I MATERIAL FACTS

Qantas was ordered by the Federal Court to pay a $100 million penalty for misleading consumers by offering and selling tickets for flights that the airline had already decided to cancel and by failing to promptly notify existing ticketholders of these cancellations. This case was brought by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) for breaches of the Australian Consumer Law.

Qantas admitted that it continued to offer and sell tickets for cancelled flights for two or more days after it had already decided to cancel them. The conduct affected 70,543 flights, of which 69,237 were domestic or trans-Tasman and 1,306 were international, and 86,597 consumers either booked or were re-accommodated on flights after those flights had been cancelled.

On average, tickets for these flights remained available for sale about 11 days after cancellation, and in some cases for up to 62 days after the cancellation decision.

Qantas also delayed notifying ticketholders of cancellations. The airline continued to display cancelled flights on the “Manage Booking” pages for two or more days after cancellation with no indication they had been cancelled. This conduct affected 60,297 flights and 883,977 consumers.

For ticketholders whose flights had already been cancelled, it took on average about 11 days for notification to reach them; in some cases, notification took up to 67 days after the cancellation decision.

In addition to the $100 million penalty, Qantas gave an undertaking to the ACCC that it would pay around $20 million to affected consumers under a remediation program. Under this scheme, eligible customers receive payments of $225 for domestic and trans-Tasman flights or $450 for international flights, on top of any refunds or alternative flights already provided.

II LEGAL ISSUE

In ACCC v Qantas Ltd (2024), the central legal issue was that Qantas was found to have breached the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) by engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct and making false or misleading representations to consumers in how it handled cancelled flights. Specifically, the case revolved around Qantas offering and selling tickets for flights that the airline had already decided to cancel, and failing to promptly notify existing ticketholders that their flights were cancelled. This conduct meant that consumers were making purchasing decisions based on inaccurate information, contrary to obligations under the ACL.

III DECISION

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission took legal action against Qantas in the Federal Court after alleging the airline had falsely advertised and sold tickets for flights it had already cancelled and failed to promptly notify customers of cancellations. Under a settlement reached in May 2024, Qantas admitted it misled consumers, agreed to pay about $20 million in compensation to affected passengers and to seek court approval for a $100 million civil penalty for breaching Australian Consumer Law. The agreement also required Qantas to change its practices so cancelled flights are removed from sale more quickly and to notify customers promptly, with the penalty intended to deter similar conduct by other companies.

IV REASONING

In ACCC v Qantas (2024), the reasoning behind the action was grounded in provisions of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). This is seen particularly in the prohibitions on misleading or deceptive conduct and false or misleading representations in trade or commerce. The ACCC’s case focused on evidence that Qantas continued to offer and sell tickets for flights it had already decided to cancel, and did not promptly update or notify customers when those cancellations occurred. The court and Qantas’ admissions acknowledged that this conduct could lead consumers to make travel decisions based on inaccurate information, thereby breaching ACL sections designed to protect consumers from being misled about goods or services they purchase. As part of a negotiated settlement, Qantas admitted these breaches and the conduct’s legal characterisation, which underpinned the agreed penalties and remediation measures.

V RATIO DECENDI

The legal principle that formed the basis of the court’s decision — was that Qantas’ conduct contravened key prohibitions in the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) by engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct and making false or misleading representations to consumers. Specifically, Qantas continued to offer and sell tickets for flights that it had already decided to cancel and failed to promptly inform existing ticketholders of cancellations, such that consumers were misled about the availability and status of the services they were purchasing. This conduct was found to breach the ACL by creating a real likelihood that consumers were induced into purchases based on inaccurate or incomplete information, and this legal characterisation underpinned the penalty and remedies agreed in the settlement.

VI SIGNIFICANCE

The significance of the ACCC v Qantas 2024 case lies in its impact on consumer-law enforcement and corporate accountability in Australia. It resulted in one of the largest penalties ever agreed under the Australian Consumer Law for misleading conduct, with Qantas agreeing to pay substantial civil penalties and remediation to passengers after admitting it sold tickets for flights it had already cancelled and delayed notifying customers of cancellations. The conduct the regulator said affected hundreds of thousands of travellers and distorted consumer decision-making.

Beyond the financial penalties, the case sent a strong deterrence message that even large, well-resourced firms must ensure accurate, timely information to consumers and comply with the law, and it prompted Qantas to change its systems and processes to prevent similar breaches in future.