---
title: "Competition & Consumer Law (ACCC / ACL)"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/competition-and-consumer-law"
type: "practice_area"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A29"
task_count: 27
last_reviewed: "2026-10-10"
---

# Competition & Consumer Law (ACCC / ACL)

> Separate document review from the economic and legal assessment of conduct. Check the relevant market facts, representations, transaction conditions and current regulatory requirements.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/competition-and-consumer-law  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-10

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

Also covers: Competition law, antitrust, consumer protection, ACL, CCA, trade practices, ACCC, misleading conduct, cartel law, merger control, RPM, UCT, exclusive dealing, concerted practices

## Key facts

- Tasks: 27
- Green: 2, Yellow: 23, Red: 2
- Levels: Green is AI drafts and the lawyer checks; Yellow is lawyer and AI draft together; Red is the lawyer writes and AI may only check, clarify or collect data.

## Principles

- **Define the matter**: Confirm the client’s instructions, jurisdiction, intended output and the information available before dividing the work.
- **Verify the authorities**: Open each relied-on authority independently. Confirm its existence, current status, proposition and any quotation or pinpoint reference.
- **Preserve the witness’s evidence**: Confirm each factual assertion with the witness and original record. Preserve the witness’s own knowledge and words, and check the court’s rules for this document.

## Checklist

- Open each relied-on authority independently. Confirm its existence, current status, proposition and any quotation or pinpoint reference.
- Confirm each factual assertion with the witness and original record. Preserve the witness’s own knowledge and words, and check the court’s rules for this document.
- Trace every relied-on figure to its source, confirm dates and assumptions, and independently recalculate totals or derived amounts.
- Check the current court or regulator requirements, prescribed form and attachments for the intended document and filing.
- Confirm that the actual tool, feature and processing terms permit use of this information, including access, retention, training and disclosure conditions.
- Check the specialist’s assumptions, qualifications and limits. Obtain the relevant expert or specialist review before relying on a technical conclusion.
- Verify dates, people and sequence against contemporaneous records. Preserve uncertainty and identify gaps or conflicting accounts.
- Verify the applicable jurisdiction and the version of each relevant law, rule or instrument in force at the material time.
- Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.

## Restrictions

- Confirm firm, client and applicable court or professional restrictions before using any AI feature.

## Jurisdiction note

Apply this guidance to the actual matter and jurisdiction. Confirm current requirements before relying on an example.

## Basis

Practice guidance supports planning; the responsible lawyer confirms the scope, evidence and review requirements for the matter.

Also covers: Competition law, antitrust, consumer protection, ACL, CCA, trade practices, ACCC, misleading conduct, cartel law, merger control, RPM, UCT, exclusive dealing, concerted practices

Competition and consumer law in Australia spans the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) and the Australian Consumer Law (ACL, Sch 2), enforced primarily by the ACCC with concurrent jurisdiction in the Federal Court and Federal Circuit Court. The area carries an acute AI risk profile: substantive analysis is highly fact- and context-specific (market definition, substantial lessening of competition, purpose/effect tests), civil penalties have doubled to $100 million per contravention from 28 March 2026, cartel conduct carries criminal liability with custodial sentences, and the mandatory and suspensory merger notification regime (Part IVA CCA, from 1 January 2026) imposes hard filing deadlines — making date and threshold errors immediately catastrophic.

