations that are prohibited, which makes it easier to identify when the law has been broken and easier to frame a complaint.

Quick answer

Whether section 29 helps you depends on a few key variables: what kind of representation was made, whether it was false or misleading, and whether it was made in trade or commerce in connection with the supply, possible supply, or promotion of goods or services. Section 29 prohibits false or misleading representations about a defined list of matters — including the standard, quality, value, grade, composition, style, model, history or previous use of goods, whether the goods are new, their sponsorship or approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses, benefits, price, the availability of repair facilities or spare parts, place of origin, and the existence or effect of any guarantee, warranty, right or remedy. If you also acquired the goods as a consumer under the ACL, the same facts may engage consumer guarantees such as the guarantee that goods match their description under section 56 — which is often the most practical route to a refund or replacement.

What the law actually says

Section 29 of the ACL sits within Part 3-1, Division 1, which deals with false or misleading representations and related unfair practices. It provides that a person must not, in trade or commerce, in connection with the supply, possible supply, or promotion of goods or services, make specified false or misleading representations. For goods, these include representations about standard, quality, value, grade, composition, style, model, history, previous use, whether the goods are new, performance characteristics, accessories, uses, benefits, place of origin, price, the availability of repair facilities or spare parts, and the existence or effect of any guarantee, warranty, right or remedy.

(Section 51 is a different provision and is sometimes confused with this one: section 51 is the consumer guarantee as to title — that the seller has the right to sell the goods — not a false-representations rule.)

That list is worth reading carefully because section 29 covers a wide range of common commercial claims:

• Standard, quality, grade, composition — a supplement described as "pharmaceutical grade" that isn't; a timber product described as "Grade A" that fails that classification.
• Style or model — a product listed as a specific model number that turns out to be an older or different variant.
• History or previous use — a refurbished laptop sold as "never used" that has prior usage data on the drive; a car described as "one owner" that had several.
• Sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, uses or benefits — a product claiming to be "approved by" a professional body or standards authority when it isn't; a blender described as capable of crushing ice that cannot.
• Place of origin, price, repair facilities, or rights and remedies — goods promoted as "100% Australian made" when they aren't; a false "was/now" sale price; a claim that spare parts are available when they are not; or a statement that you have no refund rights when the ACL gives you a remedy.

Section 29 is a conduct prohibition. A consumer usually does not need to prove that the business intended to mislead; the key question is whether the relevant representation was, objectively, false or misleading in the circumstances.

Section 29 works alongside, not instead of, the broader prohibition in section 18. Section 18 prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct generally. Section 29 is more specific: it identifies particular categories of false or misleading representations about goods or services. In practice, the same conduct can breach both provisions, but section 29 is often easier to cite because it maps the claim to a specific statutory category. You can read more about how section 18 operates in our section 18 deep dive.

Section 29 can also overlap with the consumer guarantees. If a business falsely represents that goods are of a particular standard, quality, composition, model, or origin, the same facts may also mean the goods fail to comply with section 56 (goods supplied by description), section 54 (acceptable quality), or section 55 (fitness for a disclosed purpose), depending on what was promised and why you bought the goods. A breach of a consumer guarantee opens the remedy framework in sections 259–263, which is often the most practical route to a refund or replacement.

When this applies (and when it doesn't)

Section 29 applies when:

• The representation was made in trade or commerce, in connection with the supply, possible supply, or promotion of goods or services. Most businesses — including sole traders and small operators — will satisfy the "trade or commerce" test if they are selling goods commercially. The ACL does not apply to genuinely private sellers (for example, an individual selling on Facebook Marketplace), but the line between a private seller and a business is not always obvious — the test is whether the person is acting in a commercial context, not simply whether they have a registered ABN.
• The representation falls within one of the listed section 29 categories. The categories are broad but not unlimited — a claim about something outside the list may engage section 18 instead.
• The representation was false or misleading in the circumstances.
• For an individual remedy, you can show the representation mattered to your decision or caused your loss.

If you also acquired the goods as a consumer under the ACL — for example, because the goods were priced at $100,000 or less, or were of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic, or household use — the consumer guarantees may provide a practical remedy path alongside section 29.

Section 29 is less likely to assist when:

• The representation was genuinely a matter of opinion or puffery. "The best coffee in Melbourne" is unlikely to be a false representation in the legal sense — it's a subjective marketing claim. But "certified organic" or "100% Australian made" is a factual claim that can be false.
• The goods were bought from a genuinely private individual who is not acting in trade or commerce.
• The claim relates to something outside the listed categories — in which case section 18 may still apply, but section 29 specifically would not.

One point on reliance: for an individual remedy you will usually need to show that the false or misleading representation mattered to your decision or caused your loss. But public advertising, packaging, labels, and online listings can all be relevant — the representation does not have to have been made to you personally in a one-on-one conversation.

What to do today

If you believe a business made a false representation about goods you purchased, here is a practical sequence:

1. Identify the specific representation. Write down exactly what was said or written — the advertisement, the product listing, the label, the verbal claim from a salesperson. Screenshot it if it's online. The more specific you can be, the stronger your position.

