The ‘free to roam’ case – why perceptions matter for misleading advertising claims by business

Brands face legal consequences if their ads lead consumers to the wrong conclusion even if the content is technically true, warns Stephen King in an article first posted on The Conversation

The Federal Court of Australia has brought down its decision in the Steggles ‘free to roam’ case. The Court has clarified that our consumer protection laws are about, well, consumers.

Some background to the case can be found here and here. In brief, two chicken processors made statements that their chickens, when growing, were ‘free to roam in large barns’. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) noted that the chickens each had less space than an A4 sheet of paper for much of their growing cycle. The ACCC claimed that the advertising was misleading or deceptive, and contravened the Australian Consumer Law. The Federal Court has agreed.

The controversy behind the case is that chickens ‘flock’. They do not tend to wander aimlessly, even if given the chance. An expert in animal welfare provided evidence to the Court that: