The document showed how the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) dealt with a journalist’s inquiry into whether Northern Territory Cricket had breached gambling advertising laws by partnering with an unregistered offshore gambling company. 

After receiving the journalist’s questions about an NT Cricket 2023 partnership with Dafabet, an offshore bookmaker that was not licensed in Australia, a senior media advisor at ACMA wrote to NT Cricket CEO Gavin Dovey to see “if it might be worth discussing our approaches to make sure we are on the same page”. 

“Thanks for the call, I always find it best to co-ordinate this type of response or run the risk of everyone looking silly if we contradict each other,” the ACMA media advisor wrote in a later email. 

NT Cricket’s ‘Top End T20 Series’ in 2023 was ‘powered by Dafabet’ and the company’s logo featured prominently around the ground, social media posts and was even printed on the stumps. The sponsorship arrangement did not appear to continue beyond 2023. We asked NT Cricket the reason why and did not receive a response. 

ACMA responded to the journalist that they had “contacted NT Cricket to let them know about the advertising prohibitions in the Interactive Gambling Act”, however no further action appears to have been taken.��

ACMA under fire

It’s not the first time ACMA has been in the spotlight for its perceived cosy relationship with the industries it is meant to regulate and an alleged weak approach to the gambling advertising laws it is meant to enforce.��

In July 2025, ����Vlog reported that the regulator had sent a draft media release to Foxtel announcing a sanction on the company three days prior to publishing the statement that Foxtel had breached gambling advertising laws.��

The ABC reported in December 2025, that ACMA had “watered down” a press release announcing a sanction against international gambling giant Sportsbet, after the gambling company requested they “tempered” the quotes in a draft release criticising the company.��

Consumer protection and gambling regulation expert Lauren Levin, from Gambling Policy Hub, says these stories together show a pattern of a compromised regulator.��

“It seems that ACMA operates as a regulator wanting to be industry’s friend, when the consumer interest requires ACMA to be a strong regulator out to protect consumers,” Levin says.��

“ACMA is a regulator scared of its own shadow. Instead of taking enforcement action for an Australian sports body receiving sponsorship of an illegal, unlicensed offshore gambling operator, ACMA seemingly reaches out to the NT Cricket Association to co-ordinate its media response so it doesn’t look ‘silly’,” she adds.��

“Looking silly is the least of ACMA’s problems. Being an inconsequential regulator is far worse.”

ACMA defends its conduct

The ACMA says it rejects any assertion that it is not holding companies to account in line with its regulatory purpose and powers. 

“Our compliance and enforcement activities are designed to stop unlawful conduct, deter future breaches and protect consumers from harm,” a spokesperson says. The spokesperson went on to list a number of significant financial penalties handed down to gambling companies over the last several years. 

“NT Cricket was not under investigation by the ACMA at the time of media enquiry. The ACMA contacted NT Cricket to advise them of our proposed response… The ACMA’s response [to the journalist] was not changed in any way by our interactions with NT Cricket,” the spokesperson says.��

‘Consumers must be at the centre of ACMA’s work’ 

����Vlog sent questions to the federal Minister for Communications Anika Wells about the appropriateness of ACMA’s behaviour and whether the government was still considering overhauling gambling advertising laws.��

They did not directly answer the questions, but a spokesperson says: “The government expects the Australian Communications and Media Authority to proactively execute its regulatory functions, working to minimise harm to consumers and promote better consumer outcomes. Consumers must be at the centre of ACMA’s work.” 

Levin says the Minister needs to investigate whether ACMA has the organisational culture to be an enforcement agency.��

“The act of tipping off NT Cricket to coordinate their responses to a journalist suggests ACMA has cultural inadequacies… Australian consumers need our regulators to be regulators, not besties with the industry,” she says.��

“Gambling is a harmful product, and we need a regulator that is not a crowd pleaser, but a regulator that champions consumer protection outcomes. It is increasingly evident that ACMA is a reluctant default gambling regulator that does not have its heart and soul in gambling consumer protection,” Levin adds.��

The post ‘Run the risk of looking silly’: Media regulator criticised for coordinating with cricket body on illegal gambling questions appeared first on ����Vlog.

Anna, from the Victorian town of Geelong, is in her 50s and has been seeking professional help for her mental health for around 30 years.

She says she sees her psychologist and psychiatrist face to face and doesn’t find online services particularly helpful. That doesn’t stop her social media feed being flooded with ads.��

“I get a bit frustrated because a lot of these things I’ve seen ads for are really giving false hope. A lot of them say ‘easily accessible mental health care’, whereas they’re not really,” Anna says.��

“They’re either very expensive, [or] you don’t get the same person regularly, and other things that I know personally are not helpful for my mental health.” 

Endless targeted advertising 

Social media users who click on mental health advertising, visit websites or search for key words relating to mental health are likely to be bombarded with ads relating to mental health apps and services. Even if you don’t actively engage with services, behavioural analytics activated by your clicks may mark you as a target for these ads.��

Shortly after beginning to research this article, my Instagram account was flooded with ads for mental health apps promising to ‘get rid of anxiety completely’ or ‘improve sleep efficiency within seven days’. I was also invited to ‘take a test to train my brain’, and benefit from MindBuddy, a service that likens itself to popular language learning app Duolingo, “but for depression”.

It’s not just profit-seeking mental health apps trying to get your attention. Nonprofit mental health service providers, often funded by the government, also use targeted advertising to reach clients and those in need.��

But is filling social media feeds with mental health ads actually helping those in distress? And what are the ethics behind tracking someone’s online behaviours to make inferences about their mental health?  

Big data, small targets

Mental health advocate Simon Katterl says that, while people in distress may benefit from receiving ads for mental health services in some cases, the risks and potential downsides should be carefully considered.��

“There are questions to be asked about how that data was obtained in the first place and whether people were really fully informed and consenting to that information being shared about them for targeted advertising purposes,” he says.��

“When you put it within a commercial context, it’s unclear whether the services are meeting their needs or exploiting their anxieties and distress, says Katterl. “We don’t regulate digital mental health technologies particularly well in this country.” 

