The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission today issued four infringement notices to HSK United Pty Ltd, a Melbourne-based online retailer operating two consumer product websites, after finding the company allegedly displayed fake strikethrough prices and told shoppers they could not get refunds on items when the law said otherwise. The company paid $79,200 in penalties.

What happened and why it matters

HSK United Pty Ltd, which operates Pain Free Aussies and Modern Aussies, today paid $79,200 in penalties following the issuance of four infringement notices by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The date is 26 June 2026. The conduct alleged by the ACCC spans two distinct areas of Australian Consumer Law compliance: comparative pricing representations and statutory refund entitlements. Neither category is new territory for the regulator, but the combination of both violations in a single enforcement action against one retailer is relatively uncommon.

Pain Free Aussies sells health and therapeutic products online. Modern Aussies offers personal care and household goods. Both are operated by the same company, which is headquartered in Melbourne. The ACCC's investigation was triggered by consumer complaints about both websites - a detail that matters, because it illustrates how individual reports to the regulator can translate into formal enforcement outcomes.

The $79,200 penalty figure breaks down across four infringement notices: two related to pricing representations and two related to returns policy statements. Each notice carries a specific financial penalty, and the total represents what the ACCC assessed as appropriate for the scale and nature of the alleged conduct.

The strikethrough pricing allegation

At the centre of the pricing allegations is a technique used widely across e-commerce: strikethrough pricing, sometimes called "was/now" pricing. The mechanism is straightforward. A product page shows a higher price with a line through it - the "was" price - alongside a lower current price. The visual shorthand is intended to communicate a discount, implying the consumer is paying less than they would have at some earlier point.

According to the ACCC, HSK advertised products on both websites using this format. The investigation found that certain products had not actually been sold at the higher strikethrough price since at least 1 January 2025. The significance of that date is not incidental: it means consumers visiting either website after that date were, according to the regulator's assessment, seeing a price comparison that had no basis in the company's actual transaction history for those items.

"Consumers who bought products from the websites were likely to have been misled into believing they were receiving a genuine discount, when this wasn't the case," according to ACCC Commissioner Luke Woodward.

The ACCC also drew attention to the competitive dimension. "Sales and claimed savings can tempt consumers to buy products they may not otherwise purchase," Commissioner Woodward said. "These types of misleading claims also disadvantage competitors that are making genuine claims about the prices of their products."

That second point is important. It frames strikethrough pricing violations not just as a harm to individual consumers but as a structural distortion in competitive markets. A retailer that fabricates a reference price can, in theory, make its products appear more valuable relative to competitors that price and promote honestly. The ACCC has argued this position consistently across multiple enforcement actions in recent years.

Technically, the legal standard for legitimate comparative pricing under Australian Consumer Law requires that the higher reference price reflects an actual price at which the product was previously offered for sale - and that this was a genuine offer, not a nominal listing designed to manufacture the appearance of a discount. The ACCC has not published a specific minimum duration or minimum sales volume threshold in its guidance, but the standard it applies in investigations is whether the reference price has a genuine commercial basis.

The HSK case adds two products specifically mentioned in the ACCC's announcement: the "Instant Smooth Hair Eraser Pain Free" product on the Modern Aussies website, and the "Aussie Ice Cooling Calming Blanket" on the Pain Free Aussies website. Both were used as illustrative examples of the alleged strikethrough pricing conduct.

The returns policy allegation

The second category of alleged violations is, in some respects, more legally technical than the pricing issue - and potentially more directly harmful to individual consumers who encountered it at the moment they most needed accurate information.

The ACCC alleges that the returns policy on each HSK website contained statements that clearance items and items purchased with store credits were non-refundable. That is the statement as it appeared to consumers navigating the sites. The problem, according to the regulator, is that Australian Consumer Law does not allow businesses to override the statutory consumer guarantees in this way.

Under the Australian Consumer Law, consumers are entitled to a remedy when goods fail to meet a consumer guarantee - including the guarantee that goods are of acceptable quality. This entitlement applies regardless of whether the item was a clearance product or whether the consumer used store credits to pay for it. The mode of purchase and the pricing history of the item do not extinguish the statutory right.

