Reviews, testimonials and sold claims: the law on agent marketing

In this article

Written by

Kooky

Builder of Shaka, the payment router that pays every agent their commission on closing date.

About Kooky and Shaka →

A Queensland agent's marketing no longer stops at the listing. Around every home for sale sits a second layer of advertising about the agent: star ratings on review platforms, a wall of client testimonials on the agency website, "sold" tiles on social media, a reel announcing a suburb record, a post from a local personality who was given something in return. Sellers read that layer when they choose who will sell their home, and buyers read it when they decide how much weight to give an agent's word.

That layer is advertising, and the Australian Consumer Law covers it as it covers any other. This guide sets out what the law says about the claims agents make about themselves rather than about the property: reviews and star ratings, testimonials, sales and results claims, paid posts, comments left by others on an agency's pages, and how a concern is raised. Asking prices, AI-written descriptions, virtual staging and prospecting have their own guides.

Office of Fair Trading pages on property advertising (updated 1 July 2026) and on its complaint process (updated 1 April 2026).

One law for the listing and the agent

The Australian Consumer Law sits in Schedule 2 of the federal Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and the Office of Fair Trading applies it to property advertising in Queensland. Three of its provisions do most of the work for agent marketing, with a fourth, section 4, for claims about the future.

Section 18 is the general rule: a person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive. It covers every channel, from a printed brochure to a short video.

Section 29 lists specific false or misleading representations about goods and services, including claims a business makes about its own services. Among the paragraphs: a false or misleading representation that services are of a particular standard, quality, value or grade; one that purports to be a testimonial; one concerning a testimonial; one that the person making it has a sponsorship, approval or affiliation; and one about price.

Section 30 deals with land itself: price, location, characteristics, lawful use and facilities. It sits behind the listing, and matters here only where a claim about the agent also says something about a property.

The ACCC's guidance on false or misleading claims, updated on 11 July 2026, draws out what these provisions mean in practice. Intent does not matter: a business can breach the law without meaning to mislead. The test is the overall impression a claim creates, not its literal wording, so a claim that is technically true but leaves a false picture can still breach it. Fine print may qualify a claim but must not contradict its main message. Silence can mislead when a business shares some information and leaves out details relevant to the customer's decision. And a business must be able to back up any claim it makes.

Queensland's Office of Fair Trading puts the same points in its own guidance for businesses, updated on 1 July 2026. Its page on avoiding false claims says a business must be honest about testimonials, affiliations, approvals and sponsored endorsements, and that promises, opinions and predictions are misleading where the business knows they are false, does not care whether they are true, or has no reasonable grounds for them.

Online reviews and star ratings

Review platforms are often where a seller first meets an agent, and the ACCC's guidance on online reviews, updated on 15 July 2026, is specific about what a business may and may not do with them.

The starting point is that reviews should be independent and reflect the genuine opinion of someone who used the service. Against that, the ACCC lists conduct that can mislead:

• reviews written by family members, employees or people paid by the business, where the connection is not disclosed;
• reviews written by someone who never used the service;
• reviews edited by someone else after they were written;
• suppressing or editing negative reviews, or removing genuine negative ones.

For a real estate office, the first item reaches further than it might seem. A review from a staff member's relative, a friend of the principal or a colleague in another office of the same network is, on the ACCC's description, a review from someone with a personal or commercial connection. Without disclosure, it can mislead a seller who reads it as the view of an ordinary client.

The ACCC also lists warning signs of fake reviews: sudden spikes of very positive or very negative reviews, many from one email or internet address, similar reviewer names, and generic or repeated wording.

Context matters as much as content. The ACCC says businesses and platforms must disclose context that affects how a reader understands reviews, such as the number of reviews behind a star rating; its example is "3 stars – 24 reviews". Where a commercial relationship between a business and a review platform could affect the business's rating, the ACCC says that relationship must be disclosed too.

Asking clients for reviews, and rewarding them

Asking a client for a review after settlement is ordinary practice. The risk lies in what comes with the request. On the ACCC's guidance, offering discounts or free gifts for reviews is risky if it misleads consumers; any incentive must be offered whether the review turns out positive or negative; and incentivised reviews must be clearly disclosed. A gift card offered only to clients who leave five stars, or a request that goes only to clients who are known to be happy, shapes the overall picture in a way the reader cannot see.

The same guidance covers what happens after a review is posted. Before removing or editing a review, a business or platform needs an adequate basis to believe it is fake or misleading. Removing a genuine negative review can itself mislead, because the remaining reviews no longer reflect what clients actually said. The ACCC suggests that businesses and platforms publish clear policies for publishing, editing and removing reviews, and check that those policies do not risk misleading consumers.

When an agency believes a review about it is fake or misleading, the ACCC's guidance points to two options: ask the platform to remove it, or respond publicly to correct the record.

