ACCC takes JustAnswer to court over alleged subscription trap and misleading pricing

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission filed Federal Court proceedings against JustAnswer LLC on September 23, 2025, alleging the US-based online advice service misled consumers about pricing and falsely claimed government affiliation. The enforcement action targets what regulators characterize as manipulative design practices that trap consumers into expensive monthly subscriptions.

According to the ACCC's concise statement, JustAnswer allegedly presented consumers with misleading representations that the service cost just AU$2 when the actual monthly fees ranged between AU$50 and AU$90. The regulator claims consumers signed up believing they faced a one-time joining fee but were enrolled in ongoing subscriptions without adequate disclosure.

"Had consumers been aware that the total price of the JustAnswer online service cost at least 25 times more per month than the promoted joining fee, they may have chosen not to use it," said ACCC Deputy Chair Catriona Lowe. The commission received numerous complaints from consumers who claimed they were unaware of ongoing subscription charges or believed they were dealing with an Australian government agency.

Subscription trap allegations span multiple years

The court documents reveal JustAnswer's alleged pricing misrepresentations occurred from November 1, 2022 onwards, with specific claims about AU$2 joining fees displayed through chat widgets and landing pages. The ACCC alleges the monthly subscription fee was "shown in a way that we believe many consumers would not have seen" until they reached payment screens.

JustAnswer operates in 196 countries with more than 700 employees, connecting consumers to subject matter experts in medicine, law, accounting and technology. Australian consumers typically accessed the service through Google search results, including both organic listings and sponsored advertisements that linked directly to JustAnswer's website.

The platform's chat widget allegedly provided pre-scripted statements including "I'm sending you to a secure page to join JustAnswer for only AU$2 (fully-refundable)" and similar variations. Landing pages for certain subject areas contained statements reading "Join for only AU$2" during periods spanning January to September 2024.

Court filings indicate the monthly subscription fees varied based on the expertise area requested by consumers. Unlike the one-time joining fee, these monthly charges continued automatically unless consumers specifically requested cancellation and refunds. The ACCC alleges refunds were not consistently provided when requested.

False government affiliation claims compound consumer harm

Beyond pricing misrepresentations, the ACCC accuses JustAnswer of falsely claiming connections to Australian government entities. From June 22, 2022 to February 15, 2024, the platform allegedly used statements including "Just Answer. Australia Fair Work Ombudsman" and "Chat with a Fair Work Ombudsman for personalized help" on its website.

Additional claims included "Fairwork Ombudsmen are online now" and "Thousands of highly rated, verified Fair Work Ombudsmen." The service allegedly represented users could "Connect with the ombudsman via chat, email, text or phone" and access help from "a team of ombudsmen."

Similar representations about general Australian ombudsmen continued through March 28, 2025. The platform used phrases like "Ask an Ombudsman," "Chat with an AU Ombudsman for personalized help," and referenced specific numbers of ombudsmen being "online now."

These representations allegedly violated consumer laws because JustAnswer had no actual sponsorship, approval or affiliation with the Fair Work Ombudsman, any Australian ombudsman, or government departments. The ACCC suggests some consumers engaged with the service believing they would receive independent ombudsman advice rather than commercial consulting services.

Legal framework targets multiple consumer protection violations

The Federal Court case cites violations of several Australian Consumer Law provisions. Section 18 prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct, while Section 29 specifically addresses false representations about prices, sponsorship and affiliation. Section 34 covers conduct liable to mislead the public about service nature.

The ACCC's enforcement action demonstrates the regulator's focus on subscription-related practices identified as current enforcement priorities. Deputy Chair Lowe characterized the case as addressing "manipulative online design practices which guide consumers to sign up for subscriptions they do not want or did not intend to buy."

This enforcement aligns with findings published by the ACCC in March 2025 showing 72% of Australian consumers encountered potentially unfair practices across digital marketplaces. The commission's Digital Platform Services Inquiry identified subscription traps as a persistent consumer harm, where businesses mislead consumers into believing they're making one-off purchases.

Consumer protection authorities globally face similar challenges with dark patterns and deceptive design practices. French regulators recently ordered websites to fix misleading cookie banners, while German businesses systematically exploit EU Digital Services Act provisions to remove unfavorable reviews.

Technical aspects reveal sophisticated manipulation tactics

The court documents outline specific technical mechanisms JustAnswer allegedly used to mislead consumers. Chat widgets responded to consumer queries with pre-scripted messages emphasizing the AU$2 joining fee while obscuring monthly subscription costs. The platform's search advertising strategy targeted consumers seeking information about specific topics, directing them to subject-specific landing pages.

JustAnswer's business model relies heavily on search engine visibility. Australian consumers conducting searches for medical, legal, or technical advice encountered both organic search results and paid advertisements linking to JustAnswer pages. This approach capitalized on urgent consumer needs, particularly when users searched for advice about health emergencies or legal issues.

The timing of pricing disclosures created additional consumer harm. According to the ACCC's allegations, monthly subscription fees only became apparent late in the payment process, after consumers had already provided personal information and expressed intent to use the service. This design pattern mirrors broader industry practices that privacy advocates characterize as dark patterns.

