Subscription you can't cancel? The ACL angle on locked-in contracts

You signed up for a subscription — a streaming service, a software plan, a meal kit delivery, a digital tool for work — and now you can't get out. The cancellation button doesn't work, the support team ignores your emails, the contract locks you in for a year, or the business keeps charging your card after you thought you'd cancelled. You're not alone, and you're not without options.

Australian Consumer Law (ACL) doesn't have a single "subscription cancellation" provision, but several of its rules can apply directly to your situation. Whether the issue is misleading sign-up terms, a service that isn't being delivered as promised, or a business that simply won't let you leave, there are legal levers worth knowing about.

Quick answer

Whether you can exit a subscription under the ACL depends on a few key variables: how the subscription was sold to you, whether the service is being delivered as promised, and what the contract actually says about cancellation. In general terms, the ACL gives you rights when a subscription was sold using misleading or deceptive conduct, when the service has a major failure, or when the contract contains terms that are unfair under the law. If any of those apply, you may have grounds to exit the contract, seek a refund for amounts paid after the failure, or seek compensation — regardless of what the cancellation policy says. The strength of your position will depend on the specific facts of your situation.

What the law actually says

Three main parts of the ACL are likely to be relevant when you're stuck in a subscription you want to leave.

Section 18 — Misleading or deceptive conduct

Section 18 of the ACL prohibits a business from engaging in conduct that is misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive. This is one of the most powerful provisions in Australian consumer law, and it applies to subscriptions in several common ways:

• The sign-up page said "cancel any time" but the actual cancellation process is deliberately obstructed or requires you to call a number that never connects.
• The business advertised a free trial but charged your card without clear disclosure that it would auto-renew.
• The pricing page showed a monthly figure but the contract locked you in for 12 months — and that lock-in wasn't prominently disclosed.
• The service was described as having features it doesn't actually have.

If any of these apply, the business may have breached section 18. A breach doesn't automatically void the contract, but it can give you grounds to seek rescission (unwinding the contract) and a refund of amounts paid. You can read more about how section 18 works in practice in our section 18 misleading conduct examples article.

Sections 60 and 61 — Consumer guarantees for services

When you pay for a subscription service, the ACL's consumer guarantees for services apply automatically. The two most relevant are:

• Section 60 — Due care and skill. The service must be performed with reasonable care and skill. If the platform is persistently broken, features don't work, or the service is materially degraded compared to what was promised, this guarantee may be breached.
• Section 61 — Fitness for a particular purpose. If you made known to the supplier the specific purpose you needed the service for, and it was reasonable for you to rely on their skill and judgment in selecting or providing it, the service must be fit for that purpose. Both elements — that you disclosed the purpose, and that reliance was reasonable — need to be present.

When a subscription service has a major problem under the ACL’s consumer guarantees for services, you may be entitled to cancel the contract and seek an appropriate refund for the unconsumed portion of the service, or to keep the contract and seek compensation or a reduction in price. For a non-major problem, the supplier generally gets the first opportunity to fix it within a reasonable time. If they do not, you may then be entitled to cancel or seek other remedies under the ACL.

What counts as a "major failure" for a service? Under section 268, a failure is major if a reasonable consumer would not have acquired the service knowing about the failure, if it substantially deprives you of what you were meant to get, or if it cannot be remedied. A subscription platform that is down for weeks, or that has removed core features you paid for, may meet this threshold — though whether it does will depend on the specific facts.

Unfair contract terms

The ACL also contains protections against unfair terms in standard-form consumer contracts — the kind of contract every subscription service uses. A term is unfair if it creates a significant imbalance in the parties' rights, isn't reasonably necessary to protect the business's legitimate interests, and would cause detriment if applied. Terms that have been found unfair in similar contexts include:

• Automatic rollover clauses that lock you in for another full year without adequate notice.
• Clauses that allow the business to vary the price or features mid-term without your consent or a right to exit.
• Excessive early termination fees that bear no relationship to the business's actual costs.

Since November 2023, businesses that include unfair terms in standard-form contracts face civil penalties — it's not just that the term is unenforceable, the business can be fined. This has sharpened the incentive for subscription businesses to clean up their contracts.

When this applies (and when it doesn't)

The ACL applies to businesses operating in trade or commerce. For subscriptions, this covers the vast majority of providers — software companies, streaming services, gyms, meal kits, digital tools, and similar. The ACL's consumer definition covers goods and services acquired for personal, domestic, or household use, as well as goods and services that don't exceed $100,000 in value, provided they are not acquired for re-supply or for use in a trade or manufacturing process.

