Australian Consumer Law and Queensland Real Estate Agents: Misleading Conduct, Price Guides and Advertising

A vendor instructs you to list at “Offers Over $850,000.” You know from comparable sales the property will likely sell at $920,000. You run the listing. Six months later, the Office of Fair Trading is on the phone. Understanding exactly where the legal line sits — and what conduct has actually attracted penalties in Queensland — is not optional for a licensed agent. It is the job.

Queensland real estate advertising sits at the intersection of three separate legal frameworks: the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), which applies nationally; the Property Occupations Act 2014 (Qld), which imposes obligations specific to property agents; and a collection of supporting instruments — the Spam Act 2003, the Privacy Act 1988, and auction-specific regulations — that govern how agents reach, communicate with, and represent information to prospective buyers. Each layer adds obligations. Getting any one of them wrong carries real consequences.

What Australian Consumer Law Actually Prohibits

The Australian Consumer Law is Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). It applies to all persons and corporations engaged in trade or commerce, which captures every licensed Queensland real estate agent, salesperson, and principal conducting business activity. There is no carve-out for property transactions.

Section 18 of the ACL prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce. The prohibition is broad and, critically, it does not require intent. An agent does not need to have set out to deceive anyone. If the conduct — a statement, an omission, an implication — had the capacity to mislead a reasonable person in the circumstances, the section is engaged. This is one of the most misunderstood aspects of the law among agents who believe honest intentions are a defence. They are not.

Section 29 extends this to specific false or misleading representations about goods and services, and includes representations about the price of land. Section 30 focuses specifically on misleading conduct in connection with the sale or grant of an interest in land — including representations about the nature, characteristics, use, or price of land. For Queensland agents, section 30 is the ACL provision most directly relevant to day-to-day advertising, open home statements, and negotiation conduct.

The Reasonable Person Test in Property Contexts

Courts assess misleading conduct by asking whether the representation, viewed objectively, was capable of leading a member of the target audience to a false conclusion. In real estate, the target audience is typically a prospective buyer — someone in the market for residential property who has some familiarity with how property advertising works, but who is not a conveyancer or valuer. This is a meaningful standard. Vague language that an experienced agent considers obviously non-committal may still mislead a first-home buyer who takes it at face value.

Omissions can constitute misleading conduct just as readily as positive statements. Failing to disclose a known material fact — a serious structural defect, a flood history, a registered easement — when the agent is aware of it and the buyer cannot reasonably be expected to discover it without disclosure, creates real exposure under both the ACL and the Property Occupations Act. The two regimes overlap here, and a single failure can trigger liability under both.

Price Representations and the Underquoting Problem

Underquoting is the practice of marketing a property at a price that the agent knows, or reasonably ought to know, is below what the vendor will actually accept. It attracts buyers to inspections under false pretences, wastes their time and money on building inspections and legal advice, and distorts the market. It is also illegal.

Under the ACL, a deliberately low price guide is a false or misleading representation about the price of land under section 29(1)(i). Under the Property Occupations Act 2014, agents have obligations around the accuracy of price representations tied to their duties to both the vendor client and prospective buyers. The OFT has pursued underquoting complaints in Queensland, and while historically enforcement has been more vigorous in New South Wales and Victoria (where dedicated underquoting legislation exists), Queensland agents should not interpret this as a relaxed regulatory environment. The ACL applies uniformly across all states.

The practical implication: if a vendor instructs you to list at a price that bears no reasonable relationship to the likely selling price — whether through a low “Offers Over” figure, an unrealistically narrow price range, or a “contact agent” instruction designed to obscure value — you face a choice between complying with a client instruction and complying with the law. The law takes precedence. Document your advice to the vendor in writing if there is any disagreement about the appropriate listing price.

Price Ranges and “Offers Over” Advertising

“Offers Over” advertising is lawful in Queensland, but it is not a shield against misleading conduct claims. If you advertise “Offers Over $780,000” for a property where the vendor has told you they will not sell for less than $870,000, the gap between the advertised figure and the actual reserve is capable of misleading buyers. The advertised price must bear a reasonable and honest relationship to what the vendor genuinely intends to accept.

