The Influencer's Undisclosed Sponsorship
Priya runs a lifestyle account with 400,000 followers. She posts a video praising a skincare serum and includes a discount code. The brand paid her $8,000 and required three posts. Priya discloses the sponsorship only in a small caption at the bottom of the third post, which most viewers never see. The serum contains an ingredient that a small number of users report causes irritation. One follower, Mei, buys the product and suffers a reaction requiring medical treatment. Mei complains to the ACCC and to NSW Fair Trading. Priya says the disclosure was technically present and that she is not a manufacturer.
1. Analyse whether Priya's conduct may breach the Australian Consumer Law and what remedies Mei may have.
Read the worked answer
The Australian Consumer Law (ACL) is contained in Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) and applied by state fair trading laws. Section 18 prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce. A paid endorsement presented as personal opinion, with disclosure buried where it is unlikely to be seen, may be misleading because a reasonable follower would not understand the post to be advertising.
Section 29 prohibits false or misleading representations about goods, including their characteristics. If Priya implied the serum was safe for all skin types when she knew or ought to have known of irritation reports, that could also engage s 29.
The ACCC has published guidance on influencer marketing making clear that disclosures must be prominent, clear, and hard to miss. Priya's small caption probably does not meet that standard.
Mei's remedies may include a remedy against the supplier under the consumer guarantees in ss 54-59 (acceptable quality, fitness for purpose) and possibly damages under s 236 for loss caused by contravening conduct. Priya is not the manufacturer, but she may be a person involved in a contravention under s 2, which can attract accessorial liability. A court would consider whether she knew or was recklessly indifferent to the irritation reports.
2. Evaluate the effectiveness of the ACCC's enforcement approach in the influencer marketing space.
Read the worked answer
The ACCC uses a mix of education, industry guidance, and enforcement. Its guidance on social media endorsements has improved awareness. It has also taken court action against companies for misleading testimonials and online reviews, which sends a signal beyond individual influencers.
Strengths: the ACCC can seek pecuniary penalties, injunctions, and corrective advertising; it has broad investigation powers; and its guidance is accessible to small businesses and creators.
Limits: the volume of influencer content is enormous, so detection is reactive and often depends on complaints. Many influencers are individuals with limited assets, so penalties may not deter. Cross-border platforms complicate jurisdiction. Disclosure practices evolve faster than guidance, and 'small print' compliance can persist because the legal test is fact-specific.
A balanced judgement is that the ACCC is moderately effective at setting norms and pursuing egregious cases, but less effective at routine deterrence. Complementary measures such as platform policies and industry codes may do more day-to-day work. Mei's individual complaint is unlikely to produce a public enforcement outcome, though it may prompt an investigation.