By Bianca Lopez, Senior Associate

Tuesday, 7 July 2026   

As you may recall from our earlier articles, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has placed a major focus on greenwashing over recent years, and the attention to this enforcement priority is not slowing down. In its latest action, the ACCC is going after Grill’d in the Federal Court, alleging the burger chain made false or misleading representations and greenwashing claims as part of its ‘Tree Day Tuesday’ charitable fundraising campaign.

The regulator has alleged that the campaign, which ran from January 2021 to April 2024, included various representations from Grill’d that overstated the donations and environmental contributions the company would make. Grill’d, on the other hand, states that the campaign was undertaken with positive intent, that it takes the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) seriously, and intends to defend these proceedings.

Regardless of what the Federal Court outcome may be, this action is a timely reminder to brands and agencies that good intentions alone are not enough and that care must be taken when developing all campaign messaging, but in particular where that campaign relates to environmental claims, and definitely when charitable fundraising elements are present given how loaded the applicable legislation is in these areas.

The campaign

In January 2021, Grill’d launched its ‘Tree Day Tuesday’ campaign in partnership with environmental not-for-profit organisation Greenfleet Australia. The campaign was promoted across social, digital channels and in-store, where customers were encouraged to purchase burgers from Grill’d on Tuesdays as $1 from every purchase would go towards Greenfleet’s tree planting initiatives.

Across its promotional material, Grill’d made various representations in relation to the campaign, including:

i. “GROW-A-GRILL’D FOREST. For every Tuesday Grill’d burg purchase, $1 goes towards planting a tree”;

ii. “You can help us grow our 100-year protected forest by buying a burger today. A burger for you, a baby tree for the planet”; and

iii. “If you don’t have time in that busy schedule of yours to plant a tree today, swing by for a burger instead and we’ll plant one for you. Every burger purchased by our Relish members today helps grow our Grill’d Forests. That’s something for you and something for the planet.”

In addition to the above, in 2022, Grill’d announced that Greenfleet had planted “10 Grill’d forests” from the financial contributions Grill’d garnered from its customers’ Tuesday purchases.

So, what caused the ACCC to turn up the heat?

During the ACCC’s investigation into the ‘Tree Day Tuesday’ campaign, it was uncovered that there were specific criteria that needed to be met in order for a burger purchase to be eligible for the $1 donation. The ACCC found that these conditions were not adequately communicated to customers. Further, the ACCC determined that only 17% of the approximate five million burgers purchased during the campaign period actually qualified as an eligible purchase for a donation. The ACCC is therefore of the view that Grill’d has misled consumers by overrepresenting the environmental impact of customer purchases and of the overall campaign.

For background, a burger purchase would only be deemed eligible for the Tree Day Tuesday campaign if:

i. The purchase was made on a Tuesday and was for a qualifying main item (being a burger or a salad);

ii. The customer was a member of the Grill’d Relish loyalty program and scanned their membership at the time of ordering, which was apparent in some messaging but not others;

iii. The customer was a dine-in customer (and not making a takeaway or online order);

iv. The order was placed at the front counter of a Grill’d restaurant and not through the table QR codes; and

v. The purchase was not made in conjunction with any other offer.

Ultimately, these important conditions were communicated sparingly, poorly, inconsistently or not at all, and the ACCC will argue that this rendered the campaign communications misleading.

In the ACCC’s court filings, examples of Grill’d’s promotional material and social media posts were included, highlighting that several of these conditions were not clearly specified. In particular, while some promotional material stated that the campaign was open to Relish loyalty members only – which is a somewhat onerous condition of participation in the campaign given the administrative burden of signing up as a loyalty member and the fact that loyalty memberships largely serve Grill’d and not the customer – the ACCC found that this condition was not as prominent across the communications as it should have been. Additionally, the promotional marketing for this campaign generally did not clearly disclose that it was applicable to dine-in orders only, suggesting that all orders (including takeaway and online orders) on Tuesdays would be eligible. Further, the statements in the communications were not adequately clear regarding exactly which burgers were qualifying main items – i.e. there was no “Buy a participating burger” style conditionality in the language.

In its Concise Statement, the ACCC stated that the lack of transparency of the conditions for the campaign resulted in consumers being misled as to the extent of their donations or contributions towards planting trees, and were deprived of a right to make an informed decision with respect to their purchases. That is, the ACCC has taken the stance that consumers may have purchased and paid for a Grill’d burger on the basis of an inflated impact to the environmental cause and, therefore, Grill’d gained an unfair competitive advantage. The ACCC has accordingly described the conduct as a form of greenwashing.

Green claims need more than a garnish

The ACCC’s concern stems from the fact that consumers may have been left with an incorrect impression about the environmental contribution relating to their burger purchase.

In the current age of marketing, where brands are striving for consumer attention, sustainability credentials and environmental messaging are strong tools to cut through the clutter. Today’s consumers are often known to make purchasing decisions based on the environmental or “green” benefit of a purchase.

