ACCC sues Amazon Australia over children’s backpack battery safety labels

Australia’s competitors regulator at this time launched Federal Court docket proceedings in opposition to Amazon Business Providers Pty Ltd, alleging the corporate held youngsters’s backpacks at its Australian fulfilment centres with out obligatory button battery warning labels required below nationwide product security regulation. The case, filed on 29 Might 2026 below case quantity NSD905/2026 within the New South Wales Registry of the Federal Court docket of Australia, is the primary time the Australian Competitors and Client Fee has taken a web based market earlier than the Federal Court docket over alleged non-compliance with obligatory product security requirements.

The ACCC alleges Amazon AU possessed or had management of a product often called the “Unicorn Toddler Backpack” between 22 June 2022 and 1 November 2022 – the interval the regulator designates because the Related Interval – in contravention of part 136(3) of the Australian Client Legislation. The backpacks, designed for younger youngsters, included a removable light-up unicorn plush toy containing button batteries. In response to the ACCC’s concise assertion lodged with the courtroom, the merchandise weren’t accompanied by the prescribed warnings required below the Client Items (Merchandise Containing Button/Coin Batteries) Data Commonplace 2020.

What the case is about

The guts of the ACCC’s authorized argument issues not whether or not Amazon listed the product or bought it instantly, however whether or not the corporate’s bodily custody of the products inside its fulfilment community makes it liable below Australian Client Legislation. This can be a notable authorized framing. Amazon was not the third-party vendor of the Unicorn Backpacks. In response to the concise assertion, a vendor registered below the identify “Brokbridge” listed the product on amazon.com.au on 29 October 2021 and enrolled it in Fulfilment by Amazon (FBA) providers.

Underneath FBA, third-party sellers ship stock to Amazon-operated fulfilment centres in Australia. Amazon then shops the products, picks, packs, and ships orders to shoppers, manages buyer inquiries, processes refunds, and handles returns. Sellers pay Amazon charges for every of those providers, together with storage charges. In response to the concise assertion, Amazon maintained unique possession of its fulfilment centres and stored information of all models obtained and dispatched.

The ACCC argues that this bodily custody and unique management of the services means Amazon had “possession and/or management” of the Unicorn Backpacks for the needs of part 136(3) of the Australian Client Legislation – a provision that prohibits an individual, in commerce or commerce, from possessing or controlling items whose provide is prohibited as a result of a compulsory info customary has not been met.

The product and the protection customary

A button battery – additionally referred to as a coin battery – is outlined within the concise assertion as a small, single-cell battery with a diameter higher than its peak. The Client Items (Merchandise Containing Button/Coin Batteries) Data Commonplace 2020 commenced on 22 June 2022, the identical date that marks the beginning of the Related Interval within the ACCC’s case. Part 8 of the Data Commonplace requires prescribed warnings to be affixed to, hooked up to, or included with items containing button batteries, relying on whether or not the products are packaged.

In response to the ACCC, the Unicorn Backpacks saved by Amazon AU through the Related Interval weren’t accompanied by directions and didn’t embrace warning labels as required by subsections 8(4), 8(5), 8(6) and eight(7) of the Data Commonplace. The merchandise due to this fact didn’t adjust to part 8 of the usual, and their provide was accordingly prohibited below the Australian Client Legislation.

Button batteries are thought-about significantly hazardous for kids below 5 years of age. In response to the ACCC, if swallowed or inserted into physique components such because the ears or nostril, they’ll change into lodged in a baby’s throat and trigger extreme inner burns, lifelong accidents, or loss of life. The narrower oesophagus of younger youngsters and their tendency to put small objects of their mouths, ears, and noses makes them particularly weak.

A timeline of occasions

The concise assertion units out an in depth sequence of occasions. Brokbridge registered as a third-party vendor on 15 January 2021. The Unicorn Backpack was listed on amazon.com.au on 29 October 2021 and registered for FBA providers. Amazon started offering FBA providers to Brokbridge for the product from 19 November 2021. Brokbridge additionally acquired non-obligatory FBA providers together with barcode labelling, which means Amazon utilized barcodes to particular person models.

The product itemizing remained lively on amazon.com.au from 29 October 2021 till 12 July 2022. In response to the concise assertion, Amazon eliminated the itemizing after the ACCC contacted the corporate on 11 July 2022 to lift potential security dangers related to the Unicorn Backpacks. Regardless of the delisting, Amazon final shipped a Unicorn Backpack to a client on 22 July 2022 – ten days after the itemizing was eliminated.

The itemizing then reappeared briefly for a number of hours on 20 October 2022, earlier than being eliminated once more pending a “bin verify” – an inner Amazon course of by which workers bodily examine present stock saved in its Australian fulfilment centres. That bin verify befell on 1 November 2022, at which era Amazon decided the Unicorn Backpacks didn’t adjust to the Data Commonplace.

The numbers at stake

In response to the ACCC’s media launch, 41 backpacks had been bought by Australian shoppers via amazon.com.au through the Related Interval. As of 1 November 2022, 267 backpacks had been held in Amazon’s Australian fulfilment centres. The concise assertion additionally notes that the ACCC itself bought 4 models by way of the Amazon AU On-line Market on 6 July 2022 – purchases that doubtless shaped a part of the regulator’s evidence-gathering course of.

The ACCC is in search of declarations, monetary penalties, prices, and different courtroom orders. The precise penalty quantities haven’t but been set, as that dedication will probably be a matter for the Federal Court docket. Underneath the Australian Client Legislation, contraventions of obligatory info requirements can entice vital monetary penalties for companies.