The ACCC's guidance page cites three matters: a removalist, Citymove, which admitted in 2011 to publishing copied and altered testimonials as genuine and paid a $6,600 penalty under an infringement notice; Service Seeking, an online marketplace that let businesses draft their own reviews, which were published automatically if the customer did not respond within three days, and which the Federal Court ordered to pay $600,000 in penalties; and HealthEngine, a health booking platform. According to the ACCC's release of 20 August 2020, HealthEngine did not publish about 17,000 reviews and edited about 3,000 to remove or embellish negative content between 2015 and 2018, and was ordered to pay $2.9 million in penalties for that and other conduct. None involved a real estate agency.

Testimonials: the claim the law presumes misleading

A testimonial differs from a review mainly in who controls it. A review sits on a platform the business does not run; a testimonial is chosen, often trimmed, and published by the business itself, on its website, in a listing presentation or in a social post.

Section 29 treats testimonials with particular care. Paragraph (e) prohibits a false or misleading representation that purports to be a testimonial by any person; paragraph (f) covers false or misleading representations concerning a testimonial. Section 29(2) then adds an evidential rule: in proceedings about either paragraph, the representation is taken to be misleading unless evidence is adduced to the contrary. Section 29(3) adds that this places no formal onus of proof on anyone, and that producing evidence does not by itself settle the question.

Several common practices sit close to the line the provision draws:

• Edited words. An edit that changes the meaning, or strings together phrases from different clients, creates a statement nobody made. The ACCC's guidance lists reviews edited by someone else after they were written among those that mislead.
• Composite or invented clients. A testimonial attributed to "a happy vendor" who does not exist is the conduct paragraph (e) prohibits. The Citymove matter involved copied and altered testimonials presented as genuine.
• Borrowed results. A testimonial about a sale handled by a colleague who has since left, shown beside a different agent's photograph, gives a false impression of who did the work.
• Selective display. Choosing the best testimonials is normal. Presenting a selection as "what our clients say", in a way that implies it is representative, is a question of overall impression under section 18.

Sold, record and results claims

Claims about results describe the standard of a service, so section 29(1)(b) and the general rule in section 18 apply. The provisions give no real estate examples; the useful test is the ACCC's for every claim: does the overall impression match the facts, and can the business prove it? Common claims in agent marketing raise these questions:

A "sold" claim is the simplest. It implies that the agent or agency in the advertisement made the sale. Where a sale was made by another office, by a former team member, or as a conjunctional sale with another agency, the overall impression depends on how the claim is worded and what the reader would take from it.

A "record price" claim carries a hidden measure. Record for the street, for the suburb, for the property type, for the year, for houses on a certain land size: each is a different claim, and a record on one measure may not be a record on another. Leaving the measure out lets the reader assume the broadest one.

"Number one" claims depend on a ranking, and the ranking has a basis: a portal's count, an industry award, a network's internal table. Without it, the claim implies a status the reader cannot check. Where the claim suggests that the agent holds an approval or affiliation, such as the endorsement of an industry body, paragraph (h) of section 29 is also in play.

Claims about the future, such as "we will get you a higher price", are covered by section 4. A representation about a future matter is taken to be misleading if the person had no reasonable grounds for making it, and in proceedings the person is taken not to have had those grounds unless evidence is produced. The Office of Fair Trading makes the related point for estimated values: its guidance on valuations says agents must not make false or misleading claims about a property, and that an estimate given to a client must be a comparative market analysis built on at least three similar properties sold within 5 kilometres in the last six months, or written advice that explains how the opinion was reached.

Puffery remains lawful. The ACCC describes it as wildly exaggerated or vague claims that nobody could take seriously; its example is a restaurant claiming the best steaks on earth. "Brisbane's friendliest agency" is likely puffery. "Highest sale price in the suburb this year" is a specific claim that has to be true.

The test for every marketing claim an agent makes is the same: would the reader's impression match the facts, and could the agent show them?

Paid posts, influencers and incentives

Some agent marketing now runs through paid partnerships: a local lifestyle account filming a walk-through, or a client given a gift for a video. Two sets of rules apply.

The first is the Australian Consumer Law. The ACCC's guidance on social media promotions, updated on 15 July 2026, says the same consumer law rules apply to posts a business pays for and to posts made by influencers who receive incentives from it. Its example is a hotel chain paying an influencer to post about a resort she has never visited, which the ACCC says is likely to be false, misleading or deceptive. Transposed to property, a post presented as a neighbour's spontaneous praise of an agent, written in return for a benefit and without saying so, gives a false impression of independence.

The second is industry self-regulation. Section 2.7 of the Australian Association of National Advertisers' Code of Ethics says advertising shall be clearly distinguishable as such. Ad Standards, which administers the code, explains on a page updated on 4 August 2025 that posts failing to clearly disclose a commercial arrangement between an influencer and an advertiser have been found in breach, while posts that clearly disclose it have not. Its influencer guidance says free products or services indicate a relationship that should be disclosed as well as payment, and lists labels such as #Ad, #PaidPromotion, #sponsored and #CommercialPartnership, or a plain statement in the caption. The label has to be clearly visible, not buried among other hashtags. Where a relationship is uncertain, Ad Standards recommends disclosing it anyway.

