Good Enough to Eat

Good Enough to Eat

When Does Food Styling Become Misleading?

Have you ever ordered a burger that looked nothing like the one in the advertisement? Or purchased a product because the packaging showed heaps of fresh fruit, nuts or premium ingredients, only to discover there was very little of it inside?

Food photography, food styling and digital enhancement are all accepted parts of modern marketing. However, there is a legal line between making food look appealing and creating a misleading impression.

From restaurant menus and food delivery apps to supermarket packaging, influencer campaigns and AI-generated food imagery, businesses need to be careful that the overall impression they create is accurate.

This article explores where that line sits and what Australian businesses need to know about food advertising laws.

Can Food Advertisements Be Too Good To Be True?

The simple answer is yes.

There is nothing unlawful about presenting food in an attractive way. Food stylists have been making products look delicious for decades. Perfectly placed sesame seeds, carefully arranged salad leaves and strategically positioned toppings are all part of the industry.

When Does Food Styling Become Misleading?

However, problems can arise when the overall impression created by an advertisement, photograph or product package differs materially from what consumers actually receive. The key issue is not whether food has been styled, professionally photographed or digitally enhanced, but whether consumers are likely to be misled. This principle sits at the heart of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), which forms Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). Section 18 prohibits conduct that is misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive, while section 29 prohibits false or misleading representations about goods and services. Importantly, a business can still breach these provisions even where individual statements are technically true if the overall impression conveyed to consumers is inaccurate or misleading. In other words, it is not just what an advertisement says that matters—it is also what it suggests, implies or causes consumers to believe.

Food styling itself is not illegal

What Does the Australian Consumer Law Say?

Food businesses need to comply with a range of legislation, including the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), the Australian Consumer Law and the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code.

The ACCC regularly reminds businesses that consumers are entitled to rely on the overall impression created by advertising and packaging.

One well-known example involved Uncle Tobys Roll-Ups.

The ACCC investigated concerns that the packaging and marketing created the impression that the product was equivalent to fresh fruit. Although fruit was an ingredient, concerns were raised that the marketing may have overstated the product’s nutritional qualities. The matter became a significant public discussion about how food products are presented to consumers and remains a useful reminder that imagery can be just as important as words. More recently, regulators have focused heavily on health claims, sustainability claims, ingredient claims and representations about product origins.

Can Restaurants and Fast Food Chains Digitally Enhance Food Images?

Most consumers understand that food photography is not an exact science and that professional photographers, stylists and marketers will present products in the best possible light. The challenge is that there is often a grey area between acceptable styling and imagery that creates a misleading impression.

The law does not require every burger to look exactly like the one shown in the advertisement, nor does it prohibit businesses from using flattering angles, clever lighting or carefully arranged ingredients. However, concerns can arise where the gap between expectation and reality becomes too great.

For example, if a burger advertisement depicts a substantially larger product, significantly more ingredients or features that are not actually supplied, consumers may feel that they have not received what was promised.

The same issues can arise with menu photographs, food delivery apps, online ordering platforms and supermarket packaging.

What Happens If Packaging Does Not Match the Product?

Food packaging has become something of an art form. Bright colours, carefully chosen fonts, rustic imagery, overflowing bowls of fresh ingredients and buzzwords such as “natural”, “healthy”, “organic” and “wholesome” are designed to grab attention in a matter of seconds. In fact, many consumers make purchasing decisions while standing in front of a supermarket shelf for only a few moments, meaning the packaging often does as much selling as the product itself.

This is one reason why packaging disputes continue to attract the attention of regulators. The Federal Court’s decision in ACCC v Heinz Australia Pty Ltd is a useful reminder that businesses need to look beyond the fine print and consider the overall impression their products create. In that case, representations relating to a toddler snack product were found to have conveyed misleading messages about the product’s nutritional qualities. The court looked at the packaging as a whole, including the images, wording and branding, rather than focusing on individual statements in isolation.

The lesson for food businesses is a simple one. Consumers do not usually stand in the supermarket aisle conducting a legal analysis of the label. They look at the package, absorb the overall message and make a purchasing decision. Large images, colours, slogans, symbols, health cues and design choices can all contribute to that impression. Sometimes what a package implies can be just as important as what it actually says.

How Does the ACCC Regulate Food Marketing Claims?

The ACCC has become increasingly active in reviewing the claims made by food manufacturers, retailers, restaurants and marketers. In recent years, regulators have paid particular attention to claims about health benefits, ingredients, sustainability, environmental credentials, country of origin, organic products and so-called “natural” foods. Social media advertising and influencer marketing have also become areas of growing scrutiny.

One common mistake businesses make is assuming that if a claim sounds reasonable, it is safe to use. In reality, the ACCC expects businesses to have evidence supporting the claims they make before those claims appear in advertisements, packaging or online marketing. If a product is marketed as being rich in a particular ingredient, environmentally friendly, locally sourced or especially nutritious, businesses should be prepared to back those statements up if challenged.

Photographs can create problems too.

A package covered in images of fresh berries, premium nuts or farm-fresh ingredients may lead consumers to form expectations about the contents of the product. If those expectations are not met, the ACCC may take the view that the overall impression is misleading, even if the ingredient list technically tells a different story.

Do Influencers Have Legal Obligations?

Absolutely. Food marketing today is no longer confined to television commercials and supermarket catalogues. Influencers, food bloggers, TikTok creators and Instagram personalities have become some of the most powerful marketing tools available to food businesses.

The challenge is that advertising does not stop being advertising simply because it appears in a casual social media post. A glowing restaurant review, an enthusiastic unboxing video or a recommendation for a meal delivery service may still amount to advertising if there is a commercial arrangement behind the scenes. The Australian Consumer Law applies just as much to influencer marketing as it does to traditional advertising campaigns.

Businesses and influencers should therefore ensure that sponsored relationships are properly disclosed and that claims about products are accurate and capable of being substantiated. An influencer cannot simply repeat marketing claims supplied by a brand and assume they are legally protected.

Food content creators should also keep an eye on copyright issues. Recipes, photographs, videos, branding and other creative materials may be protected by intellectual property laws. Copying content from competitors, using third-party photographs without permission or reposting material without authorisation can create an entirely different set of legal problems.

As food marketing continues to evolve, the key principle remains surprisingly old-fashioned: be transparent, be honest and make sure your marketing reflects reality rather than wishful thinking.

Can AI-Generated Food Images Create Legal Risks?

Artificial intelligence is becoming the new secret ingredient in food marketing. Businesses can now create mouth-watering images of burgers, cakes, pizzas and desserts with just a few clicks—sometimes without ever cooking the food at all.

The results can be impressive, and occasionally a little too impressive.

The problem is that while the technology is new, the law is not. If an AI-generated image makes a meal look significantly bigger, fresher, more colourful or packed with ingredients that are not actually included, businesses could find themselves facing the same legal issues that apply to heavily edited photographs. From a legal perspective, it generally does not matter whether the image was created by a photographer, a graphic designer or a computer program. What matters is the impression consumers are left with.

How Can Food Businesses Reduce Legal Risk?

One of the best ways to reduce legal risk is to obtain legal advice before launching a new product, packaging design, advertising campaign or influencer promotion. What may seem like a clever marketing idea can sometimes raise issues under the Australian Consumer Law or food labelling regulations.

At Sharon Givoni Consulting, we advise food manufacturers, restaurants, retailers, marketers and content creators on food advertising, packaging claims, influencer marketing, intellectual property and consumer law compliance. A review before a campaign goes live can often identify potential problems early and help avoid costly disputes later on.

And: 

---

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.