2. Gather evidence that the representation was false. This might be a test result, a comparison with the actual product specifications, a statement from a relevant authority, or simply a photograph showing the goods don't match what was described. For something like a model number mismatch or a composition claim, the product itself is often the evidence.

3. Check whether the breach also engages a consumer guarantee. In many cases, a false representation about the goods will also mean the goods fail the guarantee under section 56 (match the description) or section 54 (acceptable quality). If so, you have a remedy path through the consumer guarantee framework — which is often more straightforward for individual disputes than pursuing a conduct prohibition alone.

4. Write to the business. A written demand is far more effective than a phone call. State the date of purchase, describe the representation that was made, explain why it was false or misleading, and identify the relevant ACL provisions — usually section 29, and often section 18 as a broader fallback. If the goods also fail to match their description or are not of acceptable quality, cite section 56 or section 54 as well. State what remedy you are seeking — a refund, a replacement, or compensation for the difference in value.

5. Set a reasonable deadline. Give the business 14 days to respond. State clearly that if they do not, you will escalate to your state's Fair Trading body and, if necessary, to the relevant tribunal or court.

If you are not sure how to frame the letter, fairgo can help you generate a demand letter in about 90 seconds. The wizard identifies the relevant ACL sections based on what happened and produces a letter you can send under your own name.

What if the business refuses

If the business ignores your letter or refuses to engage, you have several escalation options.

State and territory Fair Trading bodies offer free conciliation services. They will contact the business on your behalf and attempt to broker a resolution. It is worth noting that these bodies do not themselves make binding orders in ordinary consumer disputes and cannot compel the business to participate — but many businesses do engage, because the alternative is a tribunal or court. Full contact details for every state and territory body are at /agencies.

State and territory tribunals — NCAT in New South Wales, VCAT in Victoria, QCAT in Queensland, and their equivalents — can hear consumer disputes where their enabling legislation confers jurisdiction. For many ordinary ACL disputes, however, the Magistrates Court or equivalent court may be the correct binding forum. The right forum depends on the nature of the dispute and the amount claimed. You can usually appear in these forums without a lawyer, though you may bring one. See our guide to choosing the right tribunal or court for more detail.

The ACCC investigates systemic conduct and industry-wide patterns of false representations — it does not resolve individual disputes. Reporting to the ACCC can be worthwhile if you believe the conduct is widespread, but it is unlikely to result in a remedy for your specific case. For your individual dispute, Fair Trading and the relevant tribunal or court are the right forums.

One important point on remedies: if the false representation also means the goods fail a consumer guarantee — for example, because the goods are significantly different from their description — the consumer guarantee remedies may apply. If that failure is major, you may be entitled to reject the goods and choose a refund or replacement, or keep the goods and seek compensation for the reduction in value. For a non-major failure, the business is generally entitled to remedy the problem first, within a reasonable time — but if it fails to do so, you may be entitled to have the issue remedied elsewhere and recover reasonable costs, or in some cases to reject the goods. The section 260 major failure test is worth understanding before you decide which remedy to pursue.

Any term in a contract or store policy that purports to exclude or limit these rights is void and ineffective under section 64 of the ACL. "All sales final" and "no refunds on sale items" cannot override a statutory remedy for a false representation.

Common mistakes

A few patterns come up repeatedly in disputes involving false representations about goods:

• Treating it as a warranty issue. A false representation about the goods' standard, quality, or composition is a conduct issue under section 29 and potentially a consumer guarantee issue under section 56 — not just a warranty claim. The manufacturer's warranty is a separate contract. Your statutory rights exist independently of it and are generally stronger.

• Accepting "that's just marketing" as an answer. Businesses sometimes characterise specific factual claims as mere puffery. There is a genuine legal distinction between subjective opinion and a factual representation — but "certified," "approved," "Grade A," "military-grade," "100% natural," and similar claims are factual, not opinion. Don't accept a dismissal without pushing back.

• Focusing only on section 18 and overlooking section 29. Section 18 is the broadest prohibition and is often the right starting point — see our section 18 examples article for how it applies in practice. But section 29 is more specific, and citing it alongside section 18 in a demand letter signals that you know the statute in detail.

• Not connecting the representation to a consumer guarantee. The most practical path to a remedy for an individual consumer is usually through the consumer guarantee framework, not a standalone conduct claim. If the false representation also means the goods fail section 54 or section 56, say so — it opens the remedy provisions in sections 259–263.

• Waiting too long. The ACL does not set a single fixed warranty-style expiry period for consumer guarantee claims, but timing matters. The longer you wait, the harder it can be to establish that the goods failed to meet the relevant standard at the time of purchase, and rejection rights may no longer be available. Act as soon as you identify the problem.

• Discarding the goods or packaging. Physical evidence matters. Keep the product, the original packaging, any labels, and any documentation that came with it. If the false representation was about composition or grade, the product itself may be the primary evidence.

Related reading

• Section 18 in practice: real examples of misleading conduct
• Real estate misrepresentation under the ACL
• What "major failure" really means under the ACL

This article is general information about Australian Consumer Law, not legal advice. The ACL is complex and your situation may have details that change the analysis. For advice on your specific case, see your state's Fair Trading body — full list at /agencies.