Price range advertising carries its own risks. Industry practice suggests that a range should reflect a genuine spread between a realistic low end and a realistic high end — not a narrow band anchored below vendor expectations to drive enquiry. A price range of “$800,000 – $850,000” for a property where the vendor’s reserve is $900,000 creates obvious ACL exposure. Document the methodology you used to arrive at any advertised range and retain those records.

Queensland’s Auction Price Guide Prohibition

This is the provision that catches agents from other states by surprise, and it is essential knowledge for any agent conducting or marketing auctions in Queensland.

Queensland’s auction rules, operating under the Property Occupations Act 2014 and the Property Occupations Regulation 2014, prohibit agents and auctioneers from providing a price guide to prospective bidders in connection with a property being sold by auction. This is the opposite of the position in New South Wales and Victoria, where providing indicative price guides to auction buyers is not only permitted but now regulated to prevent underquoting. Queensland takes the position that any price indication before an auction is inherently speculative and potentially misleading, and so the entire category is prohibited.

In practical terms, this means:

• You cannot tell a prospective buyer “the vendor is hoping to achieve around $1.1 million at auction.”
• You cannot publish an indicative price range in the listing description if the property is to be sold by auction.
• You cannot include a “price guide” field in digital listings if the method of sale is auction.
• Statements like “expected to be competitive at over $900,000” in an auction campaign constitute a price guide and are prohibited.

The prohibition applies regardless of whether the price indication is framed as a guide, an estimate, an expectation, or a prediction. The form of the statement does not change its character. Agents transitioning from interstate markets sometimes overlook this distinction and continue practices that are standard elsewhere — at genuine regulatory risk.

What Agents Can Say During an Auction Campaign

The prohibition on price guides does not mean you cannot market an auction property. You can describe the property’s features, location, comparable sales in the area (as factual statements about past sales, not as price predictions), the vendor’s motivation, the nature of the auction process, and the terms of sale. What you cannot do is translate any of that information into a statement that implies or suggests what the property will sell for or what price the vendor will accept.

If a buyer directly asks “what do you think it will sell for?”, the correct answer is a truthful statement that you cannot provide a price guide for auction properties under Queensland law, followed by a suggestion to review recent comparable sales data themselves. This is not evasive — it is legally accurate and professionally defensible.

Online Listing Price Display Rules

The rise of property portals — realestate.com.au, Domain, and similar platforms — has added a practical dimension to price representation obligations. When an agent inputs a price into a portal listing, that figure or range constitutes a representation in trade or commerce under the ACL. The medium does not change the legal character of the statement.

Queensland’s property advertising rules require that a property listed for private treaty sale include a price or price range that is genuine. Listing a property with a display price substantially below the vendor’s actual expectations is misleading conduct regardless of whether it appears in print, on a portal, or on a sign. “Contact Agent” listings — which display no price — are not automatically compliant; they may become problematic if used systematically to avoid scrutiny rather than because there is a genuine reason for non-disclosure.

For new developments and off-the-plan sales, price display requires particular care. Where pricing is subject to change based on market conditions, floor level, orientation, or stage of construction, agents must ensure that any advertised pricing reflects the current, genuine available pricing — not a “from” price that applies only to a single sold-out floor or a configuration no longer available. Advertising “From $595,000” when no dwellings at that price remain available is a false representation about the price of land under ACL section 29.

False Representations About Property Condition

Statements about a property’s physical condition, legal status, and relevant history are among the highest-risk areas of real estate advertising. The ACL’s section 30 prohibition on misleading conduct in connection with the sale of land is frequently engaged by representations that turn out to be inaccurate — even when the agent believed them to be true at the time.

