Skip to content
Coverage

Hidden fees

Australia — single price rule, ACL s.48

NationalAUDerived or secondary source

Australia

Rule id
fees.au
Version
1.0.0
In force from
January 1, 2011
Last read against its sources
August 5, 2026
Countries bound
Australia

In plain language

What this regime says.

ACL s.48 requires any quoted price to be accompanied by the single total price, prominently and as a single figure. It has applied since 2011 and the ACCC enforces it, particularly against airlines, ticketing and accommodation.

Who is covered

Consumers dealing with traders in Australia.

What you get

The loss you suffered, recoverable under s.236, usually through a state civil tribunal.

Where claims go wrong

  • Expecting the ACCC to resolve your individual dispute. It enforces; the state tribunal decides your case.
  • Overlooking the excessive-surcharge rules where the fee was a card surcharge.
The official claim route

Authority

Every citation,
with its pinpoint.

A claim that cites “EU law” gets filed. A claim that cites Article 7(1)(c) gets answered. These are the exact coordinates this entry rests on.
  1. Australian Consumer Law, s.48 (Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Sch. 2)Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Schedule 2 — the Australian Consumer LawURL verified 2026-08-05s.48 — a person must not, in trade or commerce, make a representation with respect to an amount that, if paid, would constitute a part of the consideration for the supply of goods or services unless the person also specifies, in a prominent way and as a single figure, the single price for the goods or services. See also s.18 (misleading or deceptive conduct), s.29(1)(i) (false or misleading representations with respect to price), s.236 (damages) and s.237 (compensation orders)

Sources

Where a figure is indexed, converted or published by a regulator rather than fixed in the instrument, the provenance is recorded separately. Anything marked as a modelled estimate is exactly that — a model, not a statutory number.

What it imposes

Clocks, defences and the ladder.

A rule module builds these while it evaluates, because a limitation period depends on which forum is open to you. What follows is the structure this regime produces — deliberately with no dates and no figures, because those belong to your facts rather than to the law.

The clocks it starts

  • Limitation period (6 years)Fatal if missedSection 236(2) of the ACL requires an action for damages to be commenced within six years of the day the cause of action accrued.Australian Consumer Law, s.48 (Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Sch. 2) — s.48 — a person must not, in trade or commerce, make a representation with respect to an amount that, if paid, would constitute a part of the consideration for the supply of goods or services unless the person also specifies, in a prominent way and as a single figure, the single price for the goods or services. See also s.18 (misleading or deceptive conduct), s.29(1)(i) (false or misleading representations with respect to price), s.236 (damages) and s.237 (compensation orders)Limitation period
  • Card chargeback window (commonly 120 days)Card scheme rules generally allow a dispute within about 120 days of the transaction for a charge that does not match what was agreed. It is a scheme rule rather than a legal right, but it is fast and free, and it is the deadline most likely to pass while a consumer is still exchanging emails.Filing window

What it entitles you to, beyond money

  • Ask for the fee back, in writing, citing the ruleWrite to the trader, quote Australian Consumer Law, s.48 (Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Sch. 2), state the advertised price, the amount charged and the difference of 28.00 AUD, and give a deadline. Most fee disputes of this size are settled at this step because the alternative costs the trader more than the fee.s.48 — a person must not, in trade or commerce, make a representation with respect to an amount that, if paid, would constitute a part of the consideration for the supply of goods or services unless the person also specifies, in a prominent way and as a single figure, the single price for the goods or services. See also s.18 (misleading or deceptive conduct), s.29(1)(i) (false or misleading representations with respect to price), s.236 (damages) and s.237 (compensation orders)
  • Dispute the difference with your card issuerA charge materially different from the advertised price is a recognised card-scheme dispute reason, and it runs on its own clock — commonly 120 days from the transaction — independently of anything the trader says. Do not let that window pass while you argue.
  • Report it to Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and state fair trading officesPrice-transparency rules are enforced by regulators from complaint patterns. One report costs you minutes and is how a trader's practice becomes an enforcement case. It is not a claim and will not refund you by itself.

What the other side will say

Each of these is a refusal this regime lets a counterparty attempt, paired with the answer to it. Reading them before you write is worth more than any amount of polish on the letter itself.

"The fee was disclosed in our terms and conditions"

high likelihood

The trader points at a fees page, a footnote, an asterisk, a hyperlink, or a line in the terms accepted at checkout, and treats that as compliance.

What answers it

Ask which rule they say they complied with. A disclosure buried behind a link satisfies neither kind of obligation. Under a total-price rule the fee had to be in the price you were shown when you were shopping, so a later disclosure is not a defence at all — the violation was complete when the price was displayed. Under a disclosure rule the information must be clear, conspicuous and given before the transactional decision, which a hyperlink or a terms page is repeatedly held not to be.

"That is a tax or a government charge, so it is excluded"

high likelihood

The trader labels a fee of its own — a "resort fee", a "service fee", a "regulatory recovery fee", a "municipal cost recovery charge" — in language that sounds governmental.

What answers it

The exclusions are narrow and they are about who levies the charge, not what it is called. A charge is excluded only where it is imposed by a government on the transaction and passed through unchanged. A fee the business sets, keeps, and merely names after a regulatory cost is the business's own charge and must be in the total price. Ask them to identify the taxing authority, the instrument imposing it, and the rate. A charge with no answer to those three questions is not a government charge.

