According to the Australian government’s Department of Health and Aged Care, the country is currently exploring the introduction of mandatory controls on how infant formula is marketed, with public consultations open until April 2026.

The move follows a decision by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) not to renew the Marketing in Australia of Infant Formulas (MAIF) Agreement, a voluntary code that expired in February 2025.

The MAIF Agreement previously set out guidelines for manufacturers and importers, including prohibitions on advertising infant formula, distributing free samples, and promoting products through healthcare systems. It also required companies to emphasise the benefits of breastfeeding and provide accurate information about formula use.

However, with no current enforceable framework in place, the government has signalled a shift toward legislation that would formalise and potentially expand these restrictions. Proposed measures include banning marketing across digital platforms, restricting the use of healthcare facilities for promotions, and preventing companies from offering incentives to health professionals.

The policy direction aligns with global recommendations under the World Health Organization’s International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes, which seeks to limit commercial influence on infant feeding decisions and protect breastfeeding as the preferred method of infant nutrition.

In addition, a report by the ADM+S Australian Ad Observatory has found brands used various tactics to appeal to parents. Some highlighted positive customer reviews or offered free downloadable cookbooks and “house baby proofing” guides.

“Most formula brands made some kind of claim regarding the nutritional or behavioural benefits of their products. These claims prey on the anxiety parents commonly feel to ensure their children are meeting nutritional, sleep and developmental milestones,” they stated.

The post Australia moves toward stricter controls on infant formula marketing after voluntary code lapses appeared first on MARKETECH APAC.

Google has admitted liability and agreed to jointly submit with the ACCC that it should pay a $55 million penalty, subject to the Court’s decision on whether the proposed penalty and other orders are appropriate.

The arrangements, in effect between December 2019 and March 2021, required Telstra and Optus to exclusively pre-install Google Search on Android devices sold to consumers. In return, the telcos received a share of Google’s advertising revenue generated through searches made on those phones.

Google acknowledged that these agreements were likely to substantially lessen competition in the market. Alongside the proceedings, Google and its parent company, Google LLC, have signed a court-enforceable undertaking accepted by the ACCC to address wider competition concerns around contracts with Android manufacturers and Australian telcos since 2017. Under the undertaking, Google has committed to removing certain pre-installation and default search restrictions from its agreements.

This follows similar undertakings accepted last year from Telstra, Optus and TPG, which committed not to enter exclusive arrangements with Google requiring its search service to be the sole pre-installed and default option on Android devices.

“Conduct that restricts competition is illegal in Australia because it usually means less choice, higher costs or worse service for consumers,” ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said.

“Today’s outcome, along with Telstra, Optus and TPG’s undertakings, have created the potential for millions of Australians to have greater search choice in the future, and for competing search providers to gain meaningful exposure to Australian consumers.”

“Importantly, these changes come at a time when AI search tools are revolutionising how we search for information, creating new competition,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

The ACCC noted that the undertakings now allow telcos to configure search services on a device-by-device basis and strike pre-installation deals with alternative providers.

“With AI search tools becoming increasingly available, consumers can experiment with search services on their mobiles,” Cass-Gottlieb said.

The proceedings stem from the ACCC’s broader Digital Platform Services Inquiry, which identified concerns around search defaults and choice screens.

“Co-operation with the ACCC is encouraged. It can avoid the need for protracted and costly litigation and lead to more competition. More competition in markets drives economic dynamism, but the reverse is true when markets are not sufficiently competitive,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb added.

“The ACCC remains committed to addressing anti-competitive conduct like this, as well as cartel conduct. Competition issues in the digital economy are a current priority area.”

The post Google admits to anti-competitive conduct in Australia; faces $55m penalty proposal appeared first on MARKETECH APAC.

It should be noted that the merger was officially confirmed in December 2024, which aims to combine both company’s marketing talent, as well as it services and products, driven by advanced sales and marketing platforms.

In its latest statement, ACCC considers that the proposed acquisition would be unlikely to substantially lessen competition in the supply of media buying services and marketing and communications services.

“Our investigation found that while the proposed acquisition would result in an increase in the parties’ combined market share, other suppliers of media buying and marketing and communications services would continue to effectively compete with Omnicom after the acquisition,” ACCC Commissioner Dr Philip Williams said. 

The commission has also noted that remaining advertising, media and communications conglomerates, including WPP, Publicis and Dentsu, will continue to compete with Omnicom after the acquisition, as well as smaller independent providers of these services.

ACCC commenced informal review of the merger locally under its Informal Merger Review Process Guidelines back in May this year.

In Australia, Omnicom’s key brands include DDB, TBWA, OMD Worldwide, PHD Media, Clemenger Group and Hearts & Science. Meanwhile, Interpublic’s key brands in Australia include IPG Mediabrands, Universal McCann (UM), Initiative, 303 MullenLowe and Octagon.

The post AU competition watchdog ‘will not oppose’ IPG-Omnicom merger appeared first on MARKETECH APAC.

