The Federal Court of Australia has found that online training provider, RSA Express (trading as Express Online Training), engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and made false or misleading representations in marketing its Responsible Service of Alcohol (RSA) and construction induction (White Card) courses.
Key takeaway: When assessing breach of the Australian Consumer Law, the Court focused on the overall impression of a representation from the perspective of the ordinary reasonable consumer.
The decision is particularly relevant to businesses using "pay upon completion", "free trial" subscription, online education or other digital purchase pathways. It confirms that payment timing must be communicated clearly and prominently: a business cannot rely on fine print or buried explanations if the overall impression of its advertising and website structure leads consumers to believe something different in relation to when and how to pay for the good or service.
Express Online Training carries on a business of offering and supplying online training to consumers, enabling them to obtain industry-recognised accreditations.
From October 2019 to November 2023, Express Online Training offered self-paced online RSA and White Card courses through its website.
These courses were promoted on their website and Google and Bing advertisements, using statements such as "Pay Only When You Pass", "Best of all – with us you don't have to pay until you pass!" and "Same Day Interim Certificate".
The ACCC alleged that these statements led consumers to believe that they would not be required, or even asked, to pay until they had successfully completed the course.
However, in practice, consumers were prompted to pay after completing only the initial "knowledge assessment". At that point, the consumer was still required to undertake further assessments to complete the course. In many cases, consumers also could not schedule those further assessments on the same day, meaning they could not complete the course and obtain certification on the same day.
The Court held that Express Online Training's conduct contravened sections 18, 29 and 34 of Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (ACL).
The reasons for the Court's decisions are set out below.
Section 18 of the ACL prohibits a person, in trade or commerce, from engaging in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive.
To establish a claim under section 18, the Court must:
Where conduct is directed to the public, the assessment is made by reference to the ordinary and reasonable member of the relevant class. Here, that class was people considering obtaining RSA or White Card certification during October 2019 to November 2023.
The Court held that Express Online Training's advertising statements, together with the structure of its website, conveyed to consumers that they would not be required, or asked to pay, until they had completed the course. As this was not the case, the Court held that Express Online Training contravened section 18 of the ACL.
Section 29(1)(g) of the ACL prohibits a person, in connection with the supply or possible supply of services, from making a false or misleading representation that the service has particular uses or benefits.
The concept of "false or misleading" under section 29 is materially similar to "misleading or deceptive" under section 18. However, section 29 requires proof that the representation was actually false or misleading.
The Court found that Express Online Training represented that its RSA and White Card courses had the following benefits:
However, these representations were found to be false or misleading because:
Accordingly, the Court held that Express Online Training breached section 29(1)(g) of the ACL.
Section 34 of the ACL prohibits conduct liable to mislead the public as to the nature, characteristics, suitability for purpose, or quantity of services.
In relation to the interpretation of section 34, the Court noted:
The Court explained that the "pay only after passing" feature was an inherent characteristic of Express Online Training's service, relating directly to how the course could be accessed and paid for. It was directed to the public because it appeared in public online advertisements and on its website.
The Court found that the high threshold in section 34 was met, as:
The evidence was that only 2% of consumers paid after full completion, while large numbers paid after the initial knowledge assessment but never became certified.
Accordingly, the Court held that Express Online Training breached section 34 of the ACL.
ACCC v RSA Express Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 722 confirms that the overall impression created by online advertising, website design and customer payment prompts can constitute misleading or deceptive conduct under the ACL. The case highlights that:
price, payment mechanisms and the timing of payment fall within the meaning of "characteristics" of services for the purpose of section 34 of the ACL. This is particularly important for businesses promoting "pay later", "free trial", "no upfront payment", subscription or deferred payment models as misleading consumers about when or how to pay may constitute a breach of section 34 of the ACL.
For further advice on this topic, please contact Eva Lin at Jackson McDonald.
This article was written by Sophia Smythe, Lawyer, Disputes.