ACCC franchise enforcement puts disclosure deadlines in focus

Disclosure deadlines and marketing fund administration are drawing renewed attention across Australia’s franchise community. An enforcement tracker updated by FranchiseScope on 23 September 2026 highlights a run of ACCC infringement notices since 2023, including recent payments by Venue Smart and the franchisor behind OPSM and Laubman & Pank.

Recent notices highlight administrative obligations

According to the FranchiseScope tracker, Venue Smart paid $59,400 across three infringement notices in August 2026 under the 2024 Franchising Code. The notices concerned an alleged missing marketing fund statement for 2024–25, the alleged absence of a separate fund bank account and allegedly late Franchise Disclosure Register information.

The outcome brings three distinct administrative responsibilities into focus: preparing fund information, maintaining the appropriate banking arrangements and keeping register information on time. For franchisors reviewing their compliance processes, the useful lesson is to check each obligation separately rather than treating disclosure as a single annual exercise.

The tracker also records that Luxottica Franchising Australia, franchisor of OPSM and Laubman & Pank, paid $19,800 in March 2026 after acknowledging that it missed its May 2025 register update.

These outcomes should not be confused with court findings. As the tracker makes clear, paying an infringement notice is not an admission of a contravention. That distinction matters when assessing both the allegations and what the payments establish.

Register information is a recurring theme

The 2026 payments follow other register-related enforcement outcomes recorded in the tracker. In June 2025, Cash Converters and Mobile Travel Agents each paid $16,500 over alleged failures to update or confirm their register information annually. FranchiseScope identifies those as the ACCC’s first infringement notices for that obligation.

In August 2025, HN Macgregor Franchisor, a Harvey Norman franchisor, paid $15,650 over allegedly missing register information before an agreement made in July 2024.

Taken together, these cases show why register administration deserves a clearly assigned owner within a franchise business. The reported issues cover both annual information maintenance and information associated with the timing of an agreement; a check of one does not necessarily address the other.

The tracker states that the ACCC has maintained the Franchise Disclosure Register since October 2025, alongside its role enforcing the Code. For prospective franchisees, the practical response is to ask about the currency of information and seek independent advice on the documents supplied, rather than interpreting a register entry as a substitute for due diligence.

Court penalties remain a separate warning

FranchiseScope’s review places the recent infringement notices within a longer enforcement history. It characterises that history as two broad phases: substantial court penalties involving misleading franchise sales, followed by a run of notices concerning missed deadlines.

Among the court penalties listed are Jump Loops at $23 million in 2021, Geowash at $4.2 million in 2019 and SensaSlim at $3.55 million in 2016. The tracker also lists Ultra Tune’s $2 million penalty after appeal in 2019 and Megasave’s $1.9 million penalty in 2021.

Separately, the Federal Court fined Ultra Tune $1.5 million for contempt in March 2024. The tracker describes this as the highest fine in a contempt case brought by the ACCC.

These figures should not be treated as directly comparable with infringement notice payments. They involve different enforcement routes and different conduct. Their relevance to the current story is that attention to administrative deadlines sits alongside, rather than replaces, the consequences associated with more substantial court action.

A practical compliance review

The enforcement picture also includes additional public funding. On 18 March 2025, the Government announced $7.1 million over two years to strengthen ACCC enforcement of the Franchising Code, according to the tracker.

For franchise businesses, a proportionate response is to review the processes behind disclosure updates and marketing fund administration. Useful questions include who owns each deadline, who checks completion and where supporting records are retained. Where a requirement is unclear, specialist legal advice is preferable to assuming that a previous year’s process remains sufficient.

Practical takeaway: Check register deadlines, marketing fund reporting and banking arrangements separately. Assign responsibility, retain evidence of completion and distinguish allegations from court findings when discussing enforcement outcomes.