A few situations where the ACL angle is weaker or doesn't apply:

• You simply changed your mind. If the service is being delivered exactly as described and you just don't want it anymore, the ACL doesn't give you a right to exit a fixed-term contract. The contract terms govern. If the contract says you're locked in for 12 months, you generally are — unless the lock-in itself was unfair or undisclosed.
• The subscription is from an overseas provider with no Australian presence. The ACL can still apply if the seller supplied directly to an Australian consumer, but factors like whether the business has an ABN, an Australian entity, or operates in Australian dollars are relevant to the analysis — though not individually decisive. Enforcement across borders can be difficult in practice even where the law technically applies.
• You're using it for business purposes. You’re using it for business purposes. If the subscription is for your business and does not fall within the ACL’s definition of a consumer acquisition — for example, because of the price and the nature of the service — the consumer guarantees may not apply. Other protections may still be available.
• The fault was disclosed upfront. If the business clearly disclosed a limitation before you signed up and you accepted it, you may have difficulty claiming that limitation is a breach of guarantee.

What to do today

If you're stuck in a subscription and want to use the ACL to support your position, here's a practical sequence:

1. Screenshot everything. The sign-up page, the pricing page, any "cancel any time" claims, the confirmation email, and any communications about cancellation. This is your evidence of what was represented to you.

2. Read the contract. Find the cancellation clause, the auto-renewal clause, and any early termination fee clause. Note exactly what it says — and compare it to what was advertised. A gap between the two is where section 18 claims often live.

3. Document the failure (if applicable). If the service isn't being delivered as promised — features missing, platform broken, content removed — keep a record with dates and screenshots. This supports a consumer guarantee claim.

4. Write to the business. A written complaint is far more effective than a phone call. State clearly: what you were told at sign-up, what the reality has been, which ACL provision you believe has been breached (misleading conduct under section 18, or a consumer guarantee under section 60 or 61), and what you want — cancellation, a refund of amounts paid after the failure, or both. Give a deadline of 14 days.

5. Generate a demand letter. If you're not sure how to frame the legal argument, fairgo can draft the letter for you in about 90 seconds. The wizard identifies the relevant ACL provisions based on what happened and produces a letter you send under your own name.

What if the business refuses

If the business ignores your letter or refuses to act, you have several escalation options:

• Your state or territory Fair Trading body. These agencies offer free conciliation services and can contact the business on your behalf. Many subscription disputes resolve at this stage because businesses don't want a formal complaint on their record. A full list of agencies is at /agencies.

• Your state consumer tribunal. If conciliation doesn't resolve the matter, you can file at NCAT (NSW), VCAT (Victoria), QCAT (Queensland), or the equivalent in your state. Filing fees are modest and you don't need a lawyer. Tribunals are well-practised at subscription and services disputes. For guidance on which tribunal applies to you, see our telco early termination fee dispute article, which covers similar escalation paths for locked-in service contracts.

• Chargeback through your bank. If the business charged your card after you cancelled, or charged you in a way that wasn't clearly disclosed, a chargeback request through your bank or card issuer may be available. This is separate from the ACL process and worth pursuing in parallel if the charge was recent (typically within 120 days, depending on your card scheme's rules).

• The ACCC. The ACCC investigates systemic conduct rather than individual disputes, so it's unlikely to resolve your specific case. However, if the subscription business is engaging in widespread misleading conduct — particularly around auto-renewals or cancellation obstruction — an ACCC report can contribute to a broader investigation. Don't rely on it for your individual outcome.

One thing worth knowing: the threat of escalation, clearly stated in a demand letter, often prompts resolution. Businesses that rely on subscription lock-ins tend to be sensitive to formal complaints, particularly where misleading conduct is alleged.

Common mistakes

A few patterns come up repeatedly in subscription disputes:

• Assuming the contract is the final word. A contract term cannot override the ACL’s statutory protections. Terms that purport to exclude consumer guarantee rights are ineffective, and unfair terms in standard form contracts may be void or unlawful. ‘Our terms say no refunds’ does not override a valid consumer guarantee or misleading conduct claim.

• Not documenting the sign-up experience. The most common section 18 claim — "they said cancel any time" — is hard to prove if you don't have a screenshot of the page that said it. If you're still in the subscription, capture that evidence now before the business updates its website.

• Confusing "I don't want it anymore" with a legal claim. The ACL is not a general right to exit any contract you regret signing. The claim needs to be grounded in something the business did wrong — a misrepresentation, a service failure, or an unfair term. Change of mind alone won't get you far.

• Waiting too long. The ACL doesn't set a single fixed warranty-style expiry period for consumer guarantee claims, but timing still matters. The longer you continue using and paying for a service without complaining, the harder it can be to argue that a failure was serious enough to justify cancellation. Raise the issue as soon as you identify it.

• Disputing the wrong party. For some subscription services, the billing is handled by a third party (an app store, a payment processor). Your ACL claim is against the supplier of the service, not the billing intermediary — though chargebacks go through the card issuer.

• Going straight to a tribunal without a demand letter. Tribunals expect you to have tried to resolve the dispute first. A well-drafted demand letter is usually the right first step, and tribunals generally expect parties to have tried to resolve the dispute before filing. In many cases, it is also what resolves the matter. See our article on gym membership cancellation rights for an example of how this sequence plays out in a similar locked-in services context.

Related reading

• Gym membership cancellation rights under the ACL
• Telco early termination fee dispute — your ACL options
• Section 18 misleading conduct — real examples

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.