## Limits on AI assistance

Red lines — never in this area

## Limits on AI assistance

AI must not produce the operative legal conclusion on whether conduct constitutes cartel conduct — this triggers criminal exposure with up to 10 years' imprisonment for individuals and the conclusion must be fully lawyer-derived. AI must not identify or recommend whether a client should seek immunity or leniency under the December 2024 ACCC/CDPP Immunity and Cooperation Policy — the decision and all related communications must be handled by the supervising partner with criminal law expertise. AI must not verify legal citations by reference to another AI tool — Federal Court GPN-AI Practice Note (16 April 2026) and NSW SC Practice Note SC Gen 23 (3 February 2025) both expressly require human verification against primary sources; every citation must be checked in AustLII, LexisNexis AU or Westlaw AU. AI must not calculate merger notification thresholds or produce a definitive 'notify / do not notify' conclusion without a lawyer verifying all inputs against deal documents and the current Competition and Consumer (Notification of Acquisitions) Determination 2025 — an incorrect no-notify conclusion exposes the client to gun-jumping liability under the mandatory suspensory regime (maximum penalty $100 million per contravention). AI must not draft or finalise content for affidavits, witness statements or expert reports filed in the Federal Court without prior leave and mandatory lawyer verification of every factual statement — consistent with GPN-AI (Federal Court, 16 April 2026) and SC Gen 23 (NSW Supreme Court, 3 February 2025). AI must not generate strategic advice on litigation prospects in enforcement proceedings where the ACCC is the opposing party — ACCC litigation strategy, settlement appetite and penalty calibration require current practitioner intelligence that no LLM possesses. AI must not transmit client confidential information (market share data, pricing strategies, deal terms, leniency discussions, s 155 notice content) to a public or non-approved LLM — breach of ASCR r 9, APP 6 and APP 11; leniency discussions are particularly sensitive as their disclosure could destroy immunity eligibility. AI must not advise that the Unfair Trading Practices prohibition (Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026) is currently in force — as of June 2026 it is a Bill before the Senate committee, with proposed commencement 1 July 2027 if passed.

- AI must not produce the operative legal conclusion on whether conduct constitutes cartel conduct — this triggers criminal exposure with up to 10 years' imprisonment for individuals and the conclusion must be fully lawyer-derived.
- AI must not identify or recommend whether a client should seek immunity or leniency under the December 2024 ACCC/CDPP Immunity and Cooperation Policy — the decision and all related communications must be handled by the supervising partner with criminal law expertise.
- AI must not verify legal citations by reference to another AI tool — Federal Court GPN-AI Practice Note (16 April 2026) and NSW SC Practice Note SC Gen 23 (3 February 2025) both expressly require human verification against primary sources; every citation must be checked in AustLII, LexisNexis AU or Westlaw AU.
- AI must not calculate merger notification thresholds or produce a definitive 'notify / do not notify' conclusion without a lawyer verifying all inputs against deal documents and the current Competition and Consumer (Notification of Acquisitions) Determination 2025 — an incorrect no-notify conclusion exposes the client to gun-jumping liability under the mandatory suspensory regime (maximum penalty $100 million per contravention).
- AI must not draft or finalise content for affidavits, witness statements or expert reports filed in the Federal Court without prior leave and mandatory lawyer verification of every factual statement — consistent with GPN-AI (Federal Court, 16 April 2026) and SC Gen 23 (NSW Supreme Court, 3 February 2025).
- AI must not generate strategic advice on litigation prospects in enforcement proceedings where the ACCC is the opposing party — ACCC litigation strategy, settlement appetite and penalty calibration require current practitioner intelligence that no LLM possesses.
- AI must not transmit client confidential information (market share data, pricing strategies, deal terms, leniency discussions, s 155 notice content) to a public or non-approved LLM — breach of ASCR r 9, APP 6 and APP 11; leniency discussions are particularly sensitive as their disclosure could destroy immunity eligibility.
- AI must not advise that the Unfair Trading Practices prohibition (Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026) is currently in force — as of June 2026 it is a Bill before the Senate committee, with proposed commencement 1 July 2027 if passed.

