Grill’d in court for allegedly misleading customers about Tree Day Tuesday donations

The ACCC has commenced Federal Court proceedings against Grill’d, alleging the company misled consumers about its Tree Day Tuesday promotion.

The ACCC alleges Grill’d overstated the extent of the donations it would make and the environmental contributions from the promotion, describing this as a form of greenwashing.

The promotion allegedly created the impression that purchasing a burger or salad on a Tuesday would result in a donation by Grill’d to an environmental cause. However, the ACCC alleges that only a small percentage of Tuesday purchases qualified because detailed conditions applied and were not disclosed, or not adequately disclosed, to customers.

For a purchase to qualify for a donation under the promotion, the ACCC alleges it had to meet several conditions, including that:

• the purchase had to be made on a Tuesday;

• the purchase had to be of a main item, being a burger or salad;

• the buyer had to be a member of Grill’d’s Relish loyalty program;

• the purchase had to be dine-in only, not takeaway, online order or delivery;

• dine-in orders had to be placed at the front counter, not via QR code at the table;

• the buyer had to scan their loyalty program barcode at the counter when ordering; and

• the purchase could not be made with any other offer.

According to the ACCC, more than five million burgers were bought on Tuesdays between January 2021 and April 2024, but only around four per cent of those purchases qualified for a donation under the promotion.

Of those five million burgers, more than one million were bought by Relish members, but only about 17 per cent of those purchases qualified for a donation.

The ACCC’s case includes 26 separate Grill’d advertisements across social media, online and in store. While the extent to which the conditions were disclosed varied between advertisements, the ACCC alleges the advertisements overstated the circumstances in which donations or contributions would be made.

The ACCC stated that the conduct had the potential to mislead many consumers about the environmental benefits of their purchase and may have deprived consumers of the ability to make an informed decision.

This case is an important reminder that environmental, social impact and donation-based claims must accurately reflect what consumers can reasonably expect their purchase will achieve.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR ADVERTISERS AND PUBLISHERS?

This case reinforces that purpose-led claims, environmental commitments and donation campaigns are advertising claims and must reflect the overall impression created for consumers.

For advertisers, claims about sustainability, environmental benefits, charitable donations or social impact should be accurate, not misleading and capable of being substantiated.

For publishers, the focus is not on independently verifying an advertiser’s environmental programs or donation arrangements but recognising claims that may require additional consideration or confirmation before publication.

Publishers should pay particular attention to claims such as:

• “Every purchase supports…”

• “For every product sold we donate…”

• “A portion of proceeds goes to…”

• "Helping the planet”

• “Supporting sustainability”

• environmental partnerships or initiatives

• claims linked to consumer participation or purchase behaviour

Where a claim suggests that a consumer’s action will create a specific benefit, consider whether the advertiser has confirmed the claim can be supported and whether any important conditions or limitations have been clearly disclosed.

Advertisers should carefully consider:

The consumer action must match the promised outcome

If advertising suggests a consumer’s purchase will trigger a donation, contribution or environmental benefit, the process should be clear.

Any steps required to receive that benefit should be clearly communicated before consumers make a purchasing decision.

Conditions must be clear

If only certain purchases, customers or transactions qualify for a donation or environmental benefit, those limitations should be clearly communicated.

Important conditions should not be hidden, difficult to find or inconsistent with the overall impression created by the advertising.

Purpose-led claims influence consumer behaviour

Consumers may choose one product or brand over another because they believe their purchase supports a cause.

Claims about donations, sustainability or environmental benefits should accurately reflect the actual impact.

The overall impression matters

Advertisers should consider what a reasonable consumer would understand from the promotion.

Would they believe:

• every purchase contributes to the cause?

• a specific amount will be donated?

• their individual purchase creates an environmental benefit?

• there are conditions they need to meet?

If the impression created does not reflect reality, the advertising may create risk under the Australian Consumer Law.

KEY TAKEAWAY

Before publishing environmental, donation or purpose-led claims, consider:

“Does the advertising create a clear impression about the impact of the consumer’s purchase, and has the advertiser confirmed they can support that claim?”

Publishers are not expected to independently verify an advertiser’s donation arrangements or environmental programs. However, claims such as:

• “every purchase helps”

• “we donate for every sale”

• “supporting environmental action”

• “giving back”

• sustainability claims

should be treated as objective claims that the advertiser must be able to support.

If a claim suggests consumers are contributing to a cause or creating a positive impact, consider whether any important conditions are clearly disclosed.

Good intentions do not remove the need for advertising claims to accurately reflect what is actually happening.