Australian oral care brand Hismile has paid $138,600 in penalties after the country's competition regulator found it staged fake customer reaction videos on social media and posted misleading claims about a teeth gloss product that it later discontinued.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) announced today - June 12, 2026 - that it had issued seven infringement notices to Hismile Pty Ltd, a cosmetics company headquartered in Burleigh Heads, Queensland. The notices relate to videos that the company posted on its social media platforms in which individuals appearing to be random members of the public in a public setting tried Hismile products and expressed satisfaction with the results. According to the ACCC, those individuals were in fact Hismile employees, not random shoppers.

The penalty is significant by Australian infringement notice standards. Unlike court proceedings - which can result in substantially larger penalties - infringement notices allow regulators to impose fixed fines without litigation. The $138,600 figure reflects seven separate notices, each corresponding to a distinct video that the ACCC alleged breached the Australian Consumer Law.

What the ACCC found

The ACCC identified two distinct categories of alleged deception in Hismile's social media content.

The first involved the staging of what appeared to be spontaneous consumer reactions. Hismile posted videos depicting apparently random members of the public trying its products in a public environment and expressing positive responses. According to the ACCC, those people were Hismile staff. The seven infringement notices all relate to this category of content.

The second involved the Glostik Tooth Gloss, a product in the company's range that Hismile promoted on social media in a way the ACCC says may have given consumers the impression that it would remove stains from teeth. The ACCC alleged this was misleading: according to the regulator, the product worked only by temporarily concealing stains rather than removing them. There is a material difference between the two. Concealment is a cosmetic effect that disappears after the product is no longer applied; stain removal implies a more lasting result affecting the physical condition of the tooth surface.

Hismile has admitted that its conduct in posting those videos was, or was likely, misleading, in breach of the Australian Consumer Law, according to ACCC Commissioner Luke Woodward. Hismile has since discontinued the Glostik Tooth Gloss product.

"Misleading social media advertisements can reach millions of consumers and may impact their purchasing decisions," Commissioner Woodward said. "All businesses must ensure they are not making misleading or deceptive claims on social media platforms."

Woodward also said: "As a result of these social media videos, consumers may have been misled into buying products that did not have the results promoted by Hismile."

A court-enforceable undertaking with specific commitments

Beyond the financial penalties, Hismile provided a court-enforceable undertaking committing to a series of corrective actions. That undertaking raises the stakes for future non-compliance - any breach becomes a contempt of court matter rather than a question of regulatory negotiation.

Under the terms of the undertaking, Hismile has agreed that it will not represent that any of its staff is a random member of the public providing a testimonial, review, or commentary regarding any Hismile product. The company has also agreed that it will not represent that the Glostik Tooth Gloss, or any other product, produces permanent results when this is not the case.

Additionally, Hismile will establish and implement a competition and consumer law compliance program. The company will also publish a notice on its website and social platforms informing consumers about the ACCC action. Publication orders of this type serve a dual purpose: they reach consumers who may have encountered the original misleading content, and they function as a reputational consequence that sits alongside the financial penalty.

The full undertaking is available on the ACCC's public register under Hismile Pty Ltd.

Who is Hismile?

Hismile launched its first teeth whitening kit in 2014, positioning the product as peroxide-free and safe. The company is based at Burleigh Connection Road, Burleigh Heads, Queensland 4220, and employs between 51 and 200 people, according to the company's own LinkedIn page. Its products include oral care products, cosmetic products, electric toothbrushes, lip balms, and related ancillary items. Hismile's LinkedIn profile describes the company as working with leading dentists and describes its mission as making "smile care" both effective and safe.

The company sells products through its own website, third-party e-commerce platforms, and at various retail outlets. Hismile's products are available in Australia and overseas. According to the company's LinkedIn profile, the verified page was established on August 14, 2024 - indicating the brand had been seeking to formalise its professional presence at a point when regulatory scrutiny of its marketing practices was already underway.

The company's internal structure is split across six departments: Operations, Digital, Marketing, Creative, and People and Culture, according to its corporate profile. That organisational complexity makes the staging of social media videos using employees particularly pointed from a compliance perspective: the videos were not the work of an isolated rogue actor but appear to have involved a degree of planning and internal coordination.