Comments, shares and other people's words

An agency's own social pages carry words it did not write: comments under a listing, posts by followers, tags from clients. The ACCC's social media guidance says businesses are responsible for comments and posts by others on their pages that are false or likely to mislead, not only for their own posts.

The ACCC recommends clear posting rules, displayed prominently; blocking users who break them; and removing or responding to false or misleading posts, including reviews. A response must be enough to counter the false impression the comment created, and the ACCC says removing the comment is usually the safer option. That sits alongside the reviews guidance: a genuine negative comment is not false or misleading because it is unwelcome, and removing it on that ground alone risks the same problem as suppressing a negative review.

The Office of Fair Trading's guidance on dark patterns, updated on 4 October 2024, lists two techniques that a listing page could also use. "Activity notifications", messages about what other customers are doing, can be misleading if the activity is fake or outdated; a line such as "12 buyers viewing this home now" is the kind of message the page describes. "Scarcity cues", such as countdown timers and warnings that an offer is about to expire, are on the same list.

Who enforces the rules, and the penalties

In Queensland, the Australian Consumer Law is enforced by the ACCC and by the Office of Fair Trading, which also regulates the property industry under the Property Occupations Act 2014. The Office of Fair Trading's property advertising page, updated on 1 July 2026, sets out the maximum penalties for false or misleading representations under the Australian Consumer Law. For a corporation, the maximum is the greatest of $100 million, three times the value of the benefit obtained, or, where the benefit cannot be worked out, 30 per cent of turnover during the breach period. For an individual, the maximum is $2.5 million per breach. Those are ceilings set by statute; the penalty in a given case is for a court to decide.

Court penalties are not the only tool. The Office of Fair Trading's complaint guidance, updated on 1 April 2026, says that where the law has been broken its main aim is to stop the conduct happening again, and that its options include notifying the business, seeking its cooperation, formal or public warnings, fines, court action and, in some cases, orders banning a business from operating. Its page on property industry breaches, updated on 1 July 2026, also describes enforceable undertakings: legally binding agreements in which a business commits to stop breaching the law, used as an alternative to court action and listed on a public register. The response depends on factors such as whether a breach was deliberate, how many consumers were affected and how long it lasted.

How a complaint is raised in Queensland

A seller who chose an agent on the strength of a testimonial that turns out to be invented, a buyer misled by a "record" claim, or an agency that believes a rival's results are overstated can each raise the matter. The Office of Fair Trading's guidance, on pages updated in April 2026, can be followed in five stages.

Fair Trading's guidance is frank about its limits. It cannot make judgments as a court or tribunal does, cannot provide compensation, and cannot force a business to compensate a complainant or fix a problem. It logs every complaint, though it cannot act on every one, and it cannot seek a remedy for an anonymous complainant or update them on action taken. Where conciliation fails, it may suggest taking the matter to a tribunal such as the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, to a court, or getting independent legal advice.

Where money has been lost because of an agent's conduct, Queensland also has a claim fund. The Office of Fair Trading describes it, on a page updated on 5 February 2026, as available to people who have lost money because of the conduct of a property agent, motor dealer, debt collector or auctioneer. The fund's own pages set out the time limits and the evidence required.

Two other routes exist. The ACCC accepts reports about misleading conduct and can investigate and take enforcement action, but its reviews guidance says it does not resolve individual review disputes or give legal advice. Ad Standards takes complaints about advertisements that may breach the advertising codes, including the rule that advertising be clearly distinguishable. Its complaint page, updated on 11 August 2026, says it needs details that identify the advertisement, accepts complaints only about advertisements the complainant saw or heard personally, and does not accept anonymous complaints.

What a seller can check before choosing an agent

The same rules give a seller a way to read an agent's marketing. No single check proves anything, and an agent with a modest online presence may be an excellent choice.

• How many reviews sit behind the rating, and over what period? The ACCC treats the review count as context a reader needs.
• Were reviewers offered anything? Incentivised reviews should say so.
• Can the agent show the testimonial's source? A testimonial with a name, a suburb and a date is easier to rely on than an anonymous quote.
• Which sales did this agent personally handle? Ask for the agent's own results rather than the office's.
• What is the record measured against? Street, suburb, property type and period all change the answer.
• What is a price promise based on? The Office of Fair Trading's rule on estimates points to comparable sales, or written reasons where there are not three.

For the industry, the rules read less as a constraint than as a description of a reputation worth having: reviews from real clients, testimonials clients would recognise as their own, and results stated on a measure anyone can check.

Kooky, from Shaka

Kooky edits Queensland Estate and builds Shaka, the payment router he made for Queensland property professionals. One payment comes in, and every agent, agency and party in the deal receives their signed share on closing date.

About Kooky and Shaka →