GuaranteesOnRecord

All subjects

No refunds sign

27 established claims - 20 refused by the grounding gate

Documented position12

What the body that runs or defines the thing says in its own documentation.

#

Regarding the no refunds sign, the ACCC states that a business giving a consumer a repair notice cannot satisfy the requirement by…

  • showing the consumer a sign.
  • directing the consumer to information on a website.
other
1 quote from 1 source
It isn’t enough to show the consumer a sign or direct them to information on a website.
#

Regarding the no refunds sign, the ACCC states that it is illegal for businesses to rely on store policies which deny consumers' rights to a refund or replacement for faulty products.

other
1 quote from 1 source
It’s illegal for businesses to rely on store policies or terms and conditions which deny these rights. For example, policies which say ‘no refunds’ or ‘no refunds or exchanges on sale items’.
#

Section 64 of the Australian Consumer Law makes a term of a contract void to the extent that it purports to exclude, restrict or modify the application of the consumer guarantee provisions or the exercise of a right conferred by them.

other
4 quotes from 1 source
64 Guarantees not to be excluded etc. by contract
A term of a contract (including a term that is not set out in the contract but is incorporated in the contract by another term of the contract) is void to the extent that the term purports to exclude, restrict or modify, or has the effect of excluding, restricting or modifying:
the application of all or any of the provisions of this Division; or
the exercise of a right conferred by such a provision; or
#

Consumer Affairs Victoria states that a no refunds sign…

  • is unlawful.
  • implies it is not possible to get a refund under any circumstance.
other
1 quote from 1 source
Signs that state 'no refunds' are unlawful, because they imply it is not possible to get a refund under any circumstance
#

Consumer Affairs Victoria states that signs reading 'No refunds will be given if you have simply changed your mind' are acceptable.

other
1 quote from 1 source
Signs that state 'No refunds will be given if you have simply changed your mind' are acceptable.
#

Consumer Affairs Victoria states that consumers cannot agree to give up their rights to any consumer guarantees.

other
1 quote from 1 source
Consumers cannot agree to give up their rights to any consumer guarantees.
#

Consumer Affairs Victoria states that a store may display a sign at the point of sale alerting consumers to their rights under the consumer guarantees, even if the store's business is online.

other
1 quote from 1 source
Stores can display a sign, at the point of sale, alerting consumers to their rights under the consumer guarantees – even if the store’s business is online.
#

Consumer Affairs Victoria states that…

  • displaying a sign about consumer guarantees is not compulsory.
  • the Commonwealth Minister responsible for administering the Australian Consumer Law can make displaying a sign about consumer guarantees mandatory and specify the sign's content, size, form and position.
other
1 quote from 1 source
It is not compulsory to display a sign but the Commonwealth Minister responsible for administering the Australian Consumer Law can make it mandatory and can specify the content, size, form and position of the sign.
#

The ACCC's consumer guarantees guide states that suppliers, including online suppliers, can display a sign at the point of sale alerting consumers to their rights under the consumer guarantees.

other
1 quote from 1 source
Suppliers, including online suppliers, can display a sign at the point of sale, alerting consumers to their rights under the consumer guarantees.

Measured finding1

Something someone actually measured, with the method attached.

#

Consumer Affairs Victoria states that the maximum penalty for a person is $500,000.

medium confidenceother
1 quote from 1 source
The maximum penalty for a person is $500,000.

Practical effect1

What is observed to happen in practice, as distinct from what is documented.

#

In July 2013 the Federal Court ordered Hewlett-Packard to pay a $3 million civil pecuniary penalty for making false or misleading representations to consumers and retailers regarding consumer guarantee rights.

other
1 quote from 1 source
In July 2013, the Federal Court ordered that Hewlett-Packard, a manufacturer and retailer of computer hardware, pay a $3 million civil pecuniary penalty for making false or misleading representations to consumers and retailers regarding consumer guarantee rights.

Disputed between sources7

Sources that do not agree, presented without picking a winner.