## Jurisdiction-specific considerations

Australian traps

## Jurisdiction-specific considerations

New mandatory and suspensory merger notification regime: commenced 1 January 2026 under Part IVA of the CCA (not Part VII, which governed the superseded informal voluntary regime). Legislative vehicle: Competition and Consumer Amendment (Notification of Acquisitions) Act, supported by the Competition and Consumer (Notification of Acquisitions) Determination 2025 (issued December 2025). Completion before ACCC clearance is a strict-liability breach. From 1 April 2026, new bright-line control tests for share acquisitions apply — the regime's control exemption operates differently from the January 2026 commencement position. Threshold matrix and waiver fee ($8,300, 25 business day decision deadline) must be verified against the current Determination — AI trained before January 2026 applies the entirely superseded voluntary informal clearance regime. Doubled penalty regime: maximum civil penalty for most CCA/ACL contraventions increased from $50 million to $100 million per contravention from 28 March 2026 (Treasury Laws Amendment (Doubling Penalties for ACCC Enforcement) Act 2026, passed 26 March 2026). Gun-jumping and merger non-notification are expressly captured. Any AI-generated penalty advice based on pre-2026 figures ($50 million maximum) is wrong in settlement, board risk reporting and regulatory disclosure contexts. Criminal cartel offences: maximum 10 years' imprisonment and $10 million for individuals; $100 million (post-March 2026) for corporations. ACCC refers to CDPP under the MOU updated December 2024. Bingo Industries ($30 million, February 2024 sentence — Aussie Skips/Roussakis appeals withdrawn September 2024, the matter is concluded) is the leading criminal cartel sentencing calibration point in Australia. UCT regime expansion (9 November 2023): terms now illegal not merely void; each unfair term is a separate contravention; penalty now $100 million per contravention per term from March 2026. Small business threshold: under 100 employees OR under $10 million annual turnover, no monetary contract value cap. AI trained before November 2023 applies the superseded 'voidable only, no penalty' regime — a difference in exposure of potentially hundreds of millions of dollars per client. Federal Court Generative AI Practice Note GPN-AI (16 April 2026): replaces the Chief Justice's 28 March 2025 statement and April 2025 Notice to Profession. Requires disclosure of GenAI use, personal verification by responsible lawyer that authorities exist, facts are provable and evidence is admissible. Presentation of false or inaccurate information is stated to be 'unacceptable'. NSW SC Practice Note SC Gen 23 (commenced 3 February 2025) additionally prohibits AI use in affidavit/witness statement content without prior leave and expressly prohibits AI-on-AI citation verification. ACCC proceedings are ordinarily Federal Court — GPN-AI governs. Section 155 CCA non-compliance is a criminal offence; penalty was increased in the March 2026 reforms. Privilege claims must be identified before production. Compulsory examination (sworn testimony) under s 155(1)(b) is distinct from document production — lawyers must personally prepare witnesses, not delegate to AI-generated question lists. ACCC Greenwashing enforcement: ACCC v Clorox Australia — $8.25 million penalty ordered by Federal Court 7 February 2025 (first civil ACCC ACL greenwashing penalty; conduct re 'ocean plastic' claims on GLAD bags). Separately, ASIC obtained $12.9 million against Vanguard Investments (September 2024) for a financial product ESG greenwashing claim under the Corporations Act and ASIC Act — NOT the ACL and NOT ACCC. AI frequently conflates these two enforcement actions and two different regulatory regimes. ACCC 2025-26 and 2026-27 priorities both confirm ongoing greenwashing focus. Unfair Trading Practices Bill 2026: introduced House of Representatives 1 April 2026, before Senate Standing Committee on Economics (report due 18 June 2026). Proposes a general prohibition on conduct that unreasonably distorts or manipulates consumer decision-making, plus drip pricing and subscription obligations. Proposed commencement 1 July 2027. Not yet law — AI may present it as operative. Distinguish from existing drip pricing obligations already operative under ACL ss 18, 29 and 48A (ACCC v JustAnswer September 2025; ACCC v Microsoft October 2025 proceedings are under existing law). Handa & Mallick [2024] FedCFamC2F (unreported): solicitor submitted AI-hallucinated case authorities in family law enforcement proceedings; Victorian Legal Services Board disciplined the solicitor with a two-year prohibition on handling trust money or practising unsupervised. Establishes that failure to verify AI output is professional misconduct and that technological ignorance is no defence. This is the leading Australian disciplinary precedent — use in firm training and disclosure frameworks.