Concern about behavioural analytics 

Piers Gooding, an associate professor at Latrobe University studying law and health policy, says the growing capacity of behavioural analytics to infer mental health status is a concern.��

“The rise of big data and automated decision systems has certainly increased the likelihood of inferences and predictions being drawn from the behaviours, preferences and the private lives of individuals,” he says.��

“So there are things that people might be entering into their devices, that aren’t explicitly about seeking help for a mental health condition, which may be used to kind of infer some kind of mental-health status about that person. There are questions about whether the law currently adequately protects against the misuse of that kind of data,” Gooding says.

Chandni Gupta, digital policy director of the Consumer Policy Research Centre, says behavioural analytics are embedded in the online advertising strategies of social media platforms. Privacy laws haven’t kept pace with the growing technology.��

“At the moment our privacy protections are purely based on notification and consent. Everything is wrapped up in privacy policies or terms and conditions and a very much ‘take it or leave it’ approach,” she says.��

“While other jurisdictions have very specific obligations on privacy, what we don’t have here in Australia is that same level of confidence that our data is being used in a way that won’t leave us worse off,” Gupta adds.��

Nonprofits using targeted advertising

We sent questions to some of the biggest nonprofit mental health service providers in Australia to get a better understanding of how they used targeted advertising alongside so many for-profit players.��

Lifeline says it predominantly uses geographic targeting after natural disasters to ensure residents of certain areas know that help is available.��

Beyond Blue says it prefers to rely on organic social media traffic, but needs to use targeted advertising due to the lack of transparency from social media companies.��

“Social media companies aren’t transparent about how their proprietary algorithms decide which posts they show to which people, which means it’s really hard to be visible to people who might need help without using paid targeted options,” a spokesperson says.��

“We are very mindful that overexposure to mental health messages can carry risk in some circumstances. As such, we carefully design our social media content with input from mental health experts and people living with and managing mental health issues themselves. This helps us ensure the material is not triggering, pressuring or alarming,” they add.��

Youth mental health service ReachOut says there is evidence that young people are more likely to seek professional help after seeing mental health advertising on social media.��

“There has been an increase in commercialised mental health apps, often built and marketed on a limited or unclear evidence base. This poses risks to users. Access to free, trusted and evidence-based services that meet national safety and quality standards is vital for young people,” says a ReachOut spokesperson.��

Paid apps defend advertising

The paid mental health app Headspace also defended their targeted advertising practices.��

“Like most apps, Headspace advertises on select social media platforms like Meta, Snap, and TikTok with the goal of helping people get connected to mental health and mindfulness support,” says a Headspace spokesperson.��

“We are not a data broker, meaning we don’t sell data for money. The limited data we share with third parties includes safeguards, such as encryption or hashing. We also limit data sharing to only what is necessary to enable our advertising, and exclude health information.” 

We also sent questions to the paid mental health therapy platform Betterhelp, who did not respond.

Overwhelmed by options

Targeted mental health advertising may have its place, but with so much of it popping up on social media without firm regulations in place, it seems likely that its potentially harmful effects are not well understood.

Anna Brooke, chief research officer at Lifeline Australia, says there is research to show that in times of distress people needing help can face a kind of paralysis when overwhelmed by too many decisions and options.��

“Having options can be a good thing, because it gives people choice, but then there are a lot of services out there that might not be of a good quality and people might have too many options to actually make a decision in times of needing help,” she says.��

If you or anyone you know needs support: contact Lifeline on 13 11 14 or at , or Beyond Blue on 1300 224 636 or at .

The post Are targeted ads for mental health apps doing more harm than good? appeared first on ����Vlog.

In April last year, a virtual banner promoting a wagering company ran across the television screens of people watching an AFL match on Foxtel and the Foxtel-owned Kayo. It did not include a responsible gambling message as required for gambling promotion content under the industry’s codes of practice.

A tranche of correspondence between the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), and Foxtel shows the broadcaster sought to argue that a responsible gambling message was not required because the ad did not include a direct prompt to bet.��

Under Freedom of Information laws, ����Vlog obtained 14 documents from ACMA relating to correspondence between the regulator and Foxtel, which was a combined 64 pages. Two further documents were withheld because they showed the “deliberative process” of a government agency, one of the exemptions under the FOI Act. The name of the wagering company has been redacted in the documents.��

A prominent gambling reform advocate along with one of Australia’s top academics in the field of gambling have been critical of the broadcaster and of ACMA’s process in handling the breach.

The word that had ACMA reaching for a dictionary

At the heart of the matter was what constitutes ‘promotional’ content.

After ACMA initially wrote to Foxtel with the complaint that had come from a member of the public, Foxtel argued that the ad did not fall within the definition of ‘gambling promotion content’ as that term is defined in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.��

“It did not encourage or direct persons to use a gambling service, or to open an account for a gambling service or to download a gambling service,” the broadcaster said.

In later documents, ACMA cited the Macquarie Dictionary to justify why the ad was ‘promotion content’.��

“‘Promotional’ is not defined in the Code, and therefore is to be given its natural and ordinary meaning having regard to the context in which it is used. The Macquarie Dictionary defines ‘promotion’ as including an ‘activity, especially in advertising, designed to increase public awareness of, and hence the sales of a product’,” ACMA wrote.��

The virtual banner contained an ’18+’ logo, but ACMA said this did not constitute the necessary responsible gambling message.

