Misleading Pricing Strategies Continue to Attract Significant Regulatory Attention Under Australian Consumer Law May 22, 2026

In Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v White Ray (Oakleigh) Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 497, the Federal Court imposed a $600,000 penalty on Ray White Oakleigh after finding the agency engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in contravention of the Australian Consumer Law, being Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).

The Court found the conduct formed part of a deliberate strategy designed to increase buyer interest and competition between purchasers by advertising residential properties at prices significantly below anticipated sale prices. Importantly, the Court also considered the agency’s commission structure and sales incentives, which rewarded employees where sale prices exceeded vendor reserves.

Why is this decision important?

The case is a timely reminder that regulators are increasingly focused on the systems, sales practices and incentive structures driving consumer-facing conduct — not just the conduct itself. While this case arose in the real estate industry, the principles apply broadly to all businesses involved in advertising, marketing and consumer sales.

Businesses should regularly review:

• pricing and advertising practices;
• employee incentive structures;
• approval and compliance processes; and
• internal training relating to Australian Consumer Law obligations.

As regulators continue to pursue misleading conduct claims, businesses should ensure commercial strategies do not create unnecessary legal or reputational risk.

marshalls+dent+wilmoth lawyers advises businesses on Australian Consumer Law compliance, governance and dispute resolution.