How Far Can You Take Creative Claims? Puffery, Misrepresentation

Used under a Creative Commons Licence

How far can you take creative claims?

In a crowded market, bold claims can feel essential. You want to say your product is the “best”, “natural”, “local”, “guilt‑free” or “planet‑friendly” – but how far can you go before you cross the line into misleading or deceptive conduct? The uncomfortable truth is that the law in this area is not always black and white, and the safest way to manage risk is to get tailored legal advice before you launch your next campaign.

Puffery: how “creative” can you be?

Puffery is the legal term for vague, glowing praise that no reasonable consumer would take literally. Think of slogans like “the ultimate treat”, “most loved by families” or “you’ll feel unstoppable”. These statements are subjective and fuzzy – they don’t promise a precise outcome, and they’re hard for a court to test in any meaningful way.

But how sure are you that what you’re saying really is just puffery? At what point does a “feel‑good” line start looking like a real promise to a regulator or judge? A phrase that feels obviously exaggerated to a marketer can look much more concrete when it appears on packaging next to product features, nutrition panels or price claims.

When creative claims stop being harmless

Under the Australian Consumer Law, businesses must not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct, or make false or misleading representations about goods or services. This is where the trouble starts: many claims sit in a grey zone between obvious puffery and clearly false statements. Consider these kinds of questions:

Are your “best ever” or “number one” claims backed by any evidence, rankings or awards?
Do your “natural”, “clean” or “plant‑based” statements match the processing and ingredients in a way an ordinary shopper would understand?
Does your “local” or “Made in Australia” message reflect where ingredients are grown or only where the product is packed?

Recent matters show that when brands drift into specific health, nutrition, origin or subscription claims, regulators and courts are much more likely to see those statements as serious representations. Heinz, for example, was found to have misled parents with toddler snacks branded as a healthy, fruit‑based choice, even though they were very high in sugar. In another case, “Made in Australia” fish oil capsules were held to be misleading because the key oil was processed overseas and only encapsulated locally.

The lesson is not that you can never use strong claims – it is that once you move beyond pure mood and opinion, you are entering territory where you need to be able to justify, qualify and explain what you say.

Grey areas: numbers, “natural” and visual cues

Problems often arise when creative language is combined with numbers or strong visual signals. You might ask yourself:

If you say “99% fruit & veg”, what exactly is in the product, and how is that percentage calculated?
If your pack shouts “no added sugar” but the product is half sugars from concentrates and purees, would an ordinary parent see that as “low sugar”?
If you use images of fresh fruit and lush fields, or green and earthy colours, are you suggesting a level of freshness, naturalness or environmental benefit that the product doesn’t really deliver?

Australian cases and enforcement work highlight that it’s not just the words that matter – it’s the overall impression. Fruit pictures on cordial labels, “local milk” campaigns where milk is trucked in from interstate, or eco‑themed imagery on heavily processed foods have all been challenged as misleading. You might not intend to deceive anyone, but the law focuses on what consumers are likely to think, not what you meant.

Origin, “local” and Australian identity

Country‑of‑origin and “local” claims remain a particular hot spot. The ACCC and other regulators have made it clear that phrases like “Made in Australia”, “Australian”, “local” or “the Territory’s own” are not just marketing flourishes – they carry specific legal expectations. So you need to ask:

Where are the key ingredients grown or produced?
Has the product undergone “substantial transformation” in Australia, or is the Australian step basically packing and labelling?
Does your use of Australian symbols, colours (such as green and gold) or animals (like kangaroos) imply something about origin or content that isn’t quite true?

These questions don’t always have easy answers. Some products involve complex international supply chains and multiple processing steps. That is precisely why origin claims are risky to improvise – you often need a legal view to map the chain against the rules.

Subscription, savings and “too good to be true” offers

Creative claims are not limited to food and packaging. Recent ACCC actions against subscription services and meal‑kit companies show how pricing, discount and cancellation claims can also attract scrutiny. If you say “cancel anytime”, “no lock‑in”, “easy to cancel” or trumpet a bold discount, it is worth asking:

Is the cancellation process genuinely simple in practice, or are there hidden cut‑offs and hoops?
Does your “was/now” pricing reflect real, recent selling prices, or a higher reference price hardly anyone paid?
Would an ordinary consumer walk away feeling misled about how much they saved or how easily they could get out?

Again, the legal risk often lies in the gap between the message and the actual user experience. You may feel confident that your process is fair, but would a regulator – or a court – agree if shown a bundle of screenshots and customer complaints?

Why the line is not always clear

The hardest part for businesses is that these issues are rarely black and white. Two campaigns with similar wording can be treated differently depending on context, target audience, fine print, visuals and even broader industry practices. A description that is safe as puffery in a general brand ad might become risky when placed on a pack next to specific nutrition information or medical‑style imagery.

That is why it’s dangerous to assume that “everyone does it” or that a clever disclaimer will fix everything. The law looks at the overall impression on ordinary consumers – not the internal logic of your marketing team. It also changes over time as expectations evolve, particularly around health, environmental and origin claims.

Practical questions to ask before you publish

Before you sign off on a new slogan, pack, website or campaign, it can help to run through some simple questions internally:

Could a reasonable customer take this literally and rely on it when deciding to buy?
If a journalist or regulator asked you to justify the claim, what evidence could you show them?
Does the imagery, colour and layout push the impression further than the small‑print explanation?Would you feel comfortable explaining this claim under oath, in court, with your emails and drafts on the table?

If any of those questions make you uneasy, that discomfort is useful – it is often a sign you are moving out of the safe puffery zone and into territory where the ACL and other laws may bite. At that point, the most cost‑effective step is usually to get advice from a lawyer who works in advertising, consumer and food‑labelling law, rather than waiting to see if a complaint appears.

Why speaking to a lawyer matters

Every brand, product and campaign is different. The same phrase can be benign in one context and highly risky in another. Generic checklists and articles (including this one) can only take you so far. They can help you spot the issues, but they cannot tell you definitively whether your actual wording, layout and business model are compliant.

A lawyer who understands both intellectual property and consumer law can look at your specific claims, your evidence, your competitors and your risk tolerance. They can help you decide where you can safely be bold, where you need to tone things down, and how to phrase essential commercial messages without inviting regulatory or reputational trouble. In an environment where enforcement action, class actions and social media scrutiny are all increasing, that kind of tailored advice is often a small investment compared with the cost of getting it wrong.

If you are unsure whether your creative claims are safe puffery or potential problems, it is usually wisest not to guess – get a legal view before you commit to packaging, campaigns or long‑term brand platforms.

How far can you take creative claims?

How far can you take creative claims?

Puffery: how “creative” can you be?

When creative claims stop being harmless

Origin, “local” and Australian identity

Subscription, savings and “too good to be true” offers

Why the line is not always clear

Practical questions to ask before you publish

Why speaking to a lawyer matters

Further reading

Further reading