ACMA ultimately found the ad placed the broadcaster in breach of the ASTRA Subscription Broadcast Television Codes of Practice 2013 (the Code).��

No financial penalties available 

Ultimately, ACMA’s action against Foxtel for breaching the Code was a press release naming Foxtel as in breach and announcing that the broadcaster had agreed to provide extra training to staff around the regulations.��

The broadcaster also agreed to report back to ACMA on all steps taken to ensure the breach was not repeated.��

ACMA tells ����Vlog that enforcement actions available for breaches such as these include informally agreeing to remedial measures, court-enforceable undertakings by the broadcaster, or imposing licence conditions on the broadcaster. It is not empowered to set a financial penalty for broadcasting breaches.�� 

“We adopt a graduated and strategic risk-based approach to compliance and enforcement. The ACMA took into account the steps that Foxtel had already taken to mitigate reoccurrence of this issue, including amending the advertising creative shortly after receiving the first correspondence from the ACMA,” an ACMA spokesperson tells us.��

The documents also reveal that Foxtel has appointed an auditor in response to a separate ACMA investigation into compliance, though details of this were not disclosed.��

“More broadly, the ACMA is aware of the range of current actions that Foxtel/Hubbl Pty Limited is undertaking to address the recommendations made by its auditor Janez Media (following a separate investigation into compliance with the Online Rules),” ACMA says in the Freedom of Information documents.��

‘Weak regulations, weaker enforcement’ 

Charles Livingstone, head of Monash University’s Gambling and Social Determinants Unit, likened Foxtel’s initial excuse for the breach to a “ridiculous schoolboy’s excuse for late homework”.��

“It wasn’t a serious response. It seems to me that Foxtel doesn’t take it seriously,” he says. “The regulations themselves are fairly weak, but their enforcement appears to be even weaker.” 

Foxtel given embargoed press release

The emails we obtained showed that ACMA sent an embargoed copy of the press release announcing the code breach to Foxtel three days before it was published in March this year.��

During the banking royal commission, the corporate regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), was criticised by Commissioner Kenneth Hayne for sending press releases to the big banks before announcing sanctions.��

Commissioner Haynes argued that despite ASIC’s insistence it was only asking banks to check the accuracy of the media releases, ASIC should be confident of what it was alleging and not provide banks with opportunities to correct the releases or have advance notice.

Martin Thomas, CEO of the Alliance for Gambling Reform, says ACMA must do better at being a trusted regulator.��

“It is alarming. The prime purpose of ACMA is to enforce the code and protect the public. By sharing media releases it, at the very least, has an appearance of a cosy relationship with the industry, and appearances are just as important as reality,” he says.��

ACMA defends its process

ACMA says it “strongly rejects” any accusation of a cosy relationship between it and the broadcasting industry.��

“The ACMA considers the practice of providing regulated entities with advance copies of media releases shortly before publication to be consistent with the position set out in our Regulatory Guide No 6 and with the law, including the legal principle of procedural fairness,” the spokesperson says. “We consider this is also consistent with the approach taken by other regulatory agencies.”  

In its response to ����Vlog, the regulator says it would only consider making changes to media releases “which go to the accuracy of the facts contained in the release”. In this instance there were no changes requested by Foxtel and the embargoed copy has the same text as the final media release that was made public.��

Foxtel did not respond to requests for a comment.

Federal Minister for Communications Anika Wells did not respond to ����Vlog requests for a comment on whether ACMA has acted appropriately in this instance, or if and when the government’s long-stalled plan to reform gambling advertising rules would be placed back on the agenda.��

Livingstone hopes that any gambling advertisement reforms include stricter sanctions for breaches like these.��

“We need a fairly strict code of practice which is properly enforced, with financial penalties,” he says.��

“Until it does happen, then we can’t be confident that these operators aren’t simply going to push the boundaries as far as they can and beyond them.”

For help with gambling: Contact Gambling Help Online at 1800 858 858 or .

The post Exclusive: Foxtel’s questionable attempt to justify gambling rule breach appeared first on ����Vlog.

Shelves lined with colourful specials tags are a common sight greeting shoppers at major Australian chemist chains.

But new data suggests these labels are confusing consumers and leading them to overestimate the savings they offer.

����Vlog has been getting feedback from Australians on the specials labels Chemist Warehouse, Terry White and Priceline put on their shelves.

A sizeable portion of consumers we surveyed could not easily tell if these tags represented a discount.

Those that did believe they signalled savings tended to overestimate the discounts on offer.

Many thought the specials were providing a discount on prices that pharmacies may never have actually sold the products for in the first place.

Promotional tags not so special

“We regularly hear from consumers who are frustrated by how prices are displayed at many major pharmacies,” ���������senior campaigns and policy adviser at ����Vlog Bea Sherwood.

“Discounts are everywhere you go in pharmacies,” she adds. “Walking down the aisles, you’re bombarded by yellow and pink sales tags.”

Many of the tags seen by ����Vlog were placed on top of a product’s usual shelf price.

Some display a new price for the product, while others simply draw attention to the existing price with bright colours and phrases proclaiming value for money.

Consumers quizzed on specials

To see how these promotions might be influencing consumers, ����Vlog showed over 1000 Australians* photos of promotional tags displayed in Chemist Warehouse, Terry White and Priceline stores.

The photos depicted the promotions as they were found in outlets around Sydney in November last year.

In the cases of Chemist Warehouse and Terry White, the promotions were often covering the shelf sticker showing the price the product is usually sold for and proclaiming a new ‘special’ rate.

The tags contrasted this promotional rate with a figure they said was the product’s recommended retail price (RRP), in order to highlight a dollar-value saving available to shoppers.

Tags at Priceline, meanwhile, didn’t claim a specific discount amount, but drew attention to a product’s going rate with phrases such as “Great value” and “Lower prices”.

Specials causing consumer confusion

We asked the consumers we surveyed whether they believed the tags represented a discount on a product’s usual price and how easy it was to ascertain this.

“One of the most striking results was that roughly a third of respondents across the labels we tested either were not able to quickly and easily determine if the product was discounted or weren’t sure if it was discounted at all,” says Sherwood.

“That is a real concern, as discounts should be clear and transparent, not confusing. Clear discounts help shoppers know if they’re really getting a good deal.”

Chemist Warehouse and Terry White didn’t respond when asked if they wanted to comment on suggestions their specials are confusing.��

Priceline told ����Vlog one of its labels (“Love Lower Prices”) did represent a discount, but another (“Great Value”) didn’t.