The regulatory context: ACCC's sustained focus on social media

The Hismile penalty does not emerge in isolation. The ACCC has pursued a sustained multi-year effort to address deceptive practices in social media advertising and online reviews.

In January 2023, the ACCC conducted its first social media sweep specifically targeting influencers. That sweep examined whether social media personalities were adequately disclosing commercial relationships. The regulator published its findings in December 2023, releasing a report on the internet sweep and a separate report on social media testimonials and endorsements. Those reports laid important groundwork for subsequent enforcement. As the PhotobookShop case in March 2026 demonstrated, the ACCC had already begun translating its findings into penalty actions.

In March 2026, the ACCC fined Tomsem Consolidated Pty Ltd, trading as PhotobookShop, $39,600 after the company instructed influencers to hide paid partnerships and edited out negative product feedback on Instagram. That case involved two infringement notices. By comparison, the Hismile case involved seven - a substantially larger number - and the penalty amount is more than three times larger.

The distinction between the two cases is instructive. PhotobookShop's conduct centred on the non-disclosure of commercial relationships between the brand and influencers. Hismile's conduct went further: the company itself staged the "organic" consumer reactions using its own staff. No external influencer was involved; Hismile created the deceptive content directly.

"The ACCC has prioritised consumer and fair-trading issues relating to manipulative or deceptive advertising in the digital economy for several years," Commissioner Woodward said.

Why the fake testimonial structure matters

The use of employees posing as random consumers in advertising is a distinct legal and ethical issue from influencer non-disclosure. In the influencer disclosure context, the question is whether a real consumer's real opinion is clearly marked as paid. In the fake testimonial context, the advertised experience itself is fabricated - no actual consumer formed the reaction shown.

This distinction has commercial consequences for marketing professionals. Testimonial advertising operates on the premise that a real person with no commercial stake in the outcome tried a product and formed an authentic response. That authenticity is the mechanism by which testimonials influence purchasing decisions. When the "testimonial" is staged by employees, the mechanism is present but the claimed foundation is absent.

The FTC codified its prohibition on fake reviews and undisclosed paid testimonials in August 2024, establishing a framework in the United States that mirrors what Australian consumer law had already been applied to achieve. The ACCC's action against Hismile represents a parallel development in the Australian enforcement landscape, applying existing consumer law to conduct that regulators in multiple jurisdictions have independently identified as harmful.

What makes the Hismile case technically interesting is the specific mechanism of concealment. The employees were not simply voicing scripted lines in a studio setting - they were staged in what appeared to be a public setting, encountering Hismile products as if for the first time. The public-setting staging is what the ACCC identifies as creating the impression of random public sampling. Placing employees in locations that signal spontaneity - rather than in a clearly branded environment - is the element that the ACCC characterises as the deceptive act.

The Glostik mechanics: concealment versus removal

The Glostik Tooth Gloss allegation is separate from the employee-staging issue and merits its own technical analysis. The product, which has now been discontinued, was positioned in a category that trades on the idea of visible whitening results. The ACCC's specific concern was that social media videos may have led consumers to believe the product would remove stains.

The product worked through optical concealment - a mechanism by which a substance applied to the tooth surface temporarily alters how light reflects from that surface, making the teeth appear whiter. This is the same category of technology as colour-correcting toothpastes and purple-tinted dental products that work through colour theory rather than chemistry acting on the tooth structure itself.

Stain removal, by contrast, involves a chemical process that acts on the staining compounds embedded in or on the enamel. Products using peroxide or phthalimido-peroxycaproic acid (PAP) as active ingredients fall into the stain-removal category, as they oxidise staining molecules. The Glostik product did not claim to use these mechanisms. The gap between what the videos implied and what the product actually did is the conduct the ACCC identified as potentially misleading.

The product's discontinuation removes the immediate commercial question, but the undertaking's prohibition extends to "any other product" claiming permanent results when this is not the case. That broader scope indicates the ACCC was concerned not just with a single product but with a pattern of how Hismile communicated product effects.