- New mandatory and suspensory merger notification regime: commenced 1 January 2026 under Part IVA of the CCA (not Part VII, which governed the superseded informal voluntary regime). Legislative vehicle: Competition and Consumer Amendment (Notification of Acquisitions) Act, supported by the Competition and Consumer (Notification of Acquisitions) Determination 2025 (issued December 2025). Completion before ACCC clearance is a strict-liability breach. From 1 April 2026, new bright-line control tests for share acquisitions apply — the regime's control exemption operates differently from the January 2026 commencement position. Threshold matrix and waiver fee ($8,300, 25 business day decision deadline) must be verified against the current Determination — AI trained before January 2026 applies the entirely superseded voluntary informal clearance regime.
- Doubled penalty regime: maximum civil penalty for most CCA/ACL contraventions increased from $50 million to $100 million per contravention from 28 March 2026 (Treasury Laws Amendment (Doubling Penalties for ACCC Enforcement) Act 2026, passed 26 March 2026). Gun-jumping and merger non-notification are expressly captured. Any AI-generated penalty advice based on pre-2026 figures ($50 million maximum) is wrong in settlement, board risk reporting and regulatory disclosure contexts.
- Criminal cartel offences: maximum 10 years' imprisonment and $10 million for individuals; $100 million (post-March 2026) for corporations. ACCC refers to CDPP under the MOU updated December 2024. Bingo Industries ($30 million, February 2024 sentence — Aussie Skips/Roussakis appeals withdrawn September 2024, the matter is concluded) is the leading criminal cartel sentencing calibration point in Australia.
- UCT regime expansion (9 November 2023): terms now illegal not merely void; each unfair term is a separate contravention; penalty now $100 million per contravention per term from March 2026. Small business threshold: under 100 employees OR under $10 million annual turnover, no monetary contract value cap. AI trained before November 2023 applies the superseded 'voidable only, no penalty' regime — a difference in exposure of potentially hundreds of millions of dollars per client.
- Federal Court Generative AI Practice Note GPN-AI (16 April 2026): replaces the Chief Justice's 28 March 2025 statement and April 2025 Notice to Profession. Requires disclosure of GenAI use, personal verification by responsible lawyer that authorities exist, facts are provable and evidence is admissible. Presentation of false or inaccurate information is stated to be 'unacceptable'. NSW SC Practice Note SC Gen 23 (commenced 3 February 2025) additionally prohibits AI use in affidavit/witness statement content without prior leave and expressly prohibits AI-on-AI citation verification. ACCC proceedings are ordinarily Federal Court — GPN-AI governs.
- Section 155 CCA non-compliance is a criminal offence; penalty was increased in the March 2026 reforms. Privilege claims must be identified before production. Compulsory examination (sworn testimony) under s 155(1)(b) is distinct from document production — lawyers must personally prepare witnesses, not delegate to AI-generated question lists.
- ACCC Greenwashing enforcement: ACCC v Clorox Australia — $8.25 million penalty ordered by Federal Court 7 February 2025 (first civil ACCC ACL greenwashing penalty; conduct re 'ocean plastic' claims on GLAD bags). Separately, ASIC obtained $12.9 million against Vanguard Investments (September 2024) for a financial product ESG greenwashing claim under the Corporations Act and ASIC Act — NOT the ACL and NOT ACCC. AI frequently conflates these two enforcement actions and two different regulatory regimes. ACCC 2025-26 and 2026-27 priorities both confirm ongoing greenwashing focus.
- Unfair Trading Practices Bill 2026: introduced House of Representatives 1 April 2026, before Senate Standing Committee on Economics (report due 18 June 2026). Proposes a general prohibition on conduct that unreasonably distorts or manipulates consumer decision-making, plus drip pricing and subscription obligations. Proposed commencement 1 July 2027. Not yet law — AI may present it as operative. Distinguish from existing drip pricing obligations already operative under ACL ss 18, 29 and 48A (ACCC v JustAnswer September 2025; ACCC v Microsoft October 2025 proceedings are under existing law).
- Handa & Mallick [2024] FedCFamC2F (unreported): solicitor submitted AI-hallucinated case authorities in family law enforcement proceedings; Victorian Legal Services Board disciplined the solicitor with a two-year prohibition on handling trust money or practising unsupervised. Establishes that failure to verify AI output is professional misconduct and that technological ignorance is no defence. This is the leading Australian disciplinary precedent — use in firm training and disclosure frameworks.

