What are the ACCC rules for comparative advertising in health products in Australia?
CompliGUARD reviews this compliance area against TGA · AHPRA · FSANZ · ACCC frameworks for Australian health brands — here's what the regulations say.
CompliGUARD reviews comparative health advertising against the Australian Consumer Law. Comparative advertising for health products in Australia is permitted under the Australian Consumer Law but must be accurate, not misleading, and based on a fair and verifiable comparison — claims that a product is better than, faster than, or more effective than a competitor must be capable of substantiation at the time they are made.
The rule: Australian Consumer Law, Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Schedule 2, s.18 and s.29(1)(g)
The Australian Consumer Law does not prohibit comparative advertising — it prohibits misleading comparative advertising. Under s.29(1)(g), a business must not make false or misleading representations that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade compared to another product. The ACCC requires that comparative claims be based on a fair and like-for-like comparison, that the comparison is accurate at the time of publication, and that evidence supporting the comparison exists before the claim is made. For health products, this standard applies to claims comparing clinical outcomes, nutrient content, ingredient concentrations, and price.
What this means in practice
- Before making any comparative claim, hold the evidence that supports it — the comparison must be verifiable and the evidence must exist at the time the claim is published.
- Ensure comparisons are like-for-like — comparing your product's protein content per serve to a competitor's protein content per 100g is not a fair comparison and may be misleading.
- Update or remove comparative claims when the comparison becomes inaccurate — if a competitor changes their formulation, your comparison may no longer be valid.
- Do not use outdated or cherry-picked data to support comparative claims — the ACCC assesses whether the comparison accurately represents the products being compared.
- For health outcome comparisons ('more effective than X for Y'), clinical evidence is required — anecdotal data or manufacturer testing alone is typically insufficient.
Common mistakes
Comparing different serving sizes or concentrations without disclosure
A comparison that states 'more protein than Brand X' while using a larger serve size or higher concentration in the comparison is misleading — the overall impression created suggests superiority that the like-for-like data does not support.
Disclose the basis of the comparison explicitly — 'per 30g serve'. Ensure the comparison uses equivalent measures for both products.
Using outdated competitor information in comparative claims
Comparative claims based on a competitor's previous formulation, pricing, or performance — where the competitor has since changed — are misleading at the time of publication. The ACCC assesses the accuracy of the claim when it was seen by consumers.
Establish a process for reviewing comparative claims against current competitor information before publishing and at regular intervals during the campaign.
Implying clinical superiority without clinical evidence
Claims that a product produces better health outcomes than a competitor without clinical evidence constitute misleading representations under s.18 — even if the claim is framed as an opinion or is qualified with 'may' or 'could'.
Restrict comparative health outcome claims to those supported by peer-reviewed or independently conducted clinical evidence. Retain the evidence and cite the source in the advertising where possible.
Compliant vs non-compliant example
❌ NON-COMPLIANT
Comparing different serving sizes or concentrations without disclosure
✅ COMPLIANT
Disclose the basis of the comparison explicitly — 'per 30g serve'. Ensure the comparison uses equivalent measures for both products.
The enforcement context
The ACCC has taken enforcement action against health product businesses for misleading comparative advertising on multiple occasions. Comparative claims are actively monitored, particularly in the supplement, food, and medical device categories. Competitors can lodge complaints with the ACCC about comparative advertising — making comparative claims a higher-visibility enforcement risk than non-comparative content.
Before you publish, check it.
CompliGUARD reviews comparative health advertising claims against ACCC Australian Consumer Law requirements — including substantiation standards and like-for-like comparison analysis.
Start free reviewRelated questions
Regulatory references
- Australian Consumer Law (Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Schedule 2), s.18
- Australian Consumer Law (Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Schedule 2), s.29(1)(g)
- ACCC Advertising and Selling Guide, July 2021