Consumers overestimating discounts

Respondents who believed the prices on promotional tags represented a saving on the product’s usual price were asked how much they thought the discount was worth.

In most cases, respondents used the RRP listed on the tag to calculate how much they were saving by buying the product being promoted.

For example, respondents were shown a photo of a tag accompanying a tube of toothpaste being sold at a Terry White store.

The tag listed the product’s $6 price as a discount from its RRP of $11.99, and 71% of survey respondents agreed the sticker represented a $5.99 saving on the product’s usual price.

However, lifting the tag revealed the usual shelf price for this product didn’t match the RRP.

Rather, it was $8.99 – Terry White later confirmed to ����Vlog that the toothpaste hadn’t been sold at the store where we took the photo at the RRP rate mentioned on the tag.

In fact, in all the examples we found of pharmacies using RRPs to advertise savings, these prices were more expensive than the usual shelf listings beneath or beside the tags.

What does the RRP at a pharmacy actually mean?

Information provided by Chemist Warehouse and Terry White suggests many of the RRPs these retailers display are prices that consumers may never actually have to pay.

Terry White told us the RRPs mentioned on its tags are prices given to it by the suppliers of those items and aren’t meant to reference a price the products were previously sold for by that store.

Chemist Warehouse didn’t respond to our question about whether the products we found were ever sold for their listed RRPs. But on its website, the retailer says RRPs listed in savings comparisons online are usually a supplier’s recommended price.

The company says it only displays these RRPs if the product was sold at or above that price in at least 5% of transactions across most major and independent pharmacies in Australia in the last two months.

Chemist Warehouse says it monitors transactions by looking at Australian Pharmacy Transaction data provided by IQVIA, a global healthcare data technology company.

RRP practice ‘potentially misleading’

The ACCC says a price display can be misleading if it’s being compared to an RRP that the product was never sold at, or wasn’t sold at for a reasonable time.

With over half of survey respondents regularly referring to RRPs when calculating the value of pharmacy promotions, Sherwood says many consumers may be overestimating the value of deals on offer.

“If the pharmacies have never offered those products at that RRP, it could be potentially misleading to refer to a dollar-value reduction from the RRP as the selling point of the discount,” she explains.

“This practice might make a consumer more likely to think that a product is good value, when in fact the savings may be much smaller than they appear. Consumers could end up purchasing more than they need or not bothering to compare prices with other retailers.”

Chemist Warehouse and Terry White didn’t respond when asked if they wanted to comment on suggestions their promotions are potentially misleading.��

Terry White didn’t directly address the comments, but has previously told ����Vlog it lists supplier-provided RRPs in order to provide a reference for savings calculations in instances where pricing is varied across its network of pharmacies.

How to check if a pharmacy discount is a good deal

When presented with a pharmacy special claiming to shave a certain amount off your shop, don’t just rely on the advertised RRP when appraising these deals.

Look beneath the special tag for the usual shelf price to see what the reduction on the usual product price at that store is – this will tell you if the deal is worth taking advantage of by buying multiple units, for example.

It also pays to compare the price a pharmacy is advertising with the going rate for the same product at other outlets and look at unit pricing to see where you could be getting better value across brands and pack sizes.

_{*����Vlog Consumer Pulse January 2025 is based on an online survey designed and analysed by ����Vlog. 1,077 Australian households responded to the survey with quotas applied to ensure coverage across all age groups, genders and locations in each state and territory across metropolitan and regional areas. The data was weighted to ensure it is representative of the Australian population based on the 2021 ABS Census data. Fieldwork was conducted from the 14th of January to the 31st, 2025.}

The post Big pharmacies, small savings: Chemist promotions overstating discounts appeared first on ����Vlog.

Speaking at a panel in Melbourne last week, Stiglitz said Australians have a role to play in tackling the climate crisis through their consumer power – from their investment choices to the everyday things they buy – but, to exercise this power, “they have to have good information”.��

Stiglitz explained that, even when the law does require companies to disclose information about their carbon emissions, they “don’t want to raise their hand and say, ‘yeah, we’re really bad’. They’re going to try to disclose that information in ways that you can’t understand”.��

Stiglitz compares the disclosure of environmental harms to the evolution of messaging on cigarette packaging. When cigarette companies were initially compelled to disclose harms on packaging, you would see small print saying ‘this may not be good for your health’. Now, however, most countries “want a picture that tells you very forcefully what it does,” says Stiglitz.

“On every gas pump they should have a picture … showing what the gas that you’re buying is doing to the planet Earth,” he says.

Stronger enforcement needed

Stiglitz says the invisible nature of carbon emissions in particular make it hard for consumers to properly assess green claims.��

“When you buy a table or a refrigerator you get to see whether it works or not, so you can make a judgement about whether they are telling you a lie,” he says.

“You’re not seeing those CO2 molecules … you can’t see what they’re actually doing,” says Stiglitz.��“This is a fundamental problem that makes greenwashing so easy. It’s so hard to tell whether it’s occurred.”

Stiglitz argues that disclosure laws alone are not enough. They need to be enforced.��

Greenwashing a priority for ASIC

ASIC has said greenwashing is currently a priority area for them. They define it as “the practice of misrepresenting the extent to which a financial product or investment strategy is environmentally friendly, sustainable or ethical”.

They have taken three cases to the Federal Court against superannuation and investment companies for misleading green claims. They have also issued infringement notices to six companies for concerns over alleged greenwashing.��

Most recently the Federal Court ordered Mercer Superannuation to pay $11.3 million as a penalty for misleading statements they made about their investment options. Mercer ran a “Sustainable Plus” option which had investments in 15 fossil fuel companies, 19 gambling companies and 15 alcohol companies. All of which Mercer said were excluded in statements on their website.

“This was ASIC’s first greenwashing case brought before the Federal Court; a landmark case both for ASIC and for the financial services industry. It demonstrates the importance of making accurate ESG [environmental, social and governance] claims to investors and potential investors,” ASIC deputy chair Sarah Court says.

