The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has commenced Federal Court proceedings against Grill’d, alleging that its “Tree Day Tuesday” campaign overstated when customer purchases would trigger donations to tree-planting projects.
The case, announced on 16 June 2026 and filed in the Federal Court of Australia, concerns promotions run between January 2021 and April 2024. The campaign was operated in partnership with environmental organisation Greenfleet Trust. The ACCC alleges that Grill’d represented that every burger purchased on a Tuesday would generate a $1 contribution towards planting trees, while several conditions materially reduced the number of qualifying transactions.
Those conditions included membership of Grill’d’s Relish loyalty programme, dining in at a restaurant, ordering a qualifying main item at the front counter, scanning a membership barcode and avoiding any other offer. Takeaway, delivery, online and table-service orders were excluded. The ACCC says more than five million burgers were purchased on Tuesdays during the relevant period, but only around 4% qualified for a donation. Among purchases made by Relish members, about 17% qualified.
The concise statement identifies 26 advertisements across Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Grill’d websites and restaurant materials. ACCC chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said the regulator considers the alleged conduct a form of greenwashing because the campaign may have overstated both the donations and the environmental benefit associated with each purchase.
The ACCC has recently pursued other greenwashing actions involving Edgewell, Australian Gas Networks and Clorox Australia. The Clorox proceedings resulted in an $8.25 million Federal Court penalty, reinforcing that environmental marketing claims are being treated as consumer-law enforcement issues rather than voluntary sustainability guidance. The allegations against Grill’d have not been determined.
The proceedings are brought under sections 18, 29(1)(g) and 29(1)(m) of the Australian Consumer Law, which address misleading conduct and false representations about benefits and promotional conditions. The ACCC is seeking declarations, pecuniary penalties, costs and other orders.
The case has wider relevance beyond Australia. The UK Competition and Markets Authority’s Green Claims Code requires environmental claims to be clear, accurate and supported, while the Advertising Standards Authority applies related requirements through the CAP and BCAP Codes. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides address how businesses should qualify and substantiate environmental marketing claims.
Solicitors and in-house counsel advising consumer brands should treat promotional conditions as part of the principal claim rather than information that can safely be confined to detailed terms. Marketing, sustainability and legal teams also need a shared approval process covering the wording, evidence, customer journey and practical operation of each campaign.
Law firms advising on environmental advertising should expect regulators to examine not only whether a donation was made, but whether the overall presentation accurately conveyed how often consumers’ purchases produced the promised benefit.