Common high-risk representations include:

• Building condition: Describing a property as “renovated,” “move-in ready,” or “structurally sound” when the agent has reason to believe — or ought reasonably to have made enquiries about — the presence of defects.
• Flood and natural hazard history: Queensland’s flood-prone geography makes this particularly sensitive. Stating or implying a property has “no known flood history” without verifying this against council flood maps and vendor disclosure is dangerous. The Queensland Government’s QFlood mapping tool is publicly accessible, and agents are expected to exercise professional diligence.
• Legal encumbrances: Misrepresenting or omitting to mention registered easements, covenants, or body corporate obligations that materially affect the property’s use or value.
• Tenancy status: Advertising a property as “vacant possession” when it is in fact subject to a tenancy, or misrepresenting lease terms to prospective investors.
• Planning and zoning: Implying a property has development potential that is not supported by its actual zoning or by any council approval.

The critical issue for agents is the scope of the investigation they are expected to conduct before making a representation. An agent cannot avoid liability simply by claiming they repeated what the vendor told them. Where a representation is about a matter the agent could have verified — and where verification is part of ordinary professional diligence — failure to verify before making the statement does not provide a defence under the ACL.

Vendor Disclosure and Agent Responsibility

The Property Occupations Act 2014 places explicit obligations on agents in relation to information about the property being sold. An agent who becomes aware of a material fact affecting the property — including facts that might reasonably be expected to affect a buyer’s decision — must not conceal that fact or make statements inconsistent with it.

This creates a practical challenge when a vendor is reluctant to disclose. An agent’s duty runs to both the vendor client and, under the ACL, to the broader obligation not to mislead the public. Where a vendor instructs an agent to omit or misrepresent a material fact, the agent faces a conflict that cannot be resolved simply by following the client’s instruction. If you hold a listing where the vendor is unwilling to disclose a material fact you are aware of, obtain legal advice before proceeding with the marketing campaign.

Privacy Act Obligations in Property Marketing

The Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) governs how agents collect, store, use, and disclose personal information. For real estate agents, this arises in multiple contexts: open home sign-in sheets, buyer enquiry databases, vendor contact lists, CRM platforms, and any marketing activity that involves personal data.

The Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) require that agents:

• Collect personal information only by lawful and fair means, and only if it is reasonably necessary for their functions.
• Inform individuals of how their personal information will be used at or before the point of collection — which means your open home sign-in sheet must either include or reference a privacy collection notice.
• Not use personal information for a purpose other than the primary purpose for which it was collected, unless an exception applies or the individual consents.
• Take reasonable steps to protect personal information from misuse, interference, and unauthorised disclosure.

Agents who collect buyer contact details at an open home and immediately add them to a generic “all buyers” marketing list — without disclosure at the time of collection that this is how the information will be used — may be in breach of APP 3 (collection) and APP 6 (use or disclosure). The threshold for what constitutes a breach is not trivial: the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) has the authority to investigate complaints and recommend corrective action.

For agencies managing large buyer databases or engaged in significant digital marketing, a basic privacy management framework — including an accessible privacy policy, clear collection notices, and documented consent processes — is not optional. It is the minimum required standard.

Spam Act Compliance for Email Marketing

The Spam Act 2003 (Cth) prohibits sending commercial electronic messages — emails, SMS, direct messages through messaging apps — without the recipient’s consent. For real estate agents engaged in email marketing to buyer databases, just-listed alerts, and campaign updates, compliance is a day-to-day operational matter.

The three core requirements under the Spam Act are:

• Consent: The message must be sent to someone who has either explicitly consented (opt-in) or whose conduct and the circumstances make it reasonable to infer consent (implied consent — for example, a buyer who provided their email at an open home for the purpose of receiving property updates).
• Identify: Every commercial message must clearly identify the individual or organisation responsible for sending it.
• Unsubscribe: Every commercial message must include a functional and easy-to-use unsubscribe mechanism that processes the request within five business days.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) enforces the Spam Act, and penalties are substantial — up to millions of dollars for repeated or systemic breaches by corporations. For individual agents and small agencies, the more common risk is regulatory attention following a complaint, which can lead to enforceable undertakings and reputational damage.

One practical issue frequently overlooked: implied consent has a time limit. If a buyer provided contact details at an open home three years ago, attended one inspection, and has had no further engagement with your agency, it is difficult to argue their implied consent remains current. Your CRM practices should include regular list hygiene and a mechanism for confirming ongoing consent for recipients who have been inactive for extended periods.

