Express Online Training found to have misled consumers about course completion and payment claims

The ACCC secured a Federal Court finding that RSA Express Pty Ltd, trading as Express Online Training, engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and made false or misleading representations about its online training courses.

The case involved claims made in relation to Responsible Service of Alcohol (RSA) and White Card construction induction courses, including representations such as:

• “Same Day Interim Certificate”

• “Pay Only When You Pass”

• “You don’t have to pay until you pass”

The ACCC alleged that these claims created the impression that consumers could complete the course and receive certification on the same day, and that consumers would only be required to pay after they had passed.

However, after registering, consumers were required to read course material and correctly answer a lengthy questionnaire before being prompted to pay. At that stage, consumers had not completed the course.

After payment, consumers were notified that additional assessment tasks were required. In some cases, those additional steps could not be booked on the same day or for several days.

The ACCC raised concerns that many consumers paid when prompted because they believed they had completed the course, when further requirements still needed to be satisfied.

Express Online Training admitted it breached the Australian Consumer Law by representing that consumers could undertake relevant courses and receive certification within the same day.

Following a contested hearing, the Court also found that Express Online Training had made false or misleading representations that consumers would only pay, or be asked to pay, after they had passed the course.

The ACCC’s investigation identified that a significant number of consumers who paid for relevant courses did not complete the full course, and the Court found Express Online Training earned significant revenue from consumers who did not complete their course.

This decision is an important reminder that advertising claims must reflect the complete consumer journey including any additional steps, conditions or requirements before a consumer receives the advertised outcome.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR ADVERTISERS AND PUBLISHERS?

This decision is an important reminder that advertising claims must accurately reflect the overall impression created for consumers including what consumers understand they will receive, when they will receive it and any conditions that apply.

For advertisers, claims about timing, availability, completion, approvals, qualifications, guarantees or payment obligations should be accurate, not misleading and capable of being substantiated.

For publishers, the focus is not on independently verifying an advertiser’s systems or customer processes but recognising claims that may require additional consideration or confirmation before publication.

 Publishers should pay particular attention to claims such as:

• “same day”

• “instant access”

• “immediate results”

• “guaranteed”

• “approved” or “certified”

• “only pay when…”

• claims suggesting a consumer has completed a process or achieved an outcome

Where a claim is specific, measurable or likely to influence a consumer’s decision, consider whether the advertiser has confirmed the claim reflects the actual consumer experience.

Advertisers should carefully consider:

Timing claims

Claims such as “same day”, “instant”, “immediate”, “fast”, “quick approval” or similar statements need to accurately reflect what most consumers can reasonably expect including any additional steps, approvals, processing times or conditions.

Conditional claims

Statements such as “only pay when…”, “guaranteed”, “free until…” or similar offers must clearly explain when payment obligations arise and should not create a misleading impression about what has been completed or achieved.

The overall impression matters

A statement may be literally accurate in isolation but still misleading if the overall impression created for consumers does not match the actual process or outcome.

Disclosures must be clear and upfront

Important limitations or extra steps should not be hidden in terms and conditions or revealed after a consumer has already invested time, money or effort.

KEY TAKEAWAY

Before publishing claims about timing, completion, approvals or outcomes, consider:

“Does the advertising create a clear impression about what the consumer will receive, and has the advertiser confirmed they can support that claim?”

Publishers are not expected to independently verify an advertiser’s operational processes, systems or customer journey. However, claims such as:

• “same day”

• “instant”

• “guaranteed”

• “approved”

• “only pay once you…”

should be treated as objective claims that the advertiser must be able to support. If a claim appears unclear, absolute or creates an expectation about a specific result or timeframe, consider seeking confirmation from the advertiser that appropriate substantiation is held.

The issue is not just whether the statement is technically correct it is whether the consumer expectation created by the advertising matches the actual experience.

PUBLISHER TAKEOUT

Before publishing claims, ask: “Would a reasonable consumer understand exactly what they will receive, when they will receive it, and what steps or costs are involved?”

If the answer is no, the advertising may create risk under the Australian Consumer Law. This case reinforces that transparency at the beginning of the consumer journey is essential particularly where consumers are making decisions based on speed, convenience or cost.