"The ACCC was concerned that these statements may have led consumers to believe they were not entitled to refunds for clearance items and purchases made with store vouchers in any circumstances, when they may have been entitled to a refund under the consumer guarantees," Commissioner Woodward said. "These statements could have discouraged consumers from seeking a refund that they were entitled to because the product was faulty."

The practical harm here is one of suppression rather than direct financial loss. A consumer who sees a returns policy stating their purchase is non-refundable may not pursue a legitimate claim. The chilling effect on consumer behaviour is the conduct the ACCC was targeting - not a situation in which HSK actively refused a specific refund request, but one in which the language of the policy itself may have pre-emptively discouraged consumers from making claims at all.

This mechanism - using policy language to reduce consumer demand for remedies the law guarantees - is something the ACCC has identified across multiple categories of online retail in recent years. The 72% of Australian consumers who reported encountering potentially unfair online marketplace practices in a December 2024 survey commissioned by the regulator included experiences involving dispute resolution obstacles and unclear return or refund terms.

How HSK responded

According to the ACCC, HSK improved its internal compliance processes and made changes to both websites following the regulator's concerns being raised. This included updating the returns policies on Pain Free Aussies and Modern Aussies. The specific nature of the policy changes is not detailed in the ACCC's release, but the direction is clear: the new policies would need to reflect the actual scope of consumer entitlements under Australian law rather than restricting them.

This response pattern - business changes made alongside payment of penalties - is common in infringement notice resolutions. The mechanism allows the ACCC to secure both a financial sanction and practical changes to the conduct without requiring court proceedings. It is faster than litigation and creates a public record of the alleged breach, but it does not constitute a formal admission that the Australian Consumer Law was actually contravened.

Payment of an infringement notice penalty is explicitly not, in legal terms, an admission of guilt. The ACCC can issue such a notice when it has reasonable grounds to believe a contravention occurred. The company paying the notice is resolving the matter administratively, not conceding a legal finding. This distinction matters for how the enforcement action is characterised, though the public release of infringement notice details does create reputational and commercial consequences regardless of the formal legal position.

The infringement notice mechanism

Understanding the ACCC's enforcement tools helps contextualise where this case sits in the regulatory landscape. The regulator has several options when it identifies potential breaches of the Australian Consumer Law. At one end, it can issue formal warnings or seek voluntary undertakings. At the other end, it can commence Federal Court proceedings seeking civil penalties, which can run into millions of dollars for serious cases.

Infringement notices occupy the middle ground. They are available when the ACCC has reasonable grounds to believe a specific provision has been contravened. The penalty amounts for infringement notices are set by legislation, not determined case-by-case by a court. Payment resolves the matter without admission of liability.

For context, the Federal Court ordered Emma Sleep to pay $15 million in April 2026 for strikethrough pricing and fake countdown timer violations across 74 products - a court proceeding that ran for years from the ACCC's December 2023 filing. The Emma Sleep case involved 58 products that had never previously been sold at the strikethrough price at all, across thousands of consumer interactions. The scale and duration of that conduct made it suitable for court proceedings seeking much larger penalties.

The HSK case, by contrast, was resolved through the infringement notice route. The $79,200 total across four notices reflects the administrative penalty scale, not a judicial assessment. The ACCC's decision about which pathway to use reflects its assessment of factors including the nature and duration of the conduct, the company's response, and the resources required for each approach.

The broader pattern of ACCC enforcement on pricing

The HSK action arrives within a sustained enforcement cycle the ACCC has been running on pricing representations, particularly in e-commerce. The regulator outlined its 2026-27 priorities in February 2026, explicitly naming manipulative and false online practices - including misleading pricing claims - as a headline enforcement area. That announcement named subscription traps and dark patterns as specific targets, but the framing encompassed the full range of online conduct that distorts consumer decision-making.

In November 2025, the ACCC ran a Black Friday advertising enforcement sweep specifically targeting strikethrough prices, countdown timers, and false site-wide discount claims. That sweep built on enforcement actions from the 2024 Black Friday period, in which Michael Hill, My House, and Hairhouse each paid penalties for misleading pricing representations. The HSK action suggests the regulator's attention to pricing accuracy extends well beyond promotional periods and applies to standard product listings throughout the year.

