Federal Court slaps bedding supplier Emma Sleep with $15m pecuniary penalty

Contraventions involve representations on savings and limited-time sales

Federal Court slaps bedding supplier Emma Sleep with $15m pecuniary penalty
Law Courts, Sydney

For bedroom furniture supplier Emma Sleep’s breaches of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), Australia’s Federal Court imposed pecuniary penalties totalling $15m, divided equally between Emma Sleep Pty Ltd (Emma Sleep AU) and Emma Sleep Southeast Asia Inc (Emma Sleep SEA). 

On 14 December 2023, the ACCC – the applicant in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Emma Sleep GmbH (Penalty) [2026] FCA 493 – commenced proceedings against Emma Sleep GmbH, a bedroom furniture supplier based in Frankfurt, Germany, and operating in more than 30 countries. 

The respondents also included Emma Sleep AU, a direct-to-consumer supplier of “bed-in-a-box products,” beds, frames, and other sleep accessories in Australia, and Emma Sleep SEA, a subsidiary of Emma Sleep GmbH that operated in the Philippines. 

Emma Sleep admitted to making false, misleading, or deceptive representations about the sale price of bedding products in advertisements to Australian consumers from 15 June 2020 to 27 March 2023, in contravention of ss 18 and 29(1)(i) of the ACL. 

“The Emma Sleep companies breached the Australian Consumer Law by making false or misleading representations which gave consumers the impression they were getting a bargain,” said Luke Woodward, ACCC commissioner, in a media release. 

There were two types of representations: 

  • savings representations: representations that the advertised purchase price included a discount 
  • limited time sale representations: representations that the products were on sale for the advertised price for limited periods and/or were only purchasable at the advertised sale price during sales campaign periods 

“The ACCC was concerned that Emma Sleep's conduct created a false sense of urgency about the offer by using a countdown timer that reset itself, and by making false claims suggesting to consumers that the sale was ending soon, which may have pressured them into making a rushed purchase decision,” Woodward said. 

The Federal Court did not attribute Emma Sleep’s representations to inadvertence or a system error. Instead, the court determined that Emma Sleep made these representations as a part of a deliberate marketing strategy and turned a blind eye to whether its conduct violated the ACL.

Regarding the pecuniary penalty, the ACCC sought $36m, with Emma Sleep AU and Emma Sleep SEA liable for $18m each. Emma Sleep countered that $2m was enough. 

Apart from the $15m pecuniary penalty imposed, the Federal Court of Australia found it appropriate to issue the orders agreed by the parties, including an injunction, an order to implement a compliance program, and an order to publish corrective notices. The Federal Court reserved the issue of costs. 

Emma Sleep’s marketing activities

The ACCC emphasised that, within the relevant period: 

  • Emma Sleep’s website received over 4.9m visits 
  • Emma Sleep’s social media posts had more than 10m views 
  • Emma Sleep sent emails with misleading sales representations to over 4m consumers and text messages to almost half a million people 
  • Emma Sleep sold more than 243,000 individual products 
  • Emma Sleep received over $134m in revenue 

“When marketing their products companies and their executives must ensure they do so honestly, responsibly and in compliance with the law,” Woodward said in the media release.