Making a Case for Accurate Claims

Credit: Yunus (unsplash)

Consumers are increasingly seeking healthier food choices and paying closer attention to the information that appears on food packaging. As awareness of nutrition, wellness, sustainability and ingredient quality continues to grow, shoppers are scrutinising labels more carefully than ever before. In response, food manufacturers, marketers and retailers frequently promote products using terms such as “natural”, “organic”, “lite”, “real fruit”, “reduced fat”, “high protein”, “low sugar”, “gut friendly” and “immune supporting”. These claims can be highly effective marketing tools, helping brands differentiate themselves in a crowded marketplace and appeal to consumers who are looking to make healthier lifestyle choices.

The commercial attraction of such claims is obvious. In a competitive food and beverage sector, product packaging often serves as the first and most important communication between a brand and a consumer. Words, images, colours and symbols on packaging can influence purchasing decisions in a matter of seconds. A carefully crafted claim can help a product stand out on a supermarket shelf, build consumer trust and increase sales. However, with those opportunities come significant legal responsibilities.

Food labelling and advertising claims can create substantial legal risk where they overstate a product’s health benefits, nutritional value, ingredients, manufacturing process or overall quality. Even where a claim is based on some element of truth, problems can arise if consumers are left with an inaccurate or misleading impression about what is actually inside the package. In many cases, the legal issue is not whether a statement is technically correct in isolation, but whether the overall message communicated to consumers reflects reality.

Under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), businesses must ensure that food packaging, health claims, nutritional statements, product descriptions, imagery and promotional materials do not mislead or deceive consumers. Section 18 of the ACL prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce, while section 29 prohibits false or misleading representations about goods and services. These provisions apply not only to express statements but also to impressions created by the overall presentation of a product.

Importantly, a claim can still attract regulatory scrutiny even where every individual statement on the label is technically accurate. Courts and regulators frequently assess the “overall impression” conveyed by packaging rather than focusing solely on individual words or disclaimers. As a result, businesses cannot assume that a small qualification hidden in fine print will cure a misleading headline claim, prominent image or eye-catching marketing slogan.

This raises an important question for every food manufacturer, brand owner, product developer and marketer:

Does the packaging communicate the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

The answer requires businesses to look beyond the literal wording of individual claims and consider how an ordinary consumer is likely to interpret the packaging as a whole. A product may genuinely contain fruit, but if the quantity is negligible, prominent fruit imagery may still be problematic. A snack may be “baked not fried”, but if consumers are likely to assume it is significantly healthier when its nutritional profile tells a different story, the claim may attract scrutiny. Likewise, terms such as “natural”, “real”, “fresh” or “wholesome” may create powerful consumer expectations that are difficult to justify if the product is heavily processed or contains numerous artificial ingredients.

Australian courts and regulators regularly examine food labels from the perspective of ordinary consumers who often make quick purchasing decisions in supermarkets, convenience stores and online marketplaces. Consumers do not typically conduct detailed investigations into ingredient lists, nutritional panels or manufacturing processes before placing products in their shopping trolley. Instead, they often rely on the overall impression created by the packaging. This means that businesses must carefully consider not only the accuracy of individual words but also the cumulative message conveyed through product names, imagery, colours, graphics, health symbols, endorsements and advertising claims.

The regulatory landscape has also become increasingly active. Food labelling, health claims, sustainability claims and product marketing continue to be areas of focus for regulators both in Australia and overseas. Businesses that fail to take compliance seriously risk more than just adverse publicity. Consequences may include ACCC investigations, court proceedings, enforceable undertakings, corrective advertising orders, significant legal costs, reputational damage and substantial financial penalties.

The cases discussed below demonstrate how seemingly minor decisions about food packaging and advertising can have major legal consequences. They also highlight an important lesson for brand owners: when communicating health benefits, nutritional attributes or product qualities, every word on the label counts.

Making a Case for Accurate Claims

Every Word Counts

Claims That Attract Regulatory Scrutiny

Food businesses should exercise particular caution when using claims such as:

• All Natural
• Organic
• No Added Sugar
• High Protein
• Reduced Fat
• Low Carb
• Gut Friendly
• Immune Boosting
• Heart Healthy
• Made with Real Fruit
• Fresh
• Preservative Free
• Sustainable
• Environmentally Friendly

These claims often attract attention from regulators because consumers may rely upon them when making purchasing decisions.

Food labelling compliance is no longer simply a regulatory issue. It is a core brand protection issue.

Whether the claim concerns ingredients, nutritional benefits, manufacturing processes, environmental credentials or pricing promotions, businesses must ensure that every aspect of their packaging creates an accurate overall impression.

The lesson from the law and the ACCC cases is consistent: if a reasonable consumer could walk away with the wrong impression, the fact that the technical truth appears somewhere else on the packaging may not be enough.

In today’s regulatory environment, careful legal review of packaging and advertising claims is often significantly cheaper than defending an ACCC investigation after the product reaches supermarket shelves.

Please note the above article is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice.

Please email us info@iplegal.com.au if you need legal advice about your brand or another legal matter in this area generally.