Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 30 SEPTEMBER 2020

What is a false and misleading claim? Appeal by ACCC on flushable wipes

Harwood Andrews
Explore more from Harwood Andrews

Companies must be aware of their obligations under the Australian Consumer Law when making claims about their products.

AustraliaConsumer Protection
Paul Gray
Paul Gray
Author LinkedIn connections

The case of ACCC v Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Ltd [2020] FCAFC 107 (ACCC v Kimberly-Clark) is a reminder that companies must be aware of their obligations under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) when making claims about their products.

In this case, the Full Federal Court dismissed an Australian Competition Consumer Commission (ACCC) appeal alleging false and misleading representations made by Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Ltd (Kimberly-Clark) in relation to the "flushability" of their wipes.

Background

In December 2016, the ACCC initiated proceedings against Kimberly-Clark and Pental Products Pty Ltd (Pental), arguing that both companies had made false and misleading representations about their wipes in contravention of the ACL. While Pental conceded the ACCC's allegations, Kimberly-Clark did not.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

When “Down Down” Wasn’t Really Down - Federal Court Rules Against Coles

In its judgement delivered on 14 May 2026, the Federal Court has found that Coles engaged in misleading conduct in relation to its long-running “Down Down” promotion, accepting the ACCC’s case that many advertised discounts were not genuine. The Court held that 13 of the 14 sample “Down Down” tickets examined in the hearing conveyed false or misleading price discount representations because the stated “was” price had not applied for a reasonable period before the promotion.
AustraliaConsumer Protection
Bartier Perry Solicitors
Bartier Perry Solicitors
Article

The Scope Of A School’s Duty Of Care Revisited

An 11-year-old student suffered a back injury during a long jump trial at a school athletics carnival, leading to a significant Court of Appeal decision that clarifies schools' duty of care obligations. The case examines whether basic safety measures like adequate sand depth and regular pit maintenance constitute reasonable precautions that schools must take to protect students during sporting activities.
AustraliaConsumer Protection
Carroll & O'Dea
Carroll & O'Dea