#
  • The Australian Consumer Law as compiled to 1 July 2026 sets the maximum fine for a person other than a body corporate convicted of a false or misleading representation offence at $2,500,000.
  • Consumer Affairs Victoria's page on 'No refund' signs states the maximum penalty for a person is $500,000.
other
2 quotes from 2 sources
An offence against subsection (1) committed by a person other than a body corporate is punishable on conviction by a fine of not more than $2,500,000.
The maximum penalty for a person is $500,000.
#

the ACCC's consumer guarantees guide states the maximum civil penalty for an individual providing false or misleading information about the consumer guarantees is $220,000.

other
2 quotes from 2 sources
An offence against subsection (1) committed by a person other than a body corporate is punishable on conviction by a fine of not more than $2,500,000.
The maximum civil penalty for providing false or misleading information about the existence, exclusion or effect of the consumer guarantees or remedies is $1.1 million for a body corporate and $220,000 for an individual.
#

Regarding no refunds signs…

  • the ACCC's consumer guarantees guide gives the maximum penalty for an individual who provides false or misleading information about the consumer guarantees as $220,000.
  • Consumer Affairs Victoria's page on 'No refund' signs gives the maximum penalty for a person as $500,000.
other
2 quotes from 2 sources
The maximum civil penalty for providing false or misleading information about the existence, exclusion or effect of the consumer guarantees or remedies is $1.1 million for a body corporate and $220,000 for an individual.
The maximum penalty for a person is $500,000.
#
  • The ACCC's consumer guarantees guide explains 'no refunds' signs as unlawful because they imply no refund is possible even when there is a major problem with the goods.
  • Consumer Affairs Victoria's 'No refund' signs page explains 'no refunds' signs as unlawful even when there is a problem with the goods or service such as a defect or lack of due care and skill.
medium confidenceother
2 quotes from 2 sources
Signs that state ‘no refunds’ are unlawful, because they imply it is not possible to get a refund under any circumstance—even when there is a major problem with the goods.
Signs that state 'no refunds' are unlawful, because they imply it is not possible to get a refund under any circumstance - even when there is a problem with the goods or service, like a defect or lack of due care and skill.

Repeated, with no primary source in reach6

Widely repeated in the field. Within the documents this sweep read, it traces only to other repetitions - which is a fact about our reading as well as about the idea, until each one has been searched for on its own.

#

Sprintlaw states that policies presented as 'No Refunds', 'Final Sale' or 'No Returns On Sale Items' are fine provided the business does not mislead customers about their legal rights if goods are faulty, unsafe or misdescribed.

other
1 quote from 1 source
as “No Refunds,” “Final Sale,” or “No Returns On Sale Items.” That’s fine-provided you don’t mislead customers about their legal rights if goods are faulty, unsafe, misdescribed, or services don’t meet the guarantees required by the ACL.
#

Sprintlaw states that broad 'No Refunds' signs or statements are unlawful if they suggest customers have no rights for faulty goods or services.

other
1 quote from 1 source
Broad “No Refunds” signs or statements are unlawful if they suggest customers have no rights for faulty goods or services.
#
  • Sprintlaw advises businesses never to state 'No refunds under any circumstances'.
  • Sprintlaw's advice is based on the possibility that the wording 'No refunds under any circumstances' can mislead customers into thinking they have no rights if something is defective or not as described.
other
1 quote from 1 source
Never state “No refunds under any circumstances.” That wording can mislead customers into thinking they have no rights if something is defective or not as described.
#

LegalVision states that signs on business premises reading 'No refunds on sale items' are…

  • illegal.
  • prohibited under the ACL.
medium confidenceother
3 quotes from 1 source
All business owners must be aware that signs on their premises reading:
‘No refunds on sale items’; or
are illegal and prohibited under the ACL.

Refused20

Claims the research produced that the grounding gate would not accept, with its reason. They are here because a site that only shows what passed gives you no way to judge whether the gate does anything.

Show what was refused

No refunds sign: the Australian Consumer Law as compiled to 1 July 2026 sets the maximum fine for a person other than a body corporate convicted of a false or misleading representation offence at $2,500,000.

Refused: The first quote states the fine for an offence against subsection (1) but does not identify that offence as a false or misleading representation offence, so that characterization is unsupported.

Unsupported: false or misleading representation offence

What it rested on
An offence against subsection (1) committed by a person other than a body corporate is punishable on conviction by a fine of not more than $2,500,000.
The maximum civil penalty for providing false or misleading information about the existence, exclusion or effect of the consumer guarantees or remedies is $1.1 million for a body corporate and $220,000 for an individual.

Sprintlaw states that a policy presented as 'No Returns On Sale Items' is fine provided the business does not mislead customers about their rights for faulty goods, while Consumer Affairs Victoria lists the sign 'No refund on sale items' among signs that are generally against the law.