## Risks to address

How it goes wrong

## Risks to address

Hallucinated ACCC decisions or Federal Court judgments: AI invents plausible-sounding case names, docket numbers and penalty figures. The Australian competition caselaw database is smaller than US federal law, so hallucination rates for Australian competition decisions likely exceed the 58-88% rate found for US federal cases (Dahl et al.). AI-invented precedent is structurally indistinguishable from real precedent in output format. Stale merger notification regime: AI trained before January 2026 applies the superseded voluntary informal clearance regime under Part VII. A 'no notification required' conclusion under the old law may constitute a gun-jumping breach under the mandatory suspensory Part IVA regime — with the transaction unable to complete legally and a potential $100 million exposure. Wrong penalty ceiling: pre-March 2026 AI output states $50 million maximum; the correct ceiling is $100 million from 28 March 2026. Under-advising on exposure affects settlement strategy, board risk reporting and regulatory disclosure obligations. Misapplication of superseded UCT law: AI trained before November 2023 frames UCT as 'term void, no penalty'. Advising a client their clause is merely void (not illegal and not separately penalised per term) understates exposure by potentially orders of magnitude under the current regime. Cartel/collaboration mischaracterisation: AI frequently conflates legitimate joint ventures and information-sharing arrangements with per se cartel conduct, and vice versa. A false negative (conduct is safe) exposes individuals to criminal prosecution; a false positive destroys commercially legitimate deals. Section 46 wrong test: AI may apply the pre-2017 Harper reform 'taking advantage' test rather than the current 'purpose, effect or likely effect' of SLC test (operative from 7 November 2017) — producing materially incorrect analysis of misuse of market power cases.

- Hallucinated ACCC decisions or Federal Court judgments: AI invents plausible-sounding case names, docket numbers and penalty figures. The Australian competition caselaw database is smaller than US federal law, so hallucination rates for Australian competition decisions likely exceed the 58-88% rate found for US federal cases (Dahl et al.). AI-invented precedent is structurally indistinguishable from real precedent in output format.
- Stale merger notification regime: AI trained before January 2026 applies the superseded voluntary informal clearance regime under Part VII. A 'no notification required' conclusion under the old law may constitute a gun-jumping breach under the mandatory suspensory Part IVA regime — with the transaction unable to complete legally and a potential $100 million exposure.
- Wrong penalty ceiling: pre-March 2026 AI output states $50 million maximum; the correct ceiling is $100 million from 28 March 2026. Under-advising on exposure affects settlement strategy, board risk reporting and regulatory disclosure obligations.
- Misapplication of superseded UCT law: AI trained before November 2023 frames UCT as 'term void, no penalty'. Advising a client their clause is merely void (not illegal and not separately penalised per term) understates exposure by potentially orders of magnitude under the current regime.
- Cartel/collaboration mischaracterisation: AI frequently conflates legitimate joint ventures and information-sharing arrangements with per se cartel conduct, and vice versa. A false negative (conduct is safe) exposes individuals to criminal prosecution; a false positive destroys commercially legitimate deals.
- Section 46 wrong test: AI may apply the pre-2017 Harper reform 'taking advantage' test rather than the current 'purpose, effect or likely effect' of SLC test (operative from 7 November 2017) — producing materially incorrect analysis of misuse of market power cases.

## Review checklist

The lawyer's review checklist

## Review checklist

Every case citation verified in AustLII, LexisNexis AU or Westlaw AU — not by a secondary AI tool — including that the decision has not been overruled, reversed on appeal, or distinguished in a subsequent case material to the proposition advanced. All statutory section references checked against the current consolidated Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) on legislation.gov.au, including: Part IVA (mandatory merger regime, commenced 1 January 2026 with April 2026 amendments), the March 2026 penalty doubling, and the November 2023 UCT reforms — none of which are in AI training data. All penalty figures ($100 million per contravention from 28 March 2026), merger notification thresholds and waiver fees verified against the current text of the CCA and the Competition and Consumer (Notification of Acquisitions) Determination 2025 — both the Act and the Determination changed materially between January and April 2026. The specific client facts have been mapped onto the AI output: AI drafts are written at generic/abstract level and must be anchored to the actual conduct, market, transaction value, counterparties and chronology before any output is used. No client confidential information (pricing data, market share, deal terms, leniency discussions, s 155 notice content) was submitted to a non-approved AI tool — confirm by reviewing the prompt log before using any AI output. Any content proposed for Federal Court filing (submissions, affidavits, expert report summaries) has been reviewed for compliance with Federal Court GPN-AI Practice Note (16 April 2026): responsible lawyer has personally verified authorities exist, facts are provable, evidence is admissible, and required disclosure of GenAI use has been made. For NSW Supreme Court proceedings, SC Gen 23 (3 February 2025) imposes additional leave requirement for AI-drafted affidavit content. The engagement partner has confirmed that cartel conduct and criminal-exposure analysis has not been delegated to AI output — a supervising lawyer with relevant expertise has independently considered criminal liability, CDPP referral risk, and immunity eligibility before any advice issues. The output does not reflect superseded law: specifically, (a) pre-November 2023 UCT regime (voidable terms, no penalty); (b) pre-January 2026 voluntary informal merger clearance under Part VII; (c) pre-April 2026 control threshold position; (d) pre-March 2026 $50 million penalty cap; (e) pre-November 2017 'taking advantage' test under s 46; and (f) proposed Unfair Trading Practices Bill 2026 stated as current law.