Greenwashing undermines trust

Stiglitz spoke alongside Senator Sarah Hanson-Young and The Australia Institute’s Polly Hemming. Hanson-Young, who is chairing the Senate Inquiry into Greenwashing, says Australia has to catch up to our international counterparts and indicated the final report from the inquiry would recommend action on greenwashing that follows actions already taken by the European Union.

Consumers want better choices, says Hanson-Young. For example, they might choose to buy 50% recycled bin liners to feel they’re doing something for the environment.

“However – and we’ve got this through our inquiry – chances are that 50% is bogus,” says Hanson-Young.��

Stiglitz says that greenwashing not only causes harm to the environment but that false claims “undermine trust in society”.��

Civil suits play a part in enforcement

When governments don’t have the resources to carry out inspections, “the eyes of the whole society” can help hold companies to account, says Stiglitz.��

“You need more eyes than just the government,” he says. “That’s where, I think, NGOs, civil society, and class action suits become very important.”

In 2022, gas giant Santos was taken to court by a shareholder advocacy group, the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility, for allegedly making misleading and deceptive claims about its carbon emissions.��

In April this year, the government introduced legislation that would make climate-related disclosures mandatory. However, they have also proposed a three-year period restricting civil litigation against those disclosures.

The post Why Australia must do more about greenwashing appeared first on ����Vlog.

According to a from the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education (FARE), social media giant Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, hosted almost 40,000 distinct alcohol advertisements in a single year.��

The study, which was partially funded by the Australian Research Council, found that the ads were often accompanied by links to online shops for alcohol products.��

“The fact that most ads have a direct link that instantly sells alcohol at the click of a button makes every phone a bottle shop, and dramatically increases the availability of alcohol and the potential for harm, particularly when people are trying to avoid alcoholic products,” ���������FARE CEO Caterina Giorgi.��

“If you want to stay away from a brick-and-mortar bottle shop, you can cross the street or take a different route. But on social media, there is no escape when alcohol companies are allowed to relentlessly market their addictive products to people at the highest risk of harm.”

The study collected data from the Meta Ads Library for the 12 months up to November 2022. The researchers found a seasonal pattern with more advertisements posted in December than any other time of year and linked heavily to Christmas and New Year celebrations.��

The study follows previous research which found that children were receiving targeted alcohol advertising on social media platforms.��

Giorgi said the upcoming federal government review of the Privacy Act was an opportunity to stop alcohol companies from using personal data to target their advertising.��

“Common sense measures are needed to prioritise community health and safety ahead of the profits made by large alcohol companies and retailers,” she says.��

����Vlog consumer data advocate, Kate Bower, agrees “The Privacy Act review is an opportunity to address the harms caused by targeted advertising of harmful products, such as alcohol and gambling”.��

����Vlog wants to put the onus back on businesses to do the right thing by consumers. “Businesses should have a legal obligation to consider the safety and well-being of the people whose data they are using ” says Bower.�� 

The post Facebook and Instagram are awash with alcohol advertisements appeared first on ����Vlog.

The Australiasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR), a shareholder advocacy group, filed the lawsuit in the Federal Court last year, and in August expanded its ‘greenwashing’ claims against the company. If proven, the claims may be a violation of Australian Consumer Law (ACL).��

The court case, which is expected to be heard in the first half of next year, will hear allegations that Santos breached the Corporations Act as well as the ACL by failing to disclose emissions related to its blue hydrogen operations, which it claimed was a “zero emissions” technology.��

Blue hydrogen is created using natural gas and supported with carbon capture and storage (CCS). In contrast, green hydrogen is created from renewable energy sources.��

World-first case

The ACCR says this is a world-first case challenging the veracity of a company’s net zero emissions target, and raises questions about CCS and its role in a zero emissions economy.��

“As investors, we rely on company disclosures being complete, accurate, honest, and timely,” Brynn O’Brien, executive director of ACCR, tells ����Vlog.��

“We’re concerned that the statements that Santos has made don’t meet that standard. Our allegation is that they’re misleading and or deceptive. That includes statements made by the CEO within Investor Day, so it’s quite a serious allegation that we’ve made,” she says.

Zoe Bush, senior solicitor at the Environment Defenders Office – the lawyers representing ACCR – says it’s essential that companies are transparent about the risks and uncertainties of various technologies.��

“Misleading information can impede an effective and timely response to the climate crisis. It may also leave investors vulnerable to major losses, and potentially unfairly skew the market away from companies that are acting responsibly,” Bush says.��

ACL still applies 

Santos is a gas supplier rather than a retailer. But, despite its not selling directly to households, the ACL still applies.��

Gerard Brody, CEO of Consumer Action Law Centre in Melbourne, says it’s important companies don’t make greenwashed claims.��

“Greenwashing distorts relevant information that a current or prospective investor might require in order to make investment decisions. At a broader level, misleading statements can erode investor confidence in the market for sustainability-related products (including in the energy sector), and it also poses a threat to a fair and efficient financial system,” he says.��

Australia’s corporate regulator ASIC and the competition watchdog the ACCC have both signalled that cracking down on greenwashing is a priority.

In October ASIC took its first action against a greenwashing claim, fining Tlou Energy Limited over $53,000 for making false and misleading statements to the ASX.��

O’Brien says in an ideal world organisations like ACCR wouldn’t need to take on companies like Santos in the courts, and called for greater enforcement from regulators.��

“We would like to see a much more muscular response from the regulator. You know, the signalling is certainly very welcomed, but it hasn’t yet been matched by action at the level that’s warranted,” she says.��

But Brody says regulators are limited in what they can do, and that test cases like the ACCR’s have an important role to play.��

“Strategic litigation by civil society organisations is an important tool to promote accountability in our marketplace. While regulators have an important role, they are also resource constrained. That’s one of the reasons why we should be supportive and facilitative of strategic litigation by advocacy organisations,” he says.��

Santos declined to comment to ����Vlog on the case.