The ACCC is aware of this consumer trend and is therefore working to ensure that green claims made to consumers are accurate, verifiable and can withstand close scrutiny. The ACCC has repeatedly stated that businesses must also consider the “overall impression” created by promotional material and not just focus solely on whether individual words or single pieces of communications are technically accurate.

It follows that brands and agencies need to consider whether each claim they make is true on a technical level, but also the overall impression created by a campaign. 

Charitable fundraising: a seasoned reminder

It is important to note that the ACCC is not alleging that Grill’d’s tree planting campaign was illegitimate in and of itself – by all accounts Grill’d correctly partnered with Greenfleet and operated the charitable fundraising element of the campaign in accordance with regulatory requirements. However, given the key element of Grill’d’s campaign centres around charitable fundraising, we do consider it useful to provide a quick reminder on the lay of the land as charitable fundraising is a constantly misunderstood area that many of our clients seek assistance with.

As a start, there are strict rules that govern charitable fundraising across each State and Territory, which make clear the conduct expected from charitable fundraising in Australia. If you are a brand or agency looking to conduct a campaign that will involve charitable fundraising activities, you should note these key requirements:

i. You should have written authorisation from the charity to conduct the campaign. This is usually in the form of a Charity Trader Agreement (sometimes also referred to as a Commercial Participator / Partnership Agreement), which is required to outline the terms under which a brand will promote its product with an associated donation to a charity.

ii. An authority to fundraise from the applicable regulator is typically required for fundraising activities such as collecting donations, which must be applied for via the State-specific bodies (such as Consumer Affairs Victoria or NSW Fair Trading). Where conducting a campaign on behalf of a charity, the charity itself usually holds this authority, however in some jurisdictions (such as Victoria) a separate authority is required for the brand conducting the campaign.

iii. All fundraisers must adhere to the National Fundraising Principles, which include requirements for transparency, for written records to be maintained, for charities to never accept donations without clear explanations, and for charities to establish and maintain a complaints process, amongst other things.

iv. In addition, various States and Territories impose specific accounting and record keeping requirements, including requiring a separate bank accounts being set up for raised funds.

v. Over the top of the charitable fundraising rules is the standing requirement for all fundraising activity to be conducted in accordance with the ACL, meaning that consumers cannot be misled or deceived as to where the charitable donations are going.

“Why is it so hard?” you may ask – well, the simple answer is that charities (and their funding sources) deserve to be protected from unscrupulous actors, seeking to enrich themselves by spruiking a connection with registered charities that does not exist, and absconding. The regulatory framework is thus strict and proscriptive. From the brief overview above, you will see that there are onerous requirements that must be followed in order to conduct charitable fundraising and there are layers of complexity. Accordingly, it has been our experience that brands often elect to partner with an existing charity when running charitable activities, such as the case with Grill’d and Greenfleet, under a Charity Trader Agreement.

Indeed, it is also true that getting a charitable fundraising campaign off the ground fast is very unlikely, given the various regulatory hurdles that (understandably, given the above) need to be cleared.

Partnering with a registered charity assists with the administrative and record keeping side of the piece, as established charities have expertise in fundraising activities and carry the required authorities to conduct the activity. Where a brand may look to running a charitable activity on its own, the administrative and compliance burden falls onto the brand alone.

If you require more in-depth advice relating to charitable fundraising, please contact our office.

So, what’s the takeaway?

As we noted above, the ACCC has identified environmental claims as an enforcement priority and has consistently signalled that brands seeking to capitalise on growing consumer interest in environmental impact should proceed cautiously.

For brands and agencies alike, this means environmental claims must satisfy high legal standards and substantiation requirements and must be treated accordingly with the necessary consideration. Messaging must also not rely on disclaimers to qualify important statements that would otherwise be misleading or inaccurate. That is, you should not use headlines such as “$1 DONATED FROM EVERY PURCHASE ON TUESDAYS” without further detail accompanying that headline where that purchase has a list of significant qualifiers or limitations in order to be eligible.

While we wait for the Federal Court’s decision, the ACCC’s message to brands and agencies is clear. If a campaign links a purchase to an environmental outcome, or if there are claims made about a consumer’s or brand’s environmental impact, the conditions, limitations and real-world results need to be clear, accurate and easy for consumers to digest. Brands should be able to substantiate the environmental benefit being promoted, explain when a consumer’s purchase will trigger that benefit, and ensure any important qualifications are presented upfront and prominently rather than buried in the fine print. In short, the messaging can still be creative, compelling and commercially effective, but the claim must match what is actually being served.

Get in touch

If you are developing a campaign that includes elements of charitable fundraising or environment-related marketing, now is the time to make sure the claims, conditions and overall consumer impression stack up under the ACL. If you would like support reviewing campaign messaging or additional advice on greenwashing and the associated risks, please get in touch with one of our experts below.