Infringement notices in 2026 have addressed a diverse set of online advertising and consumer claims. Hismile paid $138,600 in June 2026 across seven notices for staged customer reaction videos and misleading stain removal claims. WeFlex paid $19,800 in June 2026 for a Facebook ad falsely stating that NDIS personal training services were automatically covered. PhotobookShop paid $39,600 in March 2026 for instructing influencers to conceal paid partnerships.

These cases span categories - social media marketing, influencer disclosure, funding eligibility claims, and now e-commerce pricing and policy language - but the underlying legal framework is consistent: Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct, and Section 29 specifically addresses false representations about price.

What the ACCC targets technically

For marketers and e-commerce operators managing pricing, the HSK case highlights two compliance requirements that are distinct but equally enforceable.

On strikethrough pricing, the requirement is that the crossed-out reference price must reflect an actual price at which the product was genuinely offered for sale. The ACCC has been clear in its published guidance that products sold in limited quantities immediately before a sale event, or never sold at the higher price, generate misleading savings claims. The 1 January 2025 date cited in the HSK action suggests the investigation examined whether the products in question had been sold at the higher price within a relatively recent window. The ACCC has not specified a universal lookback period in formal guidance, but the practical implication is that reference prices need a genuine commercial basis, not a nominal historical listing.

On returns policies, the requirement is more structural. Businesses cannot contract out of or limit the statutory consumer guarantees through policy language. The guarantees exist by operation of law. A returns policy can describe the business's voluntary returns process - how to initiate a return, what timeframes apply, what documentation is needed - but it cannot state that consumers are not entitled to remedies the law grants them. Clearance status and the payment method used to purchase an item do not affect the consumer's right to a remedy when goods are faulty.

Why this matters for the marketing community

PPC Land has tracked the intersection of ACCC enforcement and digital marketing practice throughout 2025 and 2026. The consistent theme across the enforcement actions of this period is that the regulator views online marketing representations with the same legal standards as offline advertising - and applies them with increasing specificity to the technical mechanics of how e-commerce platforms display prices, structure policies, and communicate with consumers.

For marketing teams and agencies operating e-commerce platforms in Australia, the HSK case adds two concrete items to the compliance checklist. First: any product displayed with a strikethrough or comparative price requires documentation that the reference price reflects genuine sales history. Systems that automatically set reference prices without verifying whether those prices were ever transacted create regulatory exposure. Second: returns policies need legal review to ensure they do not misstate or limit consumer rights under the Australian Consumer Law, regardless of how other jurisdictions structure similar policies.

The returns policy issue is particularly relevant for businesses that operate across multiple markets and maintain standardised policy templates. A policy drafted to reflect the laws of one jurisdiction may misstate consumer rights in Australia, where the statutory guarantees framework is specific and non-waivable by contract.

The ACCC's combination of consumer complaint-driven investigations and proactive enforcement sweeps means the risk of detection is not concentrated in a single sector or business type. HSK United is a small Melbourne retailer with two niche product websites. The enforcement action demonstrates that the regulator's attention is not limited to large platforms or high-profile brands.

Timeline

Summary

Who - HSK United Pty Ltd, a Melbourne-based company operating the Pain Free Aussies and Modern Aussies e-commerce websites. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, led by Commissioner Luke Woodward, conducted the investigation and issued the notices.

What - The ACCC issued four infringement notices alleging HSK United used misleading strikethrough pricing on both websites and made false statements in its returns policies claiming clearance items and store credit purchases were non-refundable. The company paid $79,200 in penalties and updated its compliance processes and website policies.

When - The ACCC's announcement was dated 26 June 2026. The pricing conduct relates to products that had not been sold at the higher strikethrough price since at least 1 January 2025. The investigation was triggered by consumer complaints received before the notices were issued.

Where - Both websites - Pain Free Aussies and Modern Aussies - operated by HSK United, which is based in Melbourne, Australia. The enforcement action is part of the ACCC's Australia-wide remit under the Australian Consumer Law.

Why - The ACCC alleged the strikethrough prices created false impressions of genuine discounts, and the returns policy language may have discouraged consumers from claiming refunds they were legally entitled to under Australia's statutory consumer guarantees framework. The action reflects the ACCC's stated 2026-27 priority of targeting misleading and false online practices, including deceptive pricing representations in digital retail.