5 things on your business website that could attract ACCC attention

Why website copy is where most ACCC problems start

When the ACCC ran its 2023 internet sweep, it reviewed 247 businesses across eight sectors and found that 57% had made concerning environmental or related claims. The majority of those claims were on standard website surfaces — homepages, product pages, About pages and packaging photography — rather than in paid advertising.¹

"Misleading sustainability and environmental claims" has been a stated ACCC compliance and enforcement priority every year from 2023–24 through 2025–26, and broader misleading conduct under sections 18 and 29 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) has been a permanent enduring priority for many years.² The five patterns below are the ones that come up repeatedly in ACCC guidance, sweeps, infringement notices and Federal Court cases.

1. Vague words like "eco", "green" or "sustainable" without a defined scope

The ACCC's December 2023 guidance Making environmental claims: A guide for business lists eight principles. Principle 5 — avoid broad and unqualified claims — is the one small business copy trips on most often. Words like eco, green, eco-friendly, sustainable, planet-friendly and kind to the earth are treated as broad representations about the whole product or whole business unless a scope is stated.³

This principle is enforced through ACL s 18 (misleading or deceptive conduct) and s 29 (false or misleading representations about the standard, quality or composition of goods). Neither section requires intent — a claim made in good faith can still contravene the ACL if it is likely to mislead the average consumer.⁴

Practical rewrite: replace "Our sustainable range" with something the evidence actually supports, such as "Our cotton range is certified to Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS)" or "Our shipper boxes are 100% recycled cardboard, FSC certified." A specific attribute plus a source is defensible; a broad adjective on its own is not.

2. Leaf icons, ticks and "seals" that look like certifications but aren't

Principle 6 of the ACCC guidance addresses trust marks and symbols directly: logos, badges and seals that suggest independent certification must actually be certifications, with the certifying body identified and the scope of what is certified clear on the page.³

The ACCC has publicly identified generic leaf motifs, unattributed ticks and "eco" badges as high-risk patterns because average consumers read them as third-party endorsement. Legitimate Australian schemes each have a defined mark and a public certification register, including the Australasian Recycling Label (ARL), Climate Active, Good Environmental Choice Australia (GECA), GreenPower and B Corp.⁵⁶⁷⁸⁹

Practical rewrite: if a badge on the site is decorative, remove it. If it's a real certification, link the badge to the certifying body's page for that specific product or business and include the certificate number where the scheme uses one.

3. "Recyclable" on packaging that isn't accepted in kerbside collection

Principle 1 of the ACCC guidance requires claims to be truthful and accurate; principle 3 requires businesses not to leave out important information. "Recyclable" is a common failure point because a material that is technically recyclable in industrial conditions may not be accepted in Australian household kerbside collection — and the average consumer reads "recyclable" as "I can put this in my yellow bin."³

The ARL programme, administered by APCO, exists specifically to give consumers accurate, standardised guidance on what to do with each component of a pack. Using the ARL correctly — including the "Check Locally" and "Not Recyclable" categories where they apply — is the way to make packaging recyclability claims based on ACCC guidance.⁵

Practical rewrite: swap "Recyclable packaging" for the actual ARL classification, per component. For example: "Box: recyclable in kerbside. Inner sleeve: check locally. Window film: not recyclable."

4. Carbon claims — "carbon neutral", "net zero", "low carbon" — with no methodology

Principle 2 requires evidence to back claims and principle 8 requires substantiation to be readily available. Carbon-related claims are singled out in the guidance because the underlying methodology (which greenhouse gases, which scope, which accounting standard, which offsets, verified by whom) is invisible to the consumer unless the business publishes it.³

In Australia the recognised government-backed certification is Climate Active, which certifies against a public standard and lists every certified organisation, product and service on a public register.⁶ ASIC's greenwashing enforcement actions against Vanguard, Mercer and Active Super — which resulted in Federal Court penalties totalling over $22.4 million — turned in large part on the gap between the claim as consumers read it and the underlying methodology or holdings.¹⁰

Practical rewrite: replace bare claims like "We're carbon neutral" with the scheme, scope and verification — for example, "Our operations are certified carbon neutral under Climate Active for the FY24 reporting period (scope 1 and 2, plus selected scope 3 categories)." If none of that is in place, don't make the claim.

5. Aspirational targets written as if they've already happened

Principle 4 requires businesses to be clear and specific about what they are doing now versus what they plan to do. Statements like "net zero by 2030", "moving to 100% renewable" or "designing out plastic" describe future targets. When they appear in hero banners, on product pages or in the present tense on About pages, they are often read as current-state claims.³

The ACCC has flagged this pattern specifically: aspirational language becomes a misleading representation when it isn't clearly identified as a target, with a baseline, a scope and a date. This is also the pattern the Federal Court penalised in the Clorox / GLAD case, where "Ocean Plastic" branding on kitchen tidy bags conveyed a current-state claim about ocean-recovered plastic that the actual sourcing did not support. The Court ordered $8.25 million in penalties in April 2024.¹¹

Practical rewrite: date the target and mark it as a target. "Target: 100% renewable electricity across owned sites by end of FY30 (baseline FY23)" is defensible. "Powered by renewable energy" as a headline, with no scope or timeframe, is not.

A short self-check for this week

1. List every environmental or trust-related claim on the homepage, About page, product pages, packaging photography and FAQs.
2. For each claim, note which of the ACCC's eight principles it engages — usually principle 1 (accurate), 2 (evidence), 3 (no omissions), 4 (clear about aspirations) or 5 (avoid broad claims).³
3. For each claim, note the specific piece of evidence behind it — a certificate, a measurement, a supplier document, a Climate Active listing, an ARL registration.
4. Where evidence isn't there, either produce it or rewrite the claim to something the evidence does support.
5. Save a dated copy of the wording and the evidence. If the ACCC issues a substantiation notice under ACL s 219, that record is what a response is built from.⁴

Related reading

For deeper detail on individual patterns, see the eco-friendly and sustainable claims checklist, the carbon neutral claims guide, the recyclable packaging guide and the About page greenwashing audit. For the enforcement picture, see why the ACCC isn't just targeting large corporations and Australian enforcement examples.