The dangers in using asterisk pricing to lure in customers

The dangers in using asterisk pricing to lure in customers

When goods or services are advertised online, the lowest price attracts the most clicks. The technique is to display the low price in large print with an asterisk which points to the fine print. The fine print alerts the customer to extra charges which are included in the total price payable.

This article sets out the consumer law dangers when a price is advertised with an asterisk which points to the fine print and leads to the compulsory extra charges.

This is followed by marketing commentary on the brand value destruction caused by misleading with an asterisk.  

The Australian Consumer Law (ACL)

‘Misleading surcharging practices and other add on costs’ is one of the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission’s Compliance and Enforcement Priorities for 2025-2026.

The ACCC Guide to advertising and selling business (July 2021) contains this explanation:

Offers with disclaimers and fine print

It is common to see advertisements with limitations or disclaimers using an asterisk (*), ‘conditions apply’ or other requirements to limit the audience’s expectations. Fine print is often used in advertisements, contracts, labelling and signs.

These qualifications usually appear close to the lead selling point. If an asterisk appears near the word ‘free’, for example, a business may be trying to trade on positive reactions to the selling point, while trying to keep within the law by putting the conditions in the fine print. This may not protect that business from breaching the ACL.

The main selling point used for a product or service may make such a strong impression that no disclaimer can dispel it. An advertiser must not make the real terms and conditions of the offer unclear or unreadable by:

• • placing text in obscure locations
  • using text that is too small
  • flashing disclaimers on screen for only a moment
  • using voice overs that are too quick or too quiet

The law is sections 18(1) and 29(1)(i) of the Australian Consumer Law:

18(1)       A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.

29(1)       A person must not, in trade or commerce, in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services or in connection with the promotion by any means of the supply or use of goods or services:

• make a false or misleading representation with respect to the price of goods or services;

The ACCC prosecutes Webjet for misleading add on costs

The following findings were made in the Federal Court of Australia decision in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Webjet Marketing Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 867, a decision of Justice Button on 28 July 2025.

Webjet operates one of the largest online travel agencies in Australia. As an online travel agency, Webjet aggregates information about travel products, in this case airfares, and displayed airfare information on its website about available flight bookings. This allows consumers to search for, compare and purchase a ticket for a particular flight using a single platform.

Between 1 November 2018 and 13 November 2023, Webjet displayed airfare prices at or from “$XX” (Promoted Price) on the Webjet Platforms, social media and in promotional emails. Webjet thereby represented to consumers that it was, in fact, possible to purchase a promoted flight by paying only the Promoted Price (Price Representation).

This is an example of a social media post showing flights advertised as “from $XX”:

The Court found that the asterisk after the price pointed to information which never explicitly stated that Webjet Fees were payable in addition to, and not included in, the Promoted Price.

The Webjet Fees for Domestic Flights were: a compulsory fee of $34.90 consisting of a Webjet Servicing Fee of $21.95 and a Booking Price Guarantee Fee of $12.95. For NZ Pacific Flights, the fee was $39.90, and for International Flights, the fee was $54.90.

The Court made these findings about the asterisked information.

• “The Webjet Platforms mostly, but not always, displayed Promoted Prices with an asterisk. This asterisk was not a direct reference to the Webjet Fees but rather notified consumers that prices were “subject to change without notice” and that prices were inclusive of taxes and airline surcharges. While the Webjet Fees were then set out in the next sentence, it was not clear whether the fees were included in, or in addition to, the Promoted Prices.”
• “Most, but not all, of the Promotional Emails contained an asterisk attached to the Promoted Price. However, the corresponding asterisked text described “Terms & Conditions” but did not contain information as to the Webjet Fees. The Webjet Fees were displayed separately, immediately above the text specifying the qualification signified by the asterisk.”
• “The Social Media Posts displaying Promoted Prices almost always had an asterisk attached to the Promoted Prices, but, in most instances, there was nothing to explain what the asterisk signified. These posts did not contain any Webjet Fee information.”

The Court concluded:

“In all cases where information regarding the Webjet Fees was included, it was never explicitly stated that the Webjet Fees were in addition to, and not included in, the Promoted Price.”

What did the Court consider in assessing the penalty for Webjet?

The Court noted that “Webjet has admitted that:

(a)    it represented to consumers that it was possible to purchase a promoted flight by paying the Promoted Price only — the Price Representation;

(b)    the Asterisk Disclosures were not sufficient to displace the Price Representation;

(c)    it did not otherwise disclose to consumers, on the Webjet Platforms, in the Promotional Emails or in the Social Media Posts, that the Promoted Prices did not include the Webjet Fees; and

(d)   it was, in fact, not possible for a consumer to purchase an airfare at the Promoted Price without the consumer incurring the additional compulsory Webjet Fees.”

As a result, Webjet admitted it had breached the Australian Consumer Law by making the Price Representation.

The Court ordered penalties totalling $9 million, made up as $3.5 million for the Social Media Posts, $2.5 million for the Webjet Platforms, $2.5 million for the Promotional Emails, and $500,000 for confirming bookings which had not been confirmed.

The Court made a publication order.

The Court found that Webjet’s Australian Consumer Law compliance program was not effective:

“Webjet’s Marketing Campaign Manager and Marketing Campaign Coordinator, with whom the principal responsibilities regarding promotional content development lay, erroneously considered the use of an asterisk to be sufficient from a legal compliance perspective.”

The Court ordered compliance program, which was to be continued for a period of three years.

The ACCC’s comments

In its Media release (28 July 2025), the ACCC  made these comments:

 “The ACCC commenced its investigation after a consumer complained about an airfare advertised as “from $18*”, which cost almost three times that price after Webjet added its compulsory fees.

“We took this case because we considered that Webjet used misleading pricing by excluding or not adequately disclosing compulsory fees in its ads,” ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said.

“Seeking to lure in customers with prices that don’t tell the whole story is a serious breach of the Australian Consumer Law.”

For more information click on my article The ACCC cracks down on drip pricing for online sales