The post Gas giant Santos sued for alleged greenwashing appeared first on ����Vlog.

In the last few years, pledges of reaching net zero or becoming carbon neutral have come from businesses across a wide range of sectors. At the same time, consumers have become more conscious of their purchases and their own carbon footprints.��

New data from ����Vlog shows that customers are increasingly aware of companies’ carbon actions and many are factoring this information into their purchasing decisions.��

“The majority of Australians want to use their purchasing power for good,” says Dean Price, senior campaigns and policy adviser for ����Vlog. “We’ve found that 65% of consumers are considering the carbon footprint of their purchases.” 

Consumers aware of carbon claims 

����Vlog conducted a nationally representative survey of more than 1000 people between March and April 2022, to gauge their awareness and look at spending patterns when it comes to the environment and sustainability.��

Overall there’s a high level of uncertainty about trusting businesses’ claims, and a lack of knowledge about what carbon neutral means.

A company or business is carbon neutral when, in net terms, they do not release any carbon into the atmosphere. They have either reduced their emissions to zero or have offset what emissions they do have in other ways.��

Trust issues

Businesses who make carbon neutral claims may face an uphill battle gaining consumer trust, with almost 4 in 10 people (38%) saying they’re uncertain about whether to trust carbon neutral claims from a business, and 26% saying they’re not very likely or unlikely to trust the information.�� 

Noticing the claims

Almost a third of people recall seeing carbon neutral claims or climate change policy from the grocery industry, such as from Coles or Woolworths supermarkets, with energy companies and airlines the next most frequently recalled industries.��

Influencing purchasing decisions

About a third of people (34%) say they’re more likely or very likely to buy from a business that claims to be carbon neutral.��

But the trust issue is still at play, with people almost evenly split between those who’d probably ignore the sustainability information because it’s not from a reliable source (27%), those who’d probably take the information on board (28%), and slightly more people being undecided (33%).

There’s also a contingent of people (almost 3 in 10, or 27%) who don’t find the businesses’ carbon claims important and would likely ignore them when making a purchase. Another 28% are undecided about whether they’d ignore the claims.

����Vlog’s Price says the survey shows customers are stepping up to the challenges of climate change and expect businesses and services to do the same.

Becoming carbon neutral

The growing investment by businesses in becoming carbon neutral is good news, but some scientific experts we spoke to suggest more needs to be done, and they express concerns about carbon-offsetting schemes.��

Daniel Gocher, director of climate and environment at the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR), says that instead of just focusing on buying carbon offsets to make a certain product or company carbon neutral, businesses should instead first focus on ways to decarbonise or reduce emissions from their supply chains.��

“For a lot of companies  there are options to decarbonise, whether it’s through how they source their electricity, to transport. Companies should really be looking at these first,” he tells ����Vlog.��

Gocher says while it’s easy to grow cynical about carbon neutral claims, it’s important that consumers continue to push companies to adopt more environmentally friendly practices. He says businesses have to start somewhere, and those that show a willingness to engage with reducing their emissions should be acknowledged.

Government-backed carbon offsets

Companies looking to achieve carbon neutrality can go about it in a number of ways. Some focus on carbon-reduction efforts that will result in reduced emissions. For companies that want to be carbon neutral while they work towards fully eliminating carbon, participation in the government-backed Climate Active certification scheme, which allows for the certification of carbon offsets, is another option.

Carbon offsets are sometimes patches of land that have been protected or reforested, which use and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as the vegetation grows. They can also be renewable energy projects.��

There are other non-government carbon offsetting schemes, but Climate Active is the only one with Australian government backing. The credits backed by this scheme are known as Australian carbon credit units (ACCUs).

Concerns about forestry carbon offsets 

For six and a half years Professor Andrew Macintosh was on the integrity committee of the Emissions Reduction Fund that administers ACCUs. In March he came out strongly criticising problems in the ACCU’s forestry schemes, saying the carbon credits being issued didn’t represent the real level of carbon abatement.��

“Unfortunately, Australia’s carbon market currently suffers from a distinct lack of environmental integrity,” he said at the time.��

“People are getting ACCUs for not clearing forests that were never going to be cleared; they are getting credits for growing trees that are already there; they are getting credits for growing forests in places that will never sustain permanent forests.” 

Other experts, such as Dr Jessica Allen from the University of Newcastle, share some of Macintosh’s skepticism around the auditing of forestry carbon offsets.��

“They are generally built off a lot of assumptions, about how much carbon a tree can offset and how permanent that offset is, if it goes up in something like a bushfire,” she says.��

“In a true carbon neutrality pathway we see a company using different technologies and reducing their emissions, not just offsetting their emissions. Offsetting is what you do at the very end, once you’ve done everything [else] you possibly can,” she adds.��

Government department responds

We sent questions to Climate Active regarding Macintosh’s critiques. A spokesperson for the federal government’s Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources responded on Climate Active’s behalf, saying the claims were being “comprehensively evaluated” by the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee.��

“Offsets (including ACCUs) eligible for use under Climate Active must meet best-practice offset integrity principles. These principles require that offset units are additional (unlikely to occur in the ordinary course of events), permanent, measurable, transparent, address leakage (account for material increases elsewhere that nullify the offset claimed), independently audited and registered,” the spokesperson says.

Financial sector emissions 

Gocher says one of the most dubious carbon neutral claims being made involved the financial sector, including from big banks that claim carbon neutrality while not counting the emissions resulting from their financial decisions to invest in companies such as fossil fuel companies.��

According to Climate Active certification, Australia’s biggest bank, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, is carbon neutral, though a public disclosure statement shows this is only accounting for offsets of things such as building electricity use and the use of flights for staff. It doesn’t include so-called “financed emissions” that result from the bank’s financial investments.��

“For a bank, it would be much better to see them tackle their financed emissions and stop investing in fossil fuel projects, rather than simply [buying] offsets for their buildings’ electricity usage,” Gocher says.��

CBA did not respond to our questions about their carbon neutrality. Each of Australia’s big four banks (CBA, ANZ, NAB and Westpac) is carbon neutral certified, according to Climate Active.