OFT Enforcement in Queensland: What the Record Shows

Queensland’s Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is the primary enforcement body for the Property Occupations Act 2014, and it operates alongside the ACCC for Australian Consumer Law matters involving real estate agents. Understanding the enforcement record provides a realistic sense of the regulatory environment.

The OFT has pursued disciplinary action against Queensland agents for a range of conduct including: misrepresentations about property features in listing copy, failures to disclose known defects to buyers, misleading statements made during open homes and private inspections, and advertising practices that created false impressions about price. Penalties under the Property Occupations Act 2014 can include licence suspension, fines, and in serious cases, licence cancellation.

At the federal level, the ACCC has pursued real estate matters under the ACL with particular focus on false representations about property characteristics and misleading advertising by developers and their agents. While headline prosecutions have more often involved developers than individual salespersons, the ACL applies equally to both. Individual agents are personally liable for their own conduct — the agency’s liability does not extinguish the individual’s.

A significant practical point: OFT investigations in Queensland are frequently complaint-driven. Disappointed buyers who feel they were misled about a property’s value, condition, or legal status are a primary source of complaints. This means that the properties most likely to generate post-sale regulatory attention are those where the buyer’s experience of the property diverged significantly from the impression created by the marketing. Accurate, specific marketing that matches the eventual buyer experience is not just ethical — it is the lowest-risk commercial strategy.

Advertising Standards and Comparative Claims

Agents sometimes include comparative statements in property advertising — “the best street in the suburb,” “the only property of its kind on the market,” “recently renovated to the highest standard.” These statements are not automatically problematic, but they carry risk if they are capable of being understood as factual claims rather than obvious puffery.

Australian courts and regulators draw a distinction between general promotional puffery (statements so vague and subjective that no reasonable person would take them as factual claims) and specific comparative representations that imply a verifiable fact. “A beautiful home” is puffery. “The best-performing property in its price bracket over the past two years” is a factual claim that can be verified or falsified. If you make the latter and it is inaccurate, you have a problem under section 29 of the ACL.

The same principle applies to claims about vendor motivation, urgency, and competing interest. Statements like “we have multiple other interested parties” — when none exist — are false representations about demand and are capable of misleading a buyer about their negotiating position. This type of conduct has attracted disciplinary action in multiple Australian jurisdictions. It is also, practically speaking, unnecessary: transparent and professional negotiation conduct creates better long-term client relationships and referral business than manufactured urgency.

What This Means for Queensland Agents

The legal framework governing Queensland real estate advertising is not designed to make your job difficult. It is designed to ensure that buyers can trust the representations made in property marketing — and that trust is the foundation of a functioning market that benefits everyone, including agents.

The specific operational takeaways from this framework are clear.

Every price representation — listed price, price range, “Offers Over” figure — must bear a genuine relationship to what the vendor will actually accept. Document the methodology behind your pricing recommendations and keep records. If a vendor pushes for a listing price you believe is misleading, record your advice and their instruction in writing before proceeding.

For auction campaigns in Queensland, the prohibition on price guides to bidders is absolute. Do not import practices from other states. Train your sales team explicitly on this point, because it is counterintuitive to agents who have worked interstate.

Your open home sign-in process, your buyer database, and your email marketing system must have functioning privacy collection notices, consent records, and unsubscribe mechanisms. A well-maintained CRM with basic privacy infrastructure is not a luxury — it is the infrastructure for ACL and Spam Act compliance.

Representations about property condition are only as safe as the diligence that sits behind them. Verify material claims before making them. Where you cannot verify a claim independently, disclose that it is based on vendor advice — and document that disclosure.

Finally, understand that the ACL does not require intent. Professional diligence and accurate documentation are not just good practice — they are the evidence base you need if a complaint is ever made. An agent who can produce a contemporaneous file note showing what was known, what was disclosed, and on what basis a representation was made is in a fundamentally different position from one who cannot.

This article provides factual and practical information for licensed Queensland real estate agents and property professionals. It does not constitute legal advice. Agents facing specific compliance questions or regulatory enquiries should seek independent legal advice.