Refused: The Consumer Affairs Victoria quote says only 'Generally, these signs are against the law:' without listing 'No refund on sale items', so that source-specific listing is not established.

Unsupported: Consumer Affairs Victoria lists the sign 'No refund on sale items' among signs that are generally against the law

What it rested on
as “No Refunds,” “Final Sale,” or “No Returns On Sale Items.” That’s fine-provided you don’t mislead customers about their legal rights if goods are faulty, unsafe, misdescribed, or services don’t meet the guarantees required by the ACL.
Generally, these signs are against the law:
'No refund on sale items'

Regarding the no refunds sign, the ACCC states that it is illegal for businesses to rely on terms and conditions which deny consumers' rights to a refund or replacement for faulty products.

Refused: The quote says businesses cannot deny 'these rights' and gives no-refund examples, but does not specify refund or replacement rights for faulty products.

Unsupported: a refund or replacement for faulty products

What it rested on
It’s illegal for businesses to rely on store policies or terms and conditions which deny these rights. For example, policies which say ‘no refunds’ or ‘no refunds or exchanges on sale items’.

The ACCC states that a business cannot take away a consumer's basic consumer guarantee rights by displaying a 'no refunds' sign.

Refused: The quote lists displaying a 'no refunds' sign but does not state that this cannot take away consumer guarantee rights.

Unsupported: cannot take away a consumer's basic consumer guarantee rights

What it rested on
displaying a ‘no refunds’ sign, or otherwise saying that refunds are not available at all, or not available at all after a certain number of days

The ACCC states that a business cannot take away a consumer's basic consumer guarantee rights by saying that refunds are not available at all after a certain number of days.

Refused: The quote lists the 'no refunds' wording but does not state that the ACCC prohibits it as taking away consumer guarantee rights.

Unsupported: cannot take away a consumer's basic consumer guarantee rights by saying

What it rested on
displaying a ‘no refunds’ sign, or otherwise saying that refunds are not available at all, or not available at all after a certain number of days

The ACCC's documented position on the no refunds sign is that it is against the law for businesses to mislead consumers about their rights in the ways the ACCC lists.

Refused: The quote states the general unlawfulness of misleading consumers in listed ways but does not mention a no refunds sign.

Unsupported: on the no refunds sign

What it rested on
It is against the law for businesses to mislead consumers about their rights in these ways.

Section 66 of the Australian Consumer Law empowers the Commonwealth Minister to determine in writing that suppliers are required to display a notice meeting the requirements of the determination.

Refused: The quotes state the Minister's power but do not identify it as Section 66 of the Australian Consumer Law.

Unsupported: Section 66

What it rested on
The Commonwealth Minister may determine, in writing, that persons
who make supplies, or supplies of a specified kind, to which guarantees apply under this Division are required to display, in accordance with the determination, a notice that meets the requirements of the determination

Section 29(1)(m) of the Australian Consumer Law prohibits making a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy.

Refused: The quotes state the prohibition text but do not identify it as Section 29(1)(m) of the Australian Consumer Law, so the specific statutory attribution is unsupported.

Unsupported: Section 29(1)(m) of the Australian Consumer Law

What it rested on
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 concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy

Section 151(1)(m) of the Australian Consumer Law makes it an offence to make a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy.

Refused: The quotes state the offence language but do not identify it as Section 151(1)(m) of the Australian Consumer Law.

Unsupported: Section 151(1)(m) of the Australian Consumer Law

What it rested on
A person commits an offence if the person, 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:
makes a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy

Section 151(6) of the Australian Consumer Law sets the maximum fine for a person other than a body corporate convicted of a false or misleading representation offence at $2,500,000.

Refused: The quote supports the $2,500,000 maximum fine for a non-body-corporate person but does not establish that this is Section 151(6) of the Australian Consumer Law.

Unsupported: Section 151(6) of the Australian Consumer Law

What it rested on
An offence against subsection (1) committed by a person other than a body corporate is punishable on conviction by a fine of not more than $2,500,000.

Section 151(4) of the Australian Consumer Law makes the false or misleading representation offence an offence of strict liability.

Refused: The quote states that subsection (1) is an offence of strict liability, not section 151(4).

Unsupported: Section 151(4)

What it rested on
Subsection (1) is an offence of strict liability.

