
Lactalis Australia, one of the country’s largest dairy processors, has been fined AUD 59,400 by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) for allegedly making false or misleading claims about the freshness of two of its liquid milk products.
The ACCC issued three infringement notices after finding that two regional milk products marketed as “fresh” contained reconstituted dairy ingredients made from milk powder, rather than being made entirely from fresh milk as consumers would reasonably expect.
The enforcement action relates to the following 2-litre milk products:
According to the ACCC’s investigation:
The regulator alleged that labeling these products as “fresh” was misleading because they included ingredients produced by reconstituting milk powder.
The ACCC’s broader review of Australia’s milk processing industry found that most dairy companies accurately label their fresh milk products. However, Lactalis’ labeling practices were considered inconsistent with consumer expectations regarding products marketed as fresh.
As a result, the company paid AUD 59,400 in statutory penalties through three infringement notices. Payment of an infringement notice is not an admission of a breach of the law, but it resolves the matter without court proceedings.
The Australian Dairy Farmers (ADF) welcomed the ACCC’s action but argued that the financial penalty is too small to deter large multinational companies.
ADF President Ben Bennett said consumers deserve complete transparency about the products they purchase and stressed that trust in Australian dairy depends on accurate labeling.
The organization also noted that the issue reflects broader challenges facing Australia’s dairy industry, including:
In a separate matter, Lactalis Australia has also acknowledged employee underpayments identified during an internal review of its payroll systems.
The company stated that it has:
The ACCC’s action highlights the importance of truthful food labeling and maintaining consumer confidence in dairy products. While the financial penalty has sparked debate over whether it is sufficient for a multinational company, the case serves as a reminder that food businesses must ensure product descriptions accurately reflect their contents, particularly when using terms such as “fresh.”