---
title: "Build a misleading-conduct issues table under ACL ss 18 and 29"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/competition-and-consumer-law/build-a-misleading-conduct-issues-table-from-the-campaign-or-statement/commonwealth"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A29-T1-R1-CTH"
practice_area: "Competition & Consumer Law (ACCC / ACL)"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["CTH"]
last_reviewed: "2026-09-23"
---

# Build a misleading-conduct issues table under ACL ss 18 and 29

> From the advertisement, website or representation, list candidate meanings, the audience and the documents for and against each, against the ACL s 18 elements.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/competition-and-consumer-law/build-a-misleading-conduct-issues-table-from-the-campaign-or-statement/commonwealth  
Last reviewed: 2026-09-23

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

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Competition & Consumer Law (ACCC / ACL)](https://ailawframework.com/practice/competition-and-consumer-law.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | From the advertisement, website or representation, list candidate meanings, the audience and the documents for and against each, against the ACL s 18 elements. |
| What the lawyer must review | Check every case on AustLII Test the client's actual words and the overall impression (Campomar v Nike [2000] HCA 12) Confirm 'trade or commerce' and any ACCC orders or undertakings Check the 2026-27 drip-pricing priority |
| Written for | Commonwealth |
| Applies to | [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) |

## Checking plan

**Lawyer review required**

The responsible lawyer reviews the work against the instructions, sources and intended use.

- What the AI does: Potential support includes organising research leads and preparing preliminary structure or wording. Confirm the tool’s capability and permitted scope.
- What the lawyer does: Set the scope, verify the evidence, resolve exceptions and approve the final output for its intended use.
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Suggested checking approach based on the task guidance. Complete the assessment for the actual tool, information and jurisdiction.
- Why: The plan reflects the described work and review requirements. Policy colours are not used to determine permission or checking.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Open each relied-on authority independently. Confirm its existence, current status, proposition and any quotation or pinpoint reference.
2. Verify the applicable jurisdiction and the version of each relevant law, rule or instrument in force at the material time.
3. Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
4. Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.

## Notes

- Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts. The checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.

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