Greener flights

More encouragingly, there are some businesses whose schemes are having an impact. Some airlines have voluntary schemes where customers can pay slightly more for their flights to include a carbon-offset option.

Susanne Becken, professor of sustainable tourism at Griffith University, says Qantas has had more success with the scheme than other airlines, partly because it had linked the purchasing of “green flights” to its rewards loyalty program, and also by matching customer offsets.��

About one in ten (11%) Qantas passengers chose to pay slightly more for carbon-offset flights, something Becken calls an “environmental donation”.

“Qantas’s scheme is a good scheme and I think customers will be willing to make that environmental donation (on top of their flight cost). Not all airlines are communicating to customers with the same transparency,” she says.��

The airline is also investing in sustainable aviation fuels to further reduce emissions.��

Pushing companies to change

Gocher says the emphasis and responsibility should be placed on large companies to change their practices and not always on the individual consumer to reduce their carbon footprint.

“The idea that individual responsibility will solve everything is kind of a false hope. I can buy an electric vehicle and put solar panels on my roof and there are still big emissions that only big corporations and governments can address,” Gocher says.

“Meaningful climate action requires governments and businesses to do their part, while also supporting consumers to reduce emissions,” says ����Vlog’s Price. “To make environmentally friendly choices at the checkout, we need competitive markets supported by strong regulation. Because your carbon footprint matters, but businesses need to account for their footprint too.” 

“Personal changes that reduce your environmental impact are still important, and a great place to start,” he adds. “With two-thirds of Australians wanting to limit their impact, they are part of a growing movement of consumers considering climate change and the environment.” 

The post Consumer awareness growing around carbon credentials appeared first on ����Vlog.

On this page:

• Price-matching may lead to higher prices
• Shadow shop results
• Price matching and tricky Ts & Cs
• Price match breakdown
• Stand up for your rights

This seems to be shorthand for “don’t bother shopping around, we promise you’ll get the best deal here”. But should consumers believe the glitzy promises, or is there more (or less) to a best price guarantee than meets the eye?

Price-matching may lead to higher prices

from the Department of Economics at Harvard University indicates that lowest-price guarantees can actually work against consumers, potentially pushing prices up instead of down.��

The research analysed the prices of goods sold on Amazon before and after two major US stores (Target and Best Buy) announced a guarantee to match Amazon’s prices.��

The author of the study, Ran Zhuo, found that Amazon’s prices increased by six percentage points following the introduction of the guarantee, with larger price increases for initially lower-priced items.

Zhuo says there are a number of theories as to why price-matching tends to result in higher prices.

“One explanation that I find intuitive is that, price-match guarantees may reduce your incentive to cut prices because price-cutting no longer wins customers over as your competitors will match your prices,” she says.

When ����Vlog shopped around at a number of retailers offering so-called best prices on their products, we found some interesting results. While liquor store Dan Murphy’s was hard for us to beat on price, we found lowest- or best-price guarantees were mostly not a good indicator that the store was cheaper than its competition.��

This isn’t surprising, considering many competitors in the same retail sector boast about their lowest prices.

Shadow shop results

Bing Lee

Product: Bosch HBF133BS0A 60cm built-in oven

Their best price: $779

Competitor’s price: $697 (The Good Guys)

Chemist Warehouse

Product: Nude by Nature Allure Defining Mascara

Their best price: $23.49

Competitor’s price: $16.77 (Priceline)

Harvey Norman

Product: Sunbeam Cafe Series EM7100 Espresso Coffee Machine

Their best price: $799

Competitor’s price: $636 (Appliances Online)

Officeworks

Product: Logitech Multi Device Wireless Keyboard K780

Their best price: $128

Competitor’s price: $89 (Bing Lee)

Retravision Online

Product: Bosch SMS40E08AU Freestanding Dishwasher

Their best price: $848

Competitor’s price: $799 (Bing Lee)

*Online prices March 2021

Price matching and tricky Ts & Cs

When you do find a cheaper price at a different store and want a competitor to honour it, you may find the process isn’t as simple as you’d expect. Price guarantees are riddled with tricky terms and conditions, so it pays to always read the fine print.��

Most stores require that an item be in stock at the competitor’s store before they’ll agree to price match, but some actually specify more restrictive terms and conditions.

Retravision Online claims: “…if one of our competitors has a lower advertised price for an identical product, we’ll beat it.” However, if you read the Terms and Conditions you’ll find Retravision have self-identified a very short list of their “competitors”, meaning they will price match with just four other stores (Harvey Norman, JB HiFi, The Good Guys and Appliances Online), so if you find a cheaper price at another store (like we did during our mystery shop) they won’t match it.

Bing Lee promises to price match any Australian business with at least two physical retail stores. But dig deeper in their terms and conditions and you’ll see they have a list of product brands that are exempt from their price matching policy, as well as “other products nominated by Bing Lee as being excluded from this Policy from time to time.” Retravision also has a long list of brands that are excluded from their price beat policy.

Harvey Norman’s Price Guarantee claims to match the prices of “leading Australian instore and online retailers.” However when we asked what constitutes a “leading retailer” we were told that it varies depending on the product, meaning it’s basically at their discretion whether or not they will choose to price match your product.��

Similarly, JB Hi-Fi promises to “enthusiastically match the price of an identically stocked competitor product”, but when questioned on which stores they will actually match, they advised that price matching is “case by case” and that it’s up to the individual store manager to make a decision, meaning you may just get unlucky when asking for a price match instore.

Dan Murphy’s quotes their founder in their Lowest Liquor Price Guarantee: “I beat all my competitors every month, every week, every day, every hour, on every price, on every product, on every bottle…” However, in their terms and conditions they state “Competitors’ premises must be within 10km of our store.” 

