Lactalis Australia has paid $59,400 in penalties after the ACCC found two of its milk products — both labelled “fresh” — were quietly bulked out with reconstituted skim milk and lactose.
It’s a small fine attached to a large question: when a business charges a premium for a claim it can’t fully back, is that a marketing failure or a governance failure?
The Federal Court’s answer in a very different sector — an $11.3 million penalty against Mercer Super for greenwashing — suggests the second.
The 30-second take
Every mislabelling case starts the same way: a claim on the pack, the policy or the product disclosure statement outruns the evidence behind it.
The size of the eventual penalty has almost nothing to do with the size of the governance gap, and everything to do with which regulator finds it first, and in which sector.
Lactalis’s $59,400 in ACCC infringement notices and Mercer’s $11.3 million Federal Court penalty are the same failure at two very different price points: a claim was made, the systems behind it weren’t checked against the claim, and nobody flagged the gap before a regulator did.
Two cases, one pattern
Lactalis Australia, July 2026: The ACCC issued three infringement notices after finding Golden North “Country Fresh” and Ferguson Valley “WA Dairy Fresh” milk — both labelled fresh — contained substantial reconstituted skim milk and lactose. The claims breached section 29(1)(a) of the Australian Consumer Law. Lactalis removed “fresh” from the labels and paid $59,400.
Mercer Superannuation, ASIC’s first greenwashing case: The Federal Court ordered Mercer to pay $11.3 million for misleading members about the sustainability credentials of seven “Sustainable Plus” investment options — at the time, the largest pecuniary penalty ever ordered for greenwashing in Australia. Vanguard ($12.9 million) and Active Super ($10.5 million) followed with similar outcomes.
Different products, different regulators, same governance gap: a claim went to market faster than the evidence that should have supported it.
Different products, different regulators, same governance gap: a claim went to market faster than the evidence that should have supported it.
Ask your organisation
- For every premium or differentiated claim on our products — “fresh,” “sustainable,” “ethical,” “local” — who owns the evidence file that proves it, and when was it last checked?
- If a regulator asked for proof behind our top three marketing claims tomorrow, how long would it take to produce it?
- Do our product, marketing and compliance teams sign off on claims together, or does marketing move faster than the evidence can be verified?
- Have we priced any product on the strength of a claim we could not fully defend under formal scrutiny?
- What is our internal threshold for escalating a labelling or claims risk — and would this kind of gap have been caught before it reached shelves or product disclosure statements?
The cost of getting this wrong ranges from a five-figure infringement notice to an eight-figure Federal Court penalty.
Find out where your governance sits by taking our quick snapshot.