The ACCC alleges that Australian Gas Networks’ “Love Gas” advertising campaign, which ran on television, streaming services and YouTube during 2022 and 2023, contained false and misleading representations about the future of renewable gas.

According to the ACCC, the company suggested without qualification that it would deliver renewable gas to households within a generation, despite knowing it was highly uncertain whether this could be achieved, given significant technical and economic barriers.

“We allege that Australian Gas Networks engaged in greenwashing in its ‘Love Gas’ ad campaign,” ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said. “It is not currently possible to distribute renewable gas at scale and at an economically viable price, and throughout 2022 and 2023 it was highly uncertain whether, and if so when, this would be possible.”

The regulator claims the ads created the impression that switching to or remaining on the company’s gas network—and buying gas appliances—would help consumers secure a “renewable gas” future, despite no realistic timeframe or guarantee such technology would be viable.

“We consider that consumers were deprived of the opportunity to make fully informed choices, in accordance with their values, about the most appropriate energy sources for their homes,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.

The contested advertisements depicted a young girl and her father using gas appliances for cooking, heating and bathing. The scenes then fast-forwarded to show the girl as a young adult continuing the same activities, with a voiceover claiming “Some things never change, but the flame we use will. It’s becoming renewable. Controllable, reliable gas. For this generation and the next.”

The final frames of the ads featured the company’s logo alongside a green flame and the slogans “Love gas. Love a renewable gas future” or simply “Love Gas.”

The ACCC alleges these ads included no disclaimers or qualifications, and therefore breached the Australian Consumer Law, which prohibits false or misleading claims.

“Businesses that make environmental claims about the future must have reasonable grounds for those claims,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said. “Misleading claims not only break the trust of consumers, they also breach the Australian Consumer Law.”

The ACCC is seeking declarations, penalties, costs and other orders from the Federal Court.

Australian Gas Networks is one of the country’s largest gas infrastructure companies, distributing natural gas to around 1.3 million homes and businesses, mainly in Victoria and South Australia, as well as in Queensland, New South Wales and the Northern Territory.

The ACCC investigation followed complaints from consumers and the Australian Conservation Foundation. The regulator’s court action also comes after it issued new guidance in December 2023 warning businesses against making unsubstantiated environmental or sustainability claims.

The post AU competition watchdog take Australian Gas Networks to court over alleged ‘greenwashing’ in ad campaign appeared first on MARKETECH APAC.

According to a press statement from Qantas, Joyce will be replaced by Vanessa Hudson, who now takes the role of managing director and group CEO for the airline. This takes effect on September 6 this year.

In a statement by Joyce, he said that the focus on Qantas and events of the past make it clear to him that the company needs to move ahead with its renewal as a priority.

“The best thing I can do under these circumstances is to bring forward my retirement and hand over to Vanessa and the new management team now, knowing they will do an excellent job,” he said.

He added, “There is a lot I am proud of over my 22 years at Qantas, including the past 15 years as CEO. There have been many ups and downs, and there is clearly much work still to be done, especially to make sure we always deliver for our customers. But I leave knowing that the company is fundamentally strong and has a bright future.”

Meanwhile, Richard Goyder, chairman at Qantas, commented, “Alan has always had the best interests of Qantas front and centre, and today shows that. On behalf of the Board, we sincerely thank him for his leadership through some enormous challenges and for thinking well-ahead on opportunities like ultra long-haul travel.”

He added, “This transition comes at what is obviously a challenging time for Qantas and its people. We have an important job to do in restoring the public’s confidence in the kind of company we are, and that’s what the Board is focused on, and what the management under Vanessa’s leadership will do.”

Last week, the ACCC filed an action against Qantas at the Federal Court of Australia over the airline’s misleading conduct of advertising tickets for more than 8,000 flights that it had already cancelled but not removed from sale.

According to the commission, Qantas kept selling tickets on its website for an average of more than two weeks, and in some cases for up to 47 days, after the cancellation of the flights.

It also alleges that for about 70% of cancelled flights, Qantas either continued to sell tickets for the flight on its website for two days or more, or delayed informing existing ticketholders that their flight was cancelled for two days or more, or both.

Speaking on their investigation, ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlie said, “We allege that Qantas’ conduct in continuing to sell tickets to cancelled flights, and not updating ticketholders about cancelled flights, left customers with less time to make alternative arrangements and may have led to them paying higher prices to fly at a particular time not knowing that flight had already been cancelled.”

In response, Qantas previously said that during the ACCC conducted the investigation, it was a time of unprecedented upheaval for the entire airline industry, and that they have always practiced a longstanding approach to managing cancellations for flights, with a focus on providing customers with rebooking options or refunds.

“All airlines were experiencing well-publicised issues from a very challenging restart, with ongoing border uncertainty, industry wide staff shortages and fleet availability causing a lot of disruption,” the company said back then.

