Skip to main content
FairWorkMate
FCAFederal Court of Australia · 12 October 2015

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Homeopathy Plus! Australia Pty Limited (No 2)

Citation: [2015] FCA 1090

At a glance

Penalty
$138,000

What happened

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) took legal action against Homeopathy Plus! Australia Pty Limited and the Respondent, alleging they made misleading claims on their website about the whooping cough vaccine and homeopathy. The ACCC argued these statements breached sections 18 and 29 of the Australian Consumer Law. Specifically, the company published articles suggesting the vaccine was ineffective and that homeopathic treatments were a safe alternative.

What was decided

The Federal Court found Homeopathy Plus! Australia Pty Limited and the Respondent guilty of misleading and deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law. The court issued injunctions preventing them from making similar statements about vaccines and homeopathy for five years. Homeopathy Plus! was ordered to pay a penalty of $115,000, while the Respondent was ordered to pay $23,000. Costs were awarded to the ACCC.

What it means for employers

Businesses must ensure marketing materials are accurate and truthful, particularly when relating to health or safety concerns. Claims about products need a reasonable basis in medical science. Companies should review their online content regularly for compliance with consumer law.

What it means for employees

Employees involved in creating or publishing company communications should be aware of Australian Consumer Law requirements. It's important to verify claims and avoid making misleading statements, especially regarding health-related products or services.

Want this applied to your situation?

Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.

general-protectionsmisclassificationunderpayment

Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:

https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2015/2015fca1090

Want more cases like this?

FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.

Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.

Get notified on new Fair Work cases

Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.

Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →

← All cases