Consumer Affairs Victoria states that a store cannot take away a consumer's right to a refund for a major problem by claiming a 'no refund' policy or displaying a 'no refund' sign.

Refused: The quote states stores cannot take away 'this right' but does not specify that the right is to a refund for a major problem.

Unsupported: for a major problem

What it rested on
Stores cannot take away this right by claiming they have a ‘no refund’ policy or displaying a ‘no refund’ sign. This also applies to an online store's refunds and returns policy.

Consumer Affairs Victoria states that an online store's refunds and returns policy cannot take away a consumer's right to a refund for a major problem.

Refused: The quote says stores cannot take away 'this right' and that it applies to online stores, but it does not specify a right to a refund for a major problem.

Unsupported: for a major problem

What it rested on
Stores cannot take away this right by claiming they have a ‘no refund’ policy or displaying a ‘no refund’ sign. This also applies to an online store's refunds and returns policy.

The ACCC and the state and territory consumer protection regulators jointly state in their consumer guarantees guide that signs and statements that limit, or seem to limit, consumers' rights are unlawful.

Refused: The quote supports the unlawfulness statement but does not establish that ACCC and state/territory regulators jointly stated it.

Unsupported: The ACCC and the state and territory consumer protection regulators jointly state

What it rested on
Signs and statements that limit, or seem to limit, consumers’ rights are unlawful—including ‘no refund’ signs.

The ACCC and the state and territory consumer protection regulators jointly state in their consumer guarantees guide that 'no refund' signs are among the signs and statements that limit, or seem to limit, consumers' rights and are unlawful.

Refused: The quote supports the guide's statement about 'no refund' signs but does not establish joint attribution to the ACCC and state/territory regulators.

Unsupported: The ACCC and the state and territory consumer protection regulators jointly state

What it rested on
Signs and statements that limit, or seem to limit, consumers’ rights are unlawful—including ‘no refund’ signs.

The no refunds sign's documented position is that the ACCC's consumer guarantees guide states that the maximum civil penalty for providing false or misleading information about the existence, exclusion or effect of the consumer guarantees or remedies is $1.1 million for a body corporate.

Refused: The quote states the ACCC guide's penalty but does not mention or entail anything about a no refunds sign's documented position.

Unsupported: The no refunds sign's documented position is that

What it rested on
The maximum civil penalty for providing false or misleading information about the existence, exclusion or effect of the consumer guarantees or remedies is $1.1 million for a body corporate and $220,000 for an individual.

The no refunds sign echoes Sprintlaw's statement that a business can restrict change-of-mind returns.

Refused: The quote establishes Sprintlaw's statement but does not mention or connect it to any no refunds sign.

Unsupported: The no refunds sign echoes

What it rested on
Put simply: you can restrict change‑of‑mind returns, but you cannot exclude statutory consumer guarantees.

The no refunds sign echoes Sprintlaw's statement that a business cannot exclude statutory consumer guarantees.

Refused: The Sprintlaw quote supports the legal statement itself, but no cited quote mentions a no refunds sign or that it echoes that statement.

Unsupported: The no refunds sign echoes

What it rested on
Put simply: you can restrict change‑of‑mind returns, but you cannot exclude statutory consumer guarantees.

The no refunds sign is a matter for which in 2015 the Federal Court imposed a civil penalty of $200,000 each on Fisher & Paykel Customer Services Pty Ltd and Domestic & General Services Ltd.

Refused: The quote supports the $200,000 penalties on both businesses but does not mention a 'no refunds sign' or the year 2015.

Unsupported: no refunds sign is a matter for which in 2015

What it rested on
that both Fisher & Paykel Customer Services Pty Ltd and Domestic & General Services Ltd made false or misleading representation in the course of offering an extended warranty to consumers, and imposed a civil penalty of $200,000 on each business.

The no refunds sign is a matter for which the civil penalty imposed in 2015 was for making false or misleading representations in the course of offering an extended warranty to consumers.

Refused: The quote supports a civil penalty for false or misleading extended warranty representations but never ties that penalty to a no refunds sign or to 2015.

Unsupported: no refunds sign

What it rested on
that both Fisher & Paykel Customer Services Pty Ltd and Domestic & General Services Ltd made false or misleading representation in the course of offering an extended warranty to consumers, and imposed a civil penalty of $200,000 on each business.