As Australia strengthens laws against unfair trading practices and subscription traps, a consumer advocacy group in New Zealand is calling for the Government to do something similar.
In NZ, changes to the Fair Trade Act (FTA) which includes things like lifting the penalties for breaching fair trading laws, have been put forward through the Fair Trading Amendment Bill. The Bill is currently before the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee, with submissions made.
In its submission, Consumer NZ said while it supported elements of the Bill, it doesn't believe the Bill represents "the full scope of reform necessary to modernise the FTA and make it fit for purpose in a modern digital economy."
Consumer NZ suggested a second stage of amendments was needed, including things like a supermarket pricing accuracy code and all inclusive pricing rules.
The consumer advocacy group also suggested a prohibition on unfair trading practices similar to the prohibition being introduced in Australia. It said this would offer consumers better protection from unfair trading practices that harm consumers but aren't captured by existing laws.
Research published in November by Consumer NZ showed dark patterns - digital design techniques intended to influence people’s behaviour when shopping online - had infiltrated New Zealanders’ lives, and had become an “ubiquitous part of the online experience.”
Examples Consumer NZ cited included hidden fees when shoppers pay more for something than the initial advertised price suggests, and manipulation using dark patterns and subscription traps when it’s easy to set up an account or membership but difficult to cancel.
Alongside hidden fees and subscription traps, other examples of dark patterns include things like scarcity cues when a website creates a sense of urgency or pressures users to do certain things, and activity notifications when details about other consumers - whether real or fake - are shared to encourage people to make a particular choice or action.
According to NZ Post, in 2025, NZ shoppers spent over $12.7 billion online, with domestic retailers receiving nearly 80% of all online spending.
Elsewhere, the European Union (EU) has consumer protection legislation and regulation making it possible to deal with dark patterns, while the United States has regulatory measures in place to protect against dark patterns.
“These types of practices are becoming increasingly common but protections under existing [NZ] laws are insufficient," Consumer NZ said.
Government's expectation
Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Cameron Brewer said his clear expectation was all businesses operating in NZ act ethically and meet their responsibilities under our fair trading laws.
He said misleading and deceptive online sales conduct was already prohibited under the Fair Trading Act, including practices like drip pricing.
“The Act also protects consumers from unfair contract terms, and in general it should be easy and straightforward to cancel subscriptions.”
"Illegal online sales conduct, including subscription traps, is currently an enforcement priority for the Commerce Commission, and I encourage anyone who has encountered it to report it to them," Brewer said.
“I’m aware of the changes recently passed in Australia. My current focus is on progressing the Fair Trading Amendment Bill, which lifts the penalties for breaching fair trading laws so Kiwis can have greater confidence they won’t be misled at the till.”
NZ should be following
Labour commerce and consumer affairs spokesperson Arena Williams said it was jurisdictions like Australia stepping out on this that NZ should be following.
“The EU approach where it is written into their charter that these practices, alongside a misuse of market power … where it’s having an impact on consumers and competition more generally, that’s something where the regulators have taken a very hard line in the last few years, and that’s an example to us where we should be looking to improve our competition practices in Aotearoa.”
Asked if Labour agreed with what Consumer NZ was calling for, Williams said: “I wouldn’t say we agree. I’ll have more to say about our policy for fees and … trading practices close to the election.”
She said when it came to dark patterns, it was about keeping up - not about reimagining the relationship between consumers and businesses in NZ and tilting the balance.
“This is merely about making sure that the rules which apply to the small business owner trying to sell his wares on the main street in a regional town is held to the same rules as the big corporate selling online to vulnerable consumers,” Williams said.
“These are gaps in New Zealand’s law which we want to make sure that we are keeping up with economies that we like to compare ourselves to.”
She said NZ’s “magic sauce” in our competition law was that we can make specific provisions that deal with the "mischief" that Australia is trying to get to.
An overhaul and a full reorganisation of the rules wasn’t needed for NZ, she said.
“We do have a responsive legislative system, and when used properly, it can prioritise things which really matter to people," Williams said.
“We should always use the tools that we have as government to act in the interest of consumers.”
2 Comments
who gives a s#@t what Cameron Brewers "clear expectations" are. Companies are going to pay attention to the law and specifically its penalties. Anything else is pure virtue signalling.
Yes i agree it *should* be easy and straightforward to cancel subscriptions, however it's not, wake up Mr Brewer!
I've had a spat with OneNZ in recent days. I've carried both Spark (primary, monthly plan) and OneNZ (prepay) sim cards in my phone. I started this several years ago when cell coverage in my area, between the 2, was erratic so it gave more reliable connectivity. But the service has improved greatly (by each) in recent times and is unnecessary.
I notified OneNZ that I would cancel use of their sim and requested that the small credit balance remaining in the app be refunded to the debit card registered in the app.
OneNZ informed me that yes, the credit was my money. Then proceeded to inform me that they do not refund credits on prepaid sims. Instead the credit would remain for 12 months while the sim was held "on hold" for later reactivation. If it wasn't reactivated, then the credit would be taken by OneNZ.
There are 2 issues at stake here in my opinion.
First, is the aggregate $ amount potentially involved for thousands (?) of prepaid sims not being renewed, that goes to OneNZ.
Second, is the top up function in the app. Is does not allow the subscriber to custom enter an amount to zero sum the balance. If I could have, I would have. Whatever way I might have tried to reduce that credit, I could only lower it, not eliminate it. And that would require my spending more money when I had already decided to not renew - OneNZ wins on all counts.
To add insult to injury, when the renew date ticked over yesterday, they had taken the credit even though it was not enough to renew the subscription and theyhadreceivedwrittennotificationthat it wouldnot be renewed - i had no service unless i forked out for casual rates.
At my assistance, the credit has been restored. At my individual level the amount is less than $10 and won't send me to the poor house if not refunded. It is the principle that's important. I maintain a credit of my money in their app so that renewal occurs each month and because of some additional charges (perhaps cost of short code messages, or additional cost calls, or a bit over data use) some dollars and cents residual credit has accumulated. OneNZ has that credit entrapped. There appears to be no way that my money that they have probably accrued interest on, can be returned to me at the end of the relationship.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.