Platform interfaces allegedly emphasized the joining fee through visual hierarchy while making subscription terms less prominent or harder to locate. The ACCC suggests this design approach was particularly problematic for consumers accessing the service during urgent situations, such as seeking advice about caring for sick children.

Enforcement seeks comprehensive consumer redress

The ACCC's court application seeks multiple forms of relief including compensation orders for affected consumers, injunctions preventing future misconduct, and civil penalties. The regulator also requests publication orders requiring JustAnswer to communicate corrections to consumers and implementation of compliance programs.

These remedies reflect standard ACCC enforcement patterns in consumer protection cases. Compensation orders would directly address financial harm suffered by consumers who paid unexpected subscription fees. Injunctions would prevent JustAnswer from continuing allegedly misleading representations about pricing or government affiliation.

Civil penalties serve deterrent functions both for JustAnswer and other businesses considering similar practices. The ACCC's penalty requests align with enhanced enforcement tools provided by legislative changes including strengthened unfair contract terms provisions that took effect in November 2023.

Publication orders require businesses to communicate corrections to consumers through the same channels used for original misleading conduct. For JustAnswer, this could mean displaying corrective statements on its website or through search advertising that previously contained misleading claims.

Market implications extend beyond single platform

The JustAnswer case illustrates broader challenges facing digital marketplace regulation. Online advice platforms operate across multiple jurisdictions while serving consumers who may lack familiarity with international business structures. This creates opportunities for regulatory arbitrage where platforms exploit jurisdictional differences to avoid consumer protection obligations.

JustAnswer's US registration complicates enforcement mechanisms available to Australian authorities. While the ACCC can pursue court orders within Australian jurisdiction, practical implementation may require international cooperation or coordination with US regulatory counterparts.

The case also demonstrates how search advertising enables targeting of vulnerable consumers during urgent situations. Platforms appearing in search results for medical or legal emergencies can exploit consumer urgency to obscure pricing terms or create false impressions about service legitimacy.

Recent ACCC analysis of digital platform markets shows increasing consumer reliance on search-mediated service discovery. When consumers use search engines to find advice about specific problems, they may not distinguish between official government resources and commercial services that mimic government branding or terminology.

Subscription economy faces increasing regulatory scrutiny

The JustAnswer enforcement represents part of broader regulatory focus on subscription-related business practices. The UK's Online Safety Act sparked massive VPN adoption as consumers sought to avoid new verification requirements, while European data protection authorities target misleading cookie consent mechanisms.

Subscription traps particularly harm consumers who lack technical sophistication to navigate complex cancellation procedures. The ACCC's investigation found consumers often struggled to obtain refunds even when they successfully cancelled subscriptions, suggesting platforms may deliberately complicate refund processes.

International enforcement coordination becomes increasingly important as platforms operate globally while consumers face jurisdiction-specific protections. The JustAnswer case may influence how other regulators approach similar cross-border subscription service issues.

Digital literacy initiatives could help consumers recognize subscription trap indicators before providing payment information. However, regulatory enforcement remains necessary to address sophisticated manipulation tactics that exploit psychological biases and urgent consumer needs.

The commission's enforcement priorities indicate continued focus on subscription-related practices as subscription economy adoption expands across multiple service categories. Future cases may target platforms in sectors beyond professional advice, including entertainment, software, and consumer services.

Timeline of key events

• November 1, 2022: JustAnswer allegedly begins displaying misleading AU$2 pricing representations
• June 22, 2022: Platform starts using false Fair Work Ombudsman affiliation claims
• January 17, 2024: Specific landing page claims about AU$2 joining fees begin
• February 15, 2024: False Fair Work Ombudsman representations end
• September 3, 2024: Landing page AU$2 claims period concludes
• March 28, 2025: General ombudsman misrepresentations cease
• June 2025: ACCC publishes Digital Platform Services Inquiry findings on unfair trading practices
• September 23, 2025: ACCC files Federal Court proceedings against JustAnswer LLC
• September 2025: Enhanced penalties for unfair contract terms take effect

Summary

Who: The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission filed proceedings against JustAnswer LLC, a US-based limited liability company operating online advice services in 196 countries with over 700 employees.

What: The ACCC alleges JustAnswer misled Australian consumers about service pricing by advertising AU$2 joining fees while enrolling consumers in monthly subscriptions costing AU$50-90, and falsely claimed government affiliation with Australian ombudsman agencies.

When: The alleged misconduct occurred from November 1, 2022 onwards for pricing misrepresentations, with government affiliation claims spanning June 22, 2022 to March 28, 2025. The ACCC filed court proceedings on September 23, 2025.

Where: The conduct affected Australian consumers accessing JustAnswer's website through search engines, with proceedings filed in the Federal Court of Australia's Victoria Registry under case number VID1259/2025.

Why: The enforcement addresses subscription trap practices that cause consumer financial harm and prevent informed decision-making, reflecting the ACCC's current enforcement priorities targeting unfair digital marketplace practices and manipulative online design patterns.