"You saw the total before you paid and went ahead anyway"

high likelihood

The trader argues that completing the purchase after seeing the final figure cures everything that came before it.

What answers it

Under a total-price rule the breach happened when the price was advertised, and proceeding at checkout neither cures it nor waives it. Under a disclosure rule the question is whether the omission was capable of causing the average consumer to take a transactional decision they would not otherwise have taken — which is exactly what drip pricing is designed to achieve, since by the time the fee appears the consumer has invested time, entered details, and in a ticketing context is inside a countdown timer.

"That fee is charged by someone else, not us"

medium likelihood

A ticketing platform blames the venue, a hotel booking site blames the hotel, an airline blames the payment processor.

What answers it

The obligation attaches to whoever advertises the price. If the fee is unavoidable to complete the purchase then it forms part of the price you must pay, and it belongs in the figure that was advertised, whoever ultimately receives it. Ask the trader to show that the fee is genuinely optional or genuinely outside their control; if a purchase cannot be completed without it, it is neither.

"This is standard practice in our industry"

medium likelihood

The trader treats the prevalence of drip pricing as evidence that it is lawful.

What answers it

Prevalence is why the rules were written, not a defence to them. Regulators on four continents legislated against this practice between 2022 and 2025 precisely because it had become universal. Ask the trader to identify the provision it relies on rather than the conduct of its competitors.

Where to take it next

  1. Written demand to the traderQuote the rule, give both figures and the difference, and set a deadline of fourteen days. Say that you will report the pricing to the regulator and raise a card dispute if it is not resolved.Claim directtypically 14 days
  2. Card chargeback or payment disputeRaise it in parallel, not afterwards. The scheme window is short and independent of any correspondence with the trader.Claim directtypically 45 days
  3. Complain to Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and state fair trading officesFree and quick. Regulators in this area act on patterns rather than individual complaints, so this will not refund you — but it is the mechanism by which a practice is stopped, and several of the largest fee cases began as complaint clusters.Regulatortypically 60 daysofficial page
  4. Small claims or the equivalent low-value courtBinding on themA fee claim is well suited to a small-value court: the facts are two numbers and a screenshot, and the trader must send someone. Take the advertisement or the search result showing the price, the receipt showing the charge, and your written demand.Small claimstypically 120 days

Documents

What this regime can produce.

Every one of these is a document you send yourself, in your own name. Duesday never writes to anybody on your behalf and is never anyone’s agent.

The same claim type elsewhere

European Union — price indication, drip pricing, pre-ticked extras and surchargingEUSupranational — 27 countriesDirective 98/6/EC, arts. 2(a) and 3(1)Confidence: highEuropean Union — air fare all-inclusive pricing, Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 art. 23EUAIRSupranational — 31 countriesRegulation (EC) No 1008/2008, art. 23(1)Confidence: highUnited Kingdom — drip pricing under the DMCCA 2024 and the CPUTRGBNational — United KingdomDigital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, Part 4Confidence: mediumCalifornia — SB 478 Honest Pricing Law and the Consumers Legal Remedies ActUS-CASub-national — United StatesCal. Civ. Code § 1780Confidence: highCanada — drip pricing under the Competition ActCANational — CanadaCompetition Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34), ss. 52, 74.01 and 36Confidence: mediumColorado — Consumer Protection ActUS-COSub-national — United StatesC.R.S. §§ 6-1-105, 6-1-113Confidence: mediumConnecticut — Unfair Trade Practices ActUS-CTSub-national — United StatesConn. Gen. Stat. §§ 42-110b, 42-110gConfidence: mediumMassachusetts — junk-fee regulations and Chapter 93AUS-MASub-national — United StatesM.G.L. c. 93A, § 9Confidence: medium

Other rights in the same countries

Australia — Australia Post compensation and Express Post guaranteeAUNational — AustraliaAustralian Postal Corporation Act 1989 and Australia Post’s Terms and ConditionsConfidence: lowAustralia — Australian Consumer Law consumer guaranteesAUNational — AustraliaAustralian Consumer Law, s 60 (guarantee as to due care and skill)Confidence: highAustralia — Australian Consumer Law unfair contract terms and misleading conductAUNational — AustraliaAustralian Consumer Law, ss.23-28 (unfair contract terms)Confidence: mediumAustralia — ePayments Code and Australian Consumer LawAUNational — AustraliaePayments Code (ASIC), Chapter CConfidence: mediumAustralia — Medicare, bulk billing, the MBS and informed financial consentAUNational — AustraliaHealth Insurance Act 1973 (Cth), s. 20AConfidence: mediumAustralia — Part IVA representative proceedingsAUNational — AustraliaFederal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), Part IVAConfidence: mediumAustralia — State operator passenger charters (NSW TrainLink, V/Line, Queensland Rail) and the Australian Consumer LawAUNational — AustraliaAustralian Consumer Law (Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Schedule 2) and the state operators' customer chartersConfidence: lowAustralia — unclaimed money held by ASIC, and lost superannuation held by the ATOAUNational — AustraliaBanking Act 1959 (Cth), s. 69Confidence: medium

Does this one reach your facts?

The engine runs every regime that could apply at once and reconciles them, rather than making you guess which page to read.

Run your factsBack to the catalogue

Not a law firm. Not legal advice. You send it yourself. This page describes a law; it is not advice about your situation and no outcome is promised.