News

The ACCC has commenced Federal Court proceedings against fast-food chain Grill'd, alleging the burger chain misled customers about its "Tree Day Tuesday" promotion. The case is the latest in the ACCC's ongoing crackdown on greenwashing, and it carries important lessons for any promotional products business that markets eco-friendly, sustainable, or cause-related claims to clients and consumers. For broader context on just how widespread the problem and financial scale of greenwashing is, refer to this recent piece by Crikey: Dirty world of greenwashing is alive and well in Australia

What happened

Between January 2021 and April 2024, Grill'd ran a campaign promising that $1 from every burger purchased on a Tuesday would go towards planting trees, in partnership with environmental not-for-profit Greenfleet. Advertising across social media, in-store and online told customers that buying a burger on a Tuesday helped "grow our Grill'd Forest" and contributed to a "100-year protected forest."

In reality, the ACCC alleges a purchase only qualified for a donation if it met a long list of unstated or barely disclosed conditions: the order had to be a main item (burger or salad), made on a Tuesday, by a Relish loyalty member, dine-in only (not takeaway, delivery or online), ordered at the counter (not via in-table QR code), with the loyalty barcode scanned, and not combined with any other offer.

The numbers tell the story. Over five million burgers were bought on Tuesdays during the campaign period, but only around 4% of those purchases actually qualified for a donation. One million of the five million burgers were bought by Relish members but just 17% qualified. The ACCC's case covers 26 separate advertisements and alleges all of them overstated the circumstances in which a donation would actually be made.

ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said the regulator considers this conduct a form of greenwashing, and that businesses "deprived consumers of the ability to make an informed decision" by overstating environmental contributions. The ACCC has shown that environmental and cause-marketing claims remain on its enforcement radar, following recent actions against Edgewell, Australian Gas, and Clorox Australia, which was ordered to pay $8.25 million in penalties over misleading ocean-plastic claims for Glad products.

Why this matters for promotional products businesses and what APPA members should check for

Sustainability and cause-related messaging is everywhere in our industry. Recycled materials, carbon-neutral claims, "a portion of proceeds donated", biodegradable packaging, and similar pitches are common selling points for promotional products, both in supplier marketing and in what distributors pass on to end clients. The Grill'd case is a reminder that under the Australian Consumer Law, every claim a business makes must be accurate, substantiable and communicated in a way that leaves no room for misinterpretation.

Here are some key compliance takeaways from this case to review within your business:

• "Some" is not "all," and the gap matters
  Grill'd's conduct wasn't outright fabrication and donations genuinely happened. The problem was the promotion implied a donation applied broadly ("every burger purchased"), when in fact strict conditions meant almost none did. If your business advertises that buying a product supports a cause, plants a tree, offsets carbon, or uses recycled content, make sure the proportion of products or sales that actually qualify matches the impression your marketing creates.
• Conditions buried in fine print won't fly.
  The ACCC's complaint is specifically that qualifying conditions were "not disclosed or not adequately disclosed." If a sustainability or donation claim depends on conditions like minimum order quantities, specific product lines, particular materials, a certification that only applies to part of the range, they need to be clear and prominent and not buried in a footnote or T&Cs page.
• Across-channel consistency is scrutinised.
  The ACCC reviewed 26 separate ads across social media, online and in-store, and alleged all of them overstated the position, even though disclosure varied between them. If your business runs sustainability claims across catalogues, websites, social media and line sheets, check that every version is accurate.

• Scale increases exposure, but small businesses are not immune.
  The ACCC noted Grill'd's national footprint as relevant to the potential for consumer harm. Smaller distributors and suppliers aren't immune from scrutiny, particularly where a complaint is made. This case originated from an anonymous tip-off, not a proactive ACCC sweep. When in doubt, it's worth having marketing and sustainability claims reviewed before they go to market, rather than after a complaint is made. Make sure you also keep evidence on file to demonstrate the basis for any claims you make.

• Partnering with a credible third party doesn't insulate the claim. Grill'd's promotion was run in genuine partnership with an environmental NGO, and the underlying donations were real. The alleged infringement was about how the promotion was marketed, not whether the partner organisation was legitimate. The same logic applies to GRS-certified materials, carbon-offset schemes or any other third-party sustainability credential your business relies on. The credential being genuine doesn't protect you if your own marketing overstates its scope or coverage.  

Greenwashing enforcement is a sustained priority for the ACCC. Promotional products businesses that lean on environmental or cause-related messaging should treat clarity and substantiation as prerequisites to use those claims.

This advisory is general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Members with specific concerns about marketing claims should seek independent legal advice.

Source: ACCC Media Release, "Grill'd in court for allegedly misleading customers about 'Tree Day Tuesday' donations," 16 June 2026.