����ԭ��

Bedding retailer Bedshed Franchising Pty Ltd has paid $39,600 in penalties after the ����ԭ�� issued it with two infringement notices for allegedly making false or misleading representations to consumers through advertising that suggested certain products it sold had been evaluated or approved by the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).

This action comes after the ����ԭ�� put businesses on notice of its focus on problematic advertising practices targeting NDIS participants in November 2024.

The ����ԭ�� alleges that Bedshed advertised on its website and Google Ads that some of its mattresses, furniture and bedding accessories were ‘NDIS approved’ and ‘NDIS permitted’.

“The NDIS does not approve any specific goods or services and to suggest otherwise is misleading and risks taking advantage of vulnerable consumers,” ����ԭ�� Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said.

“Each NDIS participant has unique needs, and what’s funded under their plan is determined individually, not through a list of approved products. Targeting consumers experiencing vulnerability or disadvantage with misleading advertising is particularly concerning, and we are continuing to investigate companies making similar claims.”

“These infringement notices should serve as a warning to all businesses that advertise their products or services to NDIS participants – your advertising must reflect the facts,” Ms Cass Gottlieb said.

In December 2023, the Australian Government established the NDIS (Fair Price and Australian Consumer Law) Taskforce, which comprises of the ����ԭ��, the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission and the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA). The taskforce was established to address concerns that NDIS participants were being charged more for goods and services than other consumers, and to address potential breaches of Australian Consumer Law.

If an NDIS participant thinks a business has made false or misleading statements about products or services, including whether they are endorsed or approved by the NDIS, or if they consider their consumer rights have not been met, they can make a report to the ����ԭ��.

Further information for NDIS participants is available on the ����ԭ�� website.

Note to editors

The ����ԭ�� can issue an infringement notice when it has reasonable grounds to believe a person or business has contravened certain consumer protection provisions in the Australian Consumer Law.

The payment of a penalty specified in an infringement notice is not an admission of a contravention of the Australian Consumer Law. The Australian Consumer Law sets the penalty amount.

What false or misleading advertising about the NDIS might look like

Examples of concerning advertising that may be false, or misleading include:

• The use of the words ‘NDIS approved’ as the NDIS does not have the function of approving or endorsing particular goods or services.
• Advertising suggesting NDIS funds will cover “all inclusive” holidays, when general costs associated with holidays would not be covered by NDIS funding.
• Meal delivery services suggesting the cost of meals is covered by the NDIS, when the NDIS does not cover food expenses.
• Advertising that provides instructions on how to use NDIS funding codes to cover costs of recreational services that are not covered by the NDIS – for example, going to the movies or a theme park.
• Advertising that suggests a business is affiliated or endorsed by the NDIS, by using NDIS in its business name or in the description of its services, for example ‘NDIS therapies’.

Background

Bedshed is a franchise that supplies mattresses, bedding, furniture and related accessories to consumers. The business operates at a retail level with an online store and 43 brick-and-mortar stores in locations across WA, Victoria, Queensland, ACT and NSW. Of the 43 brick-and-mortar stores, 11 are registered NDIS providers.

In December 2024, the ����ԭ�� instituted proceedings against registered NDIS provider Ausnew Home Care Service Pty Ltd, for alleged false and misleading representations, including statements that certain products were ‘NDIS approved’, relating to aged care and disability products. The matter remains before the Court.