‘Consumers deserve accurate information about the courses they’re enrolling in’: ACCC deputy chair
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has called attention to a recent Federal Court decision determining that a training provider engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and made false or misleading representations in connection with certain online courses.
RSA Express Pty Ltd – the respondent in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v RSA Express Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 722 – traded as Express Online Trading (EOT). Its business involved online training courses for consumers to earn accreditations for some employment fields.
On 24 November 2023, the ACCC initiated proceedings against EOT before the Federal Court.
The ACCC alleged that EOT breached ss 18, 29(1)(b), and 34 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) through statements on its website content and in paid advertisements generated by the Google and Bing online search engines from 1 October 2019 to 5 November 2023.
As the applicant, the ACCC asserted that EOT engaged in misleading conduct when offering the following self-paced online accreditation courses:
Specifically, the ACCC claimed that EOT made representations to consumers that:
“Consumers deserve accurate information about the courses they’re enrolling in, particularly in relation to the time it takes to get the qualification,” said Mick Keogh, the ACCC’s deputy chair, in a media release.
He expressed concern that many consumers who paid for an EOT course before completion ended up not finishing the course.
According to the ACCC, EOT offered and supplied the RSA course to consumers in all Australian states and territories, and offered and supplied the White Card course in Western Australia and Tasmania.
Justice Roger Derrington of the Federal Court of Australia said the ACCC generally made out its allegations. Specifically, Derrington ruled that EOT engaged in conduct contravening ss 18, 29(1)(b), and 34 of the ACL.
Derrington explained that EOT – through advertising on the internet or communications on its website – represented that consumers would not need to pay or be asked to pay for a course before its successful completion. Derrington added that consumers:
“Many consumers paid for the course when prompted, thinking they had completed the course, when this was not the case,” Keogh said. “We understand that many consumers who paid for the ‘same day’ training couldn’t complete the course in their expected timeframe.”
The Federal Court ordered the listing of the matter for a further case management hearing on 17 June 2026.
In its media release, the ACCC clarified that the court had yet to rule on the issuance of penalties and other orders. The ACCC specified that it was pursuing declarations, pecuniary penalties, injunctions, corrective notices, and consumer redress.