The post Qantas CEO Alan Joyce steps down amidst AU competition watchdog’s legal filings appeared first on MARKETECH APAC.

Trivago admitted that between December 2016 and September 2019 it received approximately $58m in cost-per-click fees from clicks on offers that were not the cheapest available offer for a given hotel, causing consumers to overpay hotel booking sites approximately $38m for rooms featured in those offers.

The Federal Court found in January 2020 that Trivago had breached the Australian Consumer Law by misleading consumers when representing that its website would quickly and easily help users identify the best deal or cheapest rates available for a given hotel.

Gina Cass-Gottlieb, chair at the ACCC, said, “One of the ACCC’s key priorities is to hold online businesses accountable for their representations to consumers and to ensure consumers are fully aware of the way these supposedly free services actually work and what influences the prices they display. The way Trivago displayed its recommendations when consumers were searching for a hotel room, meant consumers were misled into thinking they were getting a great hotel deal when that was not the case.”

She added, “Trivago also misled consumers by using strike-through prices which gave them the false impression that Trivago’s rates represented a saving when in fact they often compared a standard room with a luxury room at the same hotel.”

Cass-Gottlieb also said that said penalty sends a strong message not just to Trivago, but to other comparison websites, that they must not mislead consumers when making recommendations.

In August 2018 the ACCC instituted proceedings against Trivago and in January 2020, the Federal Court found Trivago had breached the Australian Consumer Law when it made misleading representations about hotel room rates on its website and television advertising.

In March 2020, Trivago appealed the Court’s decision. This was dismissed by the Full Federal Court in November 2020.

The post Trivago to pay $44.7m in penalties for misleading hotel room rates appeared first on MARKETECH APAC.

According to their report inquiry, Google has a dominant position in key parts of the adtech supply chain and estimates that more than 90% of ad impressions traded via the adtech supply chain passed through at least one Google service in 2020.

It is estimated that in Australia, at least 27% of advertiser spend on ads sold via the adtech supply chain was retained by adtech providers in 2020.

Furthermore, the report finds that Google has used its position to preference its own services and shield them from competition. For example, Google prevents rival adtech services from accessing ads on YouTube, providing its own adtech services with an important advantage. In addition, Google has also refused to participate in publisher-led header bidding, an industry innovation aimed at increasing competition for publishers’ inventory, and previously allowed its services to have a ‘last look’ opportunity to outbid rivals.

“Google has used its vertically integrated position to operate its adtech services in a way that has, over time, led to a less competitive adtech industry. This conduct has helped Google to establish and entrench its dominant position in the adtech supply chain,” Rod Sims, chair at ACCC, said.

Part of the tech giant’s dominance in the adtech sector are key acquisitions of several companies such as DoubleClick in 2007, AdMob in 2009, as well as YouTube in 2006. In addition, factors such as access to consumer and other data, access to exclusive inventory and integration across its adtech services cemented their dominance in the sector.

“Google’s activities across the supply chain also mean that, in a single transaction, Google can act on behalf of both the advertiser (the buyer) and the publisher (the seller) and operate the ad exchange connecting these two parties. As the interests of these parties do not align, this creates conflicts of interest for Google which can harm both advertisers and publishers,” Sims stated.

He added that the ACCC is concerned with Google’s adtech dominance, noting that the lack of competition has likely led to higher adtech fees. He further stated that an inefficient adtech industry means higher costs for both publishers and advertisers, which is likely to reduce the quality or quantity of online content and ultimately results in consumers paying more for advertised goods.

“The ACCC is considering specific allegations against Google under existing competition laws. However new regulatory solutions are needed to address Google’s dominance and to restore competition to the adtech sector for the benefit of businesses and consumers. We recommend rules be considered to manage conflicts of interest, prevent anti-competitive self-preferencing, and ensure rival adtech providers can compete on their merits,” Sims continued.

They have also noted that many of the concerns they identified in the adtech supply chain are similar to concerns in other digital platform markets, such as online search, social media, and app marketplaces. These markets are also dominated by one or two key providers, which benefit from vertical integration, leading to significant competition concerns. In many cases, these are compounded by a lack of transparency.

“We have identified systemic competition concerns relating to conduct over many years and multiple adtech services, including conduct that harms rivals. Investigation and enforcement proceedings under general competition laws are not well suited to deal with these sorts of broad concerns, and can take too long if anti-competitive harm is to be prevented,” Sims concluded.

Google has access to a large volume and range of first-party data gathered through its customer-facing services, such as Search, Maps, and YouTube. The extent to which Google uses its first-party data to advantage its adtech businesses is not clear and is a source of confusion among industry stakeholders.

The report also recommends that under the proposed new sector-specific rules, the ACCC be given the power to develop and implement special measures to address competition issues caused by an adtech provider’s data advantage, such as data separation or data access requirements to address the competition risks that may arise from the use of first-party data.

The post AU’s market watchdog raises concerns about Google’s dominance in adtech sector appeared first on MARKETECH APAC.