- Every case citation verified in AustLII, LexisNexis AU or Westlaw AU — not by a secondary AI tool — including that the decision has not been overruled, reversed on appeal, or distinguished in a subsequent case material to the proposition advanced.
- All statutory section references checked against the current consolidated Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) on legislation.gov.au, including: Part IVA (mandatory merger regime, commenced 1 January 2026 with April 2026 amendments), the March 2026 penalty doubling, and the November 2023 UCT reforms — none of which are in AI training data.
- All penalty figures ($100 million per contravention from 28 March 2026), merger notification thresholds and waiver fees verified against the current text of the CCA and the Competition and Consumer (Notification of Acquisitions) Determination 2025 — both the Act and the Determination changed materially between January and April 2026.
- The specific client facts have been mapped onto the AI output: AI drafts are written at generic/abstract level and must be anchored to the actual conduct, market, transaction value, counterparties and chronology before any output is used.
- No client confidential information (pricing data, market share, deal terms, leniency discussions, s 155 notice content) was submitted to a non-approved AI tool — confirm by reviewing the prompt log before using any AI output.
- Any content proposed for Federal Court filing (submissions, affidavits, expert report summaries) has been reviewed for compliance with Federal Court GPN-AI Practice Note (16 April 2026): responsible lawyer has personally verified authorities exist, facts are provable, evidence is admissible, and required disclosure of GenAI use has been made. For NSW Supreme Court proceedings, SC Gen 23 (3 February 2025) imposes additional leave requirement for AI-drafted affidavit content.
- The engagement partner has confirmed that cartel conduct and criminal-exposure analysis has not been delegated to AI output — a supervising lawyer with relevant expertise has independently considered criminal liability, CDPP referral risk, and immunity eligibility before any advice issues.
- The output does not reflect superseded law: specifically, (a) pre-November 2023 UCT regime (voidable terms, no penalty); (b) pre-January 2026 voluntary informal merger clearance under Part VII; (c) pre-April 2026 control threshold position; (d) pre-March 2026 $50 million penalty cap; (e) pre-November 2017 'taking advantage' test under s 46; and (f) proposed Unfair Trading Practices Bill 2026 stated as current law.