Implications for marketing professionals

For brands running social media campaigns - particularly in the beauty, wellness, and personal care categories - the Hismile case carries several concrete lessons. The line between staged content and organic-seeming content is under active regulatory scrutiny in Australia. A video filmed in a public location using employees is not automatically treated as clearly branded content. The visual cues that signal "random person on the street" are the same cues that the ACCC evaluates when determining whether a misleading impression was created.

The second dimension concerns product claim specificity on social media. Short-form video formats - the kind used on TikTok, Instagram Reels, and similar platforms - often compress product demonstrations into a few seconds. That compression creates risk: a visual that shows teeth appearing dramatically whiter after product application may communicate more than the brand's written copy claims. Where the visual impression exceeds what the product can actually deliver, the gap between impression and reality is where regulatory risk sits.

The ACCC's approach of issuing infringement notices rather than pursuing Federal Court proceedings in the Hismile case is consistent with how Australian consumer law enforcement has operated across similar matters. Infringement notices are faster and do not require the regulator to prove its case in court - but they do require the recipient to admit the conduct was, or was likely, misleading. Hismile's admission is part of the public record as a result of this process.

The court-enforceable undertaking adds a layer of accountability beyond the financial penalties. If Hismile were to return to similar conduct - using staff as fake public testimonials or implying permanent product results - that would constitute a breach of a court undertaking, carrying consequences that go well beyond the original $138,600.

The case is also a data point in a broader pattern that PPC Land has covered: regulators worldwide are developing more specific frameworks for deceptive advertising in the digital economy, and enforcement is catching up with the scale of social media's influence on consumer purchasing decisions. The ACCC itself observed that misleading social media advertisements can reach millions of consumers.

Timeline

  • 2014 - Hismile launches its first teeth whitening kit in Australia, positioning the product as peroxide-free
  • January 2023 - ACCC conducts its first social media sweep targeting influencers across platforms including TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and Twitch
  • December 2023 - ACCC publishes report on internet sweep and a separate report on social media testimonials and endorsements, finding 81% of examined influencer posts could be considered misleading advertising
  • August 14, 2024 - Hismile's LinkedIn verified page is established
  • August 2024 - FTC finalises rule prohibiting fake reviews and undisclosed paid testimonials in the United States
  • March 2026 - ACCC fines PhotobookShop $39,600 for instructing influencers to hide paid partnerships and editing out negative product feedback on Instagram
  • 12 June 2026 - ACCC announces Hismile has paid $138,600 in penalties across seven infringement notices for fake employee testimonial videos and misleading Glostik Tooth Gloss stain claims; Hismile provides court-enforceable undertaking

Summary

Who: Hismile Pty Ltd, an Australian oral and personal care company headquartered in Burleigh Heads, Queensland, founded in 2014 and employing between 51 and 200 people. The action was brought by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), represented by Commissioner Luke Woodward.

What: Hismile paid $138,600 in penalties after the ACCC issued seven infringement notices for alleged false and misleading representations in social media advertising. The conduct involved two categories: staging videos using Hismile employees who appeared to be random members of the public reacting to the company's products, and posting videos about the Glostik Tooth Gloss product in a way that may have given consumers the impression the product would remove tooth stains, when it only temporarily concealed them. Hismile also provided a court-enforceable undertaking committing to implement a compliance program and publish notice of the ACCC action on its own platforms.

When: The ACCC announced the outcome on June 12, 2026. The conduct investigated relates to social media videos the company posted prior to the ACCC's enforcement action. The ACCC's focus on social media deception has built over a multi-year period, beginning with its first influencer sweep in January 2023 and continuing through the PhotobookShop fine in March 2026.

Where: The videos were posted on Hismile's social media platforms and are accessible internationally. Hismile's operations are based in Burleigh Heads, Queensland, Australia. The company sells products in Australia and overseas through its website, third-party e-commerce platforms, and retail outlets.

Why: The ACCC enforced under the Australian Consumer Law, which prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct in trade. The regulator has treated social media advertising as a priority enforcement area for several years, on the basis that misleading social media content can reach millions of consumers and affect purchasing decisions at scale. The Glostik Tooth Gloss product has since been discontinued. The court-enforceable undertaking extends the company's obligations beyond the immediate financial penalties.