58.7 per cent of Scamwatch reports that involved a financial loss in the first nine months of 2026 were about buying and selling scams, which is the backdrop for a third holiday enforcement sweep aimed at promotional claims. As of November 10, 2026, Australia’s competition regulator said the sweep will examine sitewide and storewide claims, countdown timers, scarcity messaging and reference prices, and will for the first time look at websites, emails and social media togetherACCC.
Six claim types under the microscope
The list is short and unglamorous: a sale described as storewide while a large part of the range sits outside it, a countdown that keeps running after the stated end, testimonials that were bought, stock described as nearly gone when it is not, and a strikethrough price the product was rarely or never sold atACCC. Each item maps to a field a retailer already publishes, which is why the exposure is a data problem before it is a legal one.
Automation does not transfer responsibility. Scarcity messages are frequently produced by third-party marketing tools, inventory systems or e-commerce plugins, and the regulator has been explicit that automated generation does not remove the obligation to make the claim accurateJackson McDonald. A plugin that defaults to "only 2 left" will keep doing so until someone configures it otherwise.
| Claim | What the page shows | What has to exist behind it |
|---|---|---|
| Storewide sale | Banner across the category | Exclusion list, published |
| Countdown | Timer to midnight | End date enforced in the campaign |
| Scarcity | Only a few left | Live stock by location |
| Reference price | Was A$229, now A$149 | Evidence of sales at the higher price |
| Testimonial | Customer quote | Verifiable, unpaid source |
Why reference prices fail first
Strikethrough pricing is the claim most likely to break, because it depends on history rather than on the page. A retailer that ran the higher price for a fortnight in spring and then discounted for six weeks has a defensible story; one that never sold at the higher price does not, no matter how the banner is worded.
The practical test is blunt: could a shopper have bought the item at the advertised reference price the day before the promotion began? If the answer is no, the saving being advertised is a construction, and the documentation that would defend it does not exist.
What a monitoring routine looks like
Three checks that catch most of it
The first check is coverage: count how many products in a category actually carry the promotional badge, and compare it with the wording of the banner. The second is timing: confirm that the campaign ends when the timer says it ends, including in email and social placements, which is where the sweep is now lookingInternet Retailing. The third is history: pull the price series for every advertised reference price and flag any SKU without sales at that level.
None of this requires new systems. It requires that the promotional calendar, the price history and the live page agree with each other on the same afternoon, which is a coordination problem most retailers have already solved for inventory and rarely for claims.
The commercial argument is not only about penalties. A shopper who discovers that a countdown was reset, or that the struck-through price was never charged, stops treating the badge as information. The discount stops working on the customers who respond to discounts, which is a slower and more expensive loss than a fine.
FAQ
Does the sweep apply outside Australia?
The enforcement is Australian, but the claim types are the same ones regulators and platforms police elsewhere, so the checks transfer.
Are automated scarcity messages exempt?
No. Responsibility sits with the retailer even when a third-party tool generates the wording.
How far back must price history go?
Far enough to show the reference price was genuinely offered for a reasonable period, not a single day.
What is the cheapest fix?
Turn off auto-generated urgency messaging until the underlying data can support it.