## Tasks (27)

| Task | Level | How AI is used | What the lawyer must review |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [Build a misleading-conduct issues table from the campaign or statement](https://ailawframework.com/practice/competition-and-consumer-law/build-a-misleading-conduct-issues-table-from-the-campaign-or-statement.md) | Yellow | From the advertisement, website or representation, list candidate meanings, the audience, and the documents that support or undermine each meaning. | Decide whether the conduct is misleading under the consumer law that applies Do not treat a generated statutory-section label as the analysis |
| [Screen an agreement for cartel or competitor-collaboration risk](https://ailawframework.com/practice/competition-and-consumer-law/screen-an-agreement-for-cartel-or-competitor-collaboration-risk.md) | Red | Produce a checklist-style screen of the agreement or meeting notes against price, output, market-sharing and bid-rigging, with clause and email references. | Remember cartel conduct is criminal in many places Use the screen as a fact index, not a clearance |
| [Build an information-exchange and concerted-practices screen](https://ailawframework.com/practice/competition-and-consumer-law/build-an-information-exchange-and-concerted-practices-screen.md) | Yellow | From the correspondence and meeting notes, list information exchanged with competitors, the forum and any suggested responses, with document references. | Apply the local concerted-practices test; it differs by country Do not collapse this into a cartel finding |
| [Build a merger-notification threshold table from the deal facts](https://ailawframework.com/practice/competition-and-consumer-law/build-a-merger-notification-threshold-table-from-the-deal-facts.md) | Yellow | Map the transaction and financial facts the client has supplied to the threshold checklist the lawyer has selected, and list missing figures. | Apply the current thresholds, control tests and exemptions Do not complete a deal on a generated 'no notification' label |
| [Build a competition-effects outline for an agreement, merger or unilateral-conduct file](https://ailawframework.com/practice/competition-and-consumer-law/build-a-competition-effects-outline-for-an-agreement-merger-or-unilatera.md) | Red | Produce a structured outline (market, shares, theories of harm, counterfactual, documents to collect) from the papers the lawyer supplies. | Form the market definition and competitive-effects opinion yourself Use the outline as a scaffold |
| [Audit a standard-form contract for one-sided terms](https://ailawframework.com/practice/competition-and-consumer-law/audit-a-standard-form-contract-for-one-sided-terms.md) | Yellow | Flag clauses that may create a significant imbalance (unilateral variation, liability, termination, auto-renewal) and produce a suggested mark-up. | Decide whether the contract is standard-form and the counterparty protected Check the local penalties; they differ by country |
| [Build an environmental-claims evidence table](https://ailawframework.com/practice/competition-and-consumer-law/build-an-environmental-claims-evidence-table.md) | Yellow | Extract environmental claims from the pages or pack the lawyer names and list the evidence the client holds beside each claim. | Decide yourself whether each claim is lawful or greenwashing Do not read the table as a legal label |
| [Check displayed pricing, subscriptions and cancellation flows](https://ailawframework.com/practice/competition-and-consumer-law/check-displayed-pricing-subscriptions-and-cancellation-flows.md) | Yellow | From the screenshots or site walk-through, list displayed prices, mandatory fees, subscription steps and cancellation paths with a note of what is not shown… | Apply the current drip-pricing and subscription rules Decide yourself whether a missing total price is a breach |
| [Screen supplier–distributor agreements for resale-price risk](https://ailawframework.com/practice/competition-and-consumer-law/screen-supplier-distributor-agreements-for-resale-price-risk.md) | Yellow | Extract recommended, maximum and minimum price clauses and related incentives from the agreement into a table. | Distinguish recommended from required prices under the law that applies Do not carry per se or effects tests across countries |
| [Screen exclusive-dealing and conditional-supply clauses](https://ailawframework.com/practice/competition-and-consumer-law/screen-exclusive-dealing-and-conditional-supply-clauses.md) | Yellow | List exclusive, tying and third-line conditions from the agreement with clause references and a note of the notification or exemption path the lawyer has named. | Apply the current exclusive-dealing test Do not mix per se and effects limbs |
| [Draft an enforceable undertaking from the commitments list](https://ailawframework.com/practice/competition-and-consumer-law/draft-an-enforceable-undertaking-from-the-commitments-list.md) | Yellow | Produce a first-draft undertaking with commitments, reporting, audit and term from the lawyer's commitments list and published precedents the lawyer has… | Remember the undertaking is binding Check every metric and reporting date is operable |
| [Draft a competition authorisation or notification application](https://ailawframework.com/practice/competition-and-consumer-law/draft-a-competition-authorisation-or-notification-application.md) | Yellow | Structure the public-benefit and detriment narrative from the proposed conduct description and comparable published decisions the lawyer has named. | Apply the public-benefit test to the facts Check every analogue decision exists and is on point |
| [Map consumer-guarantee remedies for a goods or services dispute](https://ailawframework.com/practice/competition-and-consumer-law/map-consumer-guarantee-remedies-for-a-goods-or-services-dispute.md) | Yellow | From the transaction papers, list the candidate guarantees, the failure facts and the repair, replace, refund or compensation steps the statute provides. | Decide major v minor failure yourself Check thresholds; they differ and are easy to invent |
| [Draft a hold notice and a document-category list for a competition investigation](https://ailawframework.com/practice/competition-and-consumer-law/draft-a-hold-notice-and-a-document-category-list-for-a-competition-inves.md) | Yellow | Produce a litigation-hold notice and a schedule of document categories from the regulator notice the lawyer supplies. | Remember non-compliance with a compulsory notice carries criminal risk Decide privilege and preservation scope yourself |
| Extract competitor contacts and meeting notes into a clean-team log | Green | From emails and diaries, list competitor contacts, attendees, topics and documents shared, flagged against the protocol the lawyer has named. | Use the log as a fact index Do not treat a missing note as clearance |
| Compare a collaboration or JV paper with the no-poach and information-sharing rules | Yellow | Extract hiring, pricing, customer-allocation and information-sharing clauses from the paper into a risk table. | Apply the current cartel and collaboration rules Do not assume a 'JV' label immunises the clause |
| Draft a competitor-complaint or regulator-approach letter from the evidence file | Yellow | Produce a first-draft complaint or approach letter from the evidence table and the remedy the lawyer has named. | Support every factual sentence with a document Decide privilege and without-prejudice labels yourself |
| Review client marketing claims about AI for misleading conduct risk | Yellow | List each AI-related claim with the substantiation the client holds. | Assess ss 18 and 29 ACL risk. |
| Prepare a merger notification document index | Yellow | Classify produced documents and flag likely-relevant board papers. | Settle relevance and privilege. |
| Review marketing copy for misleading-claim risk under the ACL | Yellow | Flag claims (green, price, origin, AI-capability) that need substantiation. | Lawyer assesses each flag against ACL ss 18 and 29. |
| Summarise ACCC guidance relevant to a client's proposed conduct | Yellow | Summarise the guidance and map it to the client's facts. | Lawyer checks the guidance is current and applies it. |
| Build a document review protocol for an ACCC s 155 notice | Yellow | Draft coding categories and use technology-assisted review for production. | Lawyer supervises review; check privilege before production. |
| Advise a board on privilege risk when using AI tools on competition advice | Yellow | Map where AI notes and summaries could waive privilege. | Lawyer gives the advice. |
| Compare a draft consumer contract against the unfair contract terms regime | Yellow | Flag terms likely to be unfair in a standard-form contract. | Lawyer applies the law and penalties regime. |
| Review AI-capability claims in advertising | Yellow | Flag claims needing substantiation. | Lawyer applies the ACL. |
| Advise on algorithmic pricing and collusion risk | Yellow | Map pricing-algorithm features against cartel law. | Lawyer advises. |
| Summarise ACCC digital platform inquiry findings | Green | Summarise findings. | Verify. |