1st Choice Liquor has the same clause and also requires that the competitor’s store be in the same state. So tough luck if you live in a one-bottle-shop town or on a state border – no price matching for you.

Retailers removing price match guarantees

While some retailers are leaving themselves so much wiggle room in their terms and conditions that their price match guarantees are almost meaningless, others have removed them altogether.��

Big W no longer has a price match policy and The Good Guys have gotten rid of theirs too, although they do note that their prices are open to negotiation and team members may take competitor pricing into account when negotiating.

Price match breakdown

Stand up for your rights

While many stores profess to match or beat competitors’ prices, the reality can often be different from the expectation.

An ACCC spokesperson told ����Vlog that if a business fails to honour the terms and conditions of its price match guarantee, that may be misleading or deceptive conduct in breach of the Australian Consumer Law..��

If you think you’re entitled to a price match and the retailer refuses to honour it, show them a copy of their corporate policy. If they refuse to price match despite you meeting the criteria in their policy, they could be breaching the ACL.

“Whether or not there is a breach of the ACL depends on how that guarantee was sold to the consumer,” says Julia Steward, ����Vlog head of policy and government relations. “The ACL is all about making things fair when you make a purchase, so if a reasonable person would believe the business and it’s within the terms and conditions, then it’s worth following up.” 

The ACCC spokesperson suggests you “contact the business directly to request a price match, and if this is denied, request that the business provide the reasons for the denial in writing and point to any relevant terms and conditions of the guarantee.”

If the business denies you a price match you believe you are entitled to, you can contact the ACCC or your relevant State or Territory Australian Consumer Law regulator.

Bunnings under scrutiny in New Zealand

Bunnings continues to battle The New Zealand Commerce Commission (NZCC) over 45 charges filed by the consumer watchdog in 2016, alleging Bunnings misled consumers by advertising the prices of its goods as being the lowest in the market.

While Bunnings promises to beat competitor’s prices on identical, in-stock items by 10%, many of their products are exclusive to Bunnings, making price matching impossible.

The NZCC charges allege that Bunnings’ advertising campaigns “gave an overall impression it offered the lowest prices for its products when this was not true”.

The ACCC looked into the retailer’s advertising claims in 2006 and 2016 but decided not to take no action.

When we asked our Facebook followers if they have ever tried to have a lowest price guarantee honoured, we received lots of comments about Bunnings, with a number of allegations of unfair conduct – though these have not been verified.��

Consumer experiences with price guarantees

����Vlog member Glenn61 told us he’s had some success with price match guarantees, but he’s also noticed some aren’t fair.

“…I have also found some price guarantees to be worthless as different packaging or model numbers might be specific to the retailer offering the guarantee, making them different to an otherwise identical product being sold by a competitor.”

����Vlog member Fred123 highlights another tricky tactic retailers can use to avoid price matching.

“Big W had 20kg bags of dynamic lifter for less than we paid for the 17.5kg bags at Bunnings, so we returned to Bunnings. They refused to beat Big W’s price on the basis the two items were not identical.

In our experience, the bottom line is that the products must be identical, and Bunnings tries to avoid stocking identical products, hence the 17.5kg dynamic lifter.”

But plenty of consumers say they’ve gotten a great deal using price matching

“I’ve had Dan Murphys price match from a catalogue in the past (I didn’t even have the catalogue with me to confirm, they were able to look it up), and recently JB Hi-Fi price matched an online price for a sound bar for me. Both were great about it, no hassle at all.” – Caitlin, Facebook comment

“I often ask Officeworks to price match and have never had a problem. They match the price less 5%.” – Therese, Facebook comment

“Yes, Good Guys, Sunbury. They fully matched an online competitor offer for a Bosch washing machine. Free delivery and removal of the old machine was included. No hassling required!” – Christopher, Facebook comment

If you don’t ask, you don’t get

Even if a store doesn’t offer a lowest-price guarantee, or if the offer you find doesn’t fall within their terms and conditions, you may find you can get a price match anyway at the discretion of the sales staff. It never hurts to ask, and it could save you big bucks.

The post Lowest price and price match guarantees appeared first on ����Vlog.

����Vlog has been keeping a close eye on the sales tactics some businesses are ramping up in the midst of the coronavirus (�䰿�ձ���-19)��crisis, and we don’t like what we’re seeing in many cases.��

Neither do the many consumers who have gotten in touch to blow the whistle on unscrupulous traders.��

One tactic that’s been getting far too much play in recent days and weeks is when businesses cynically play on people’s fear about a shortage of essential goods.��

As always, we won’t hesitate to name and shame the businesses we’re talking about.��

One in particular, Mosaic Brands, is very much on our radar.��

It’s the parent company behind Australian retail brands Rockmans, Katies, Millers, Rivers, Noni B, Beme, Autograph and Crossroads, and we’ve seen lots of ads and direct marketing emails from Mosaic Brands with language like “stock up now before it’s gone”, “limited stock, shop now”, and, perhaps most vile, “stock up and stay safe”.��

Our response to this kind of thing: How low can you go? 

“Australians expect more from major retailers at this time. Using pushy sales tactics to exploit anxiety about COVID-19 to encourage panic buying is not on. These are disgraceful marketing tactics”, says ����Vlog consumer advocate Jonathan Brown.

“We’re actively looking out for businesses that see this as an opportunity to take advantage of people who are worried – through misleading advertising, price gouging or shonky health claims,” says Brown.

Keep those whistles blowing – and thanks

Much of the shonky marketplace behaviour we’ve been reporting on has been brought to our attention by ����Vlog members and supporters.��

It’s nice to know that there’s still a lot of good in the world.��

As an organisation dedicated to protecting and extending consumer rights in the marketplace, we have a simple take on the issue of businesses exploiting a difficult situation for personal gain: businesses need to do the right thing just like everybody else.��

It’s a view that’s clearly shared by most of us.��

We’re calling on people who see this kind of behaviour to speak up and get in touch at newstips@choice.com.au or tell us at

The post Panic marketing and the coronavirus appeared first on ����Vlog.