## Jurisdiction notes

### Australia

#### Legal sources

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) and the Australian Consumer Law (Sch 2), enforced mainly by the ACCC, with jurisdiction in the Federal Court and Federal Circuit and Family Court.

#### Penalties

Civil penalties doubled to $100 million per contravention from 28 March 2026. Cartel conduct is criminal and can mean prison.

#### Mergers

Mandatory, suspensory notification under Part IVA CCA from 1 January 2026 sets hard deadlines; a date or threshold error is immediately serious.

#### Analysis

Market definition, substantial lessening of competition and purpose/effect tests are fact-specific and stay with the lawyer.

### New Zealand

Local name: Competition and consumer law (Commerce Act / Fair Trading Act)

#### Regulator

The Commerce Commission enforces the Commerce Act 1986 and the Fair Trading Act 1986.

#### Mergers

Voluntary clearance and a substantial-lessening-of-competition test. Not the ACCC mandatory regime from 1 January 2026.

#### Consumer law

Consumer guarantees, unfair contract terms and misleading conduct are FTA questions. Do not cite CCA s 50, ACL s 18 or an ACCC s 155 notice.

- Do not apply ACCC mandatory merger thresholds to a New Zealand acquisition.

Sources:

- [Commerce Commission: merging or acquiring a company](https://www.comcom.govt.nz/business/merging-or-acquiring-a-company/) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [Commerce Commission: laws we enforce](https://www.comcom.govt.nz/about-us/our-role/laws-we-enforce/) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [Fair Trading Act 1986](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/121/en/latest/) (checked 2026-09-23)

### United States

Local name: Antitrust and consumer protection

#### Antitrust

Sherman Act, Clayton Act and FTC Act, not the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). Merger notification is HSR, not the ACCC regime.

#### Consumer protection

FTC Act section 5, state UDAP statutes and, in California, the CCPA for privacy rights.

Sources:

- [ABA Formal Opinion 512, Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools (29 July 2024)](https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [California Attorney General: California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)](https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [FTC: The antitrust laws (Sherman Act, FTC Act, Clayton Act)](https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act section 5)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/45) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [FTC: Premerger Notification Program (HSR)](https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/premerger-notification-program) (checked 2026-09-23)

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*