What makes this case totally different

In response to the ACCC, that is the primary Federal Court docket case the regulator has introduced in opposition to a web based market particularly alleging non-compliance with obligatory product security requirements. The importance of that framing is tough to overstate. The case checks whether or not the operator of a fulfilment community – which bodily shops, handles, and ships items on behalf of third-party sellers – may be held chargeable for the protection compliance standing of these items below Australian regulation, even when a separate entity listed and bought them.

The ACCC’s deputy chair, Catriona Lowe, addressed this framing instantly. “Many Australian shoppers now store on on-line marketplaces. That is why it will be significant that buyers believe and belief in digital markets, and for the ACCC to take this motion, the primary of its variety to come back earlier than the Federal Court docket,” Lowe stated. She added: “Button batteries pose a critical hazard for younger youngsters. If swallowed or inserted, they’ll trigger extreme inner burns and damage, and in some circumstances loss of life. These obligatory warnings are there to assist maintain youngsters secure and companies should get them proper.”

The ACCC’s concise assertion makes clear the authorized principle: part 136(3) of the Australian Client Legislation applies to any one that, in commerce or commerce, possesses or controls items whose provide is prohibited. The ACCC’s place is that this provision covers on-line marketplaces with bodily possession of fulfilment stock, in the identical means it applies to different suppliers of products.

Amazon’s place in Australia

Amazon Business Providers Pty Ltd is an Australian subsidiary of the US-based Amazon.com, Inc. It’s listed as ACN 616 935 623. In response to the ACCC’s media launch, Amazon AU is certainly one of three signatories to the Australian Product Security Pledge, a voluntary initiative below which collaborating firms decide to 12 product safety-related actions and report yearly on their efficiency in opposition to preventative and corrective measures.

That voluntary dedication now sits alongside obligatory Federal Court docket proceedings – a juxtaposition that highlights the boundaries of self-regulatory frameworks when particular incidents come to gentle.

Regulatory context and priorities

The case lands inside a broader enforcement agenda. The ACCC’s 2026/2027 Compliance and Enforcement priorities, in accordance with its media launch, explicitly embrace unsafe merchandise in digital markets and client product questions of safety for younger youngsters, with a deal with button battery compliance.

The ACCC outlined its 2026-27 enforcement priorities in February, flagging unsafe client items in digital markets as a core concern. ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb acknowledged on the time that the rise in unsafe client items throughout digital channels, enabled by the size of on-line marketplaces, fell inside the regulator’s precedence scope. The Amazon case is without doubt one of the first concrete enforcement actions to circulation from these acknowledged priorities.

The ACCC has additionally been expanding its scrutiny of online marketplaces over several years, with its Digital Platform Providers Inquiry figuring out product security as a priority alongside subscription traps, faux opinions, and pricing practices. The regulator has discovered that greater than 50 p.c of third-party suppliers on Amazon’s US web site are primarily based in China, complicating enforcement of Australian client regulation protections. The fee concluded that five-year inquiry in March 2025, delivering 35 suggestions and noting persistent dangers when on-line marketplaces fail to watch product questions of safety.

The ACCC has taken different digital-platform enforcement actions in latest months. It took JustAnswer to court in September 2025 over alleged subscription entice practices. That case, like this one, entails the query of how worldwide digital companies work together with Australian client safety obligations.

The FBA legal responsibility query

For the promoting and e-commerce advertising and marketing neighborhood, the authorized principle on the centre of this case carries specific weight. The query of whether or not a web based market bears product security legal responsibility for items it bodily shops and ships – as distinct from items merely listed on its platform – has been debated in a number of jurisdictions.

This case focuses particularly on the FBA mannequin, the place Amazon workout routines in depth operational management: it receives stock, shops it in its personal services, applies barcodes, picks orders, packs shipments, ships items, and manages returns. The concise assertion notes that Amazon had unique possession of its fulfilment centres and maintained information of each unit. Underneath that operational construction, the ACCC argues, the corporate can’t be handled merely as a passive middleman.

Amazon has shifted increasing responsibility to third-party sellers across its marketplace infrastructure in recent times. A March 2025 FBA broken stock possession coverage change transferred legal responsibility for broken models from Amazon to sellers. The Australian case pushes in a distinct path: it seeks to determine that sure product security obligations can’t be transferred away from the social gathering with bodily custody and operational management of the products.

This issues past Australia. If the Federal Court docket accepts the ACCC’s authorized principle, the precedent would make clear – no less than below Australian regulation – that FBA-style fulfilment providers carry product security compliance obligations for the operator of the community. That might have implications for the way Amazon and comparable market operators construction their fulfilment agreements, conduct product inspections, and handle stock acceptance processes going ahead.

What the Data Commonplace requires

The Client Items (Merchandise Containing Button/Coin Batteries) Data Commonplace 2020 is a part of a set of 4 obligatory requirements protecting button batteries and merchandise containing them in Australia. The 4 requirements collectively tackle how button batteries and merchandise have to be designed and examined to cut back the chance of kids accessing them, in addition to the warnings and security info that have to be supplied.

Part 8 of the Data Commonplace, which is central to this case, specifies that prescribed warnings have to be bodily affixed to, hooked up to, or included with items relying on whether or not they’re packaged. In response to the concise assertion, the Unicorn Backpacks fell brief throughout a number of subsections – 8(4), 8(5), 8(6) and eight(7) – which means neither the product itself nor its outer plastic packaging bore the required warnings.

The Data Commonplace took impact on 22 June 2022. That date is critical: it marks the beginning of the Related Interval within the ACCC’s case. Previous to that date, the Data Commonplace was not but in power. After it got here into power, the Unicorn Backpacks saved in Amazon’s fulfilment centres had been non-compliant. The ACCC contacted Amazon on 11 July 2022 – lower than three weeks after the usual commenced. The itemizing was eliminated the next day. But items already held within the community remained there, and the final cargo occurred on 22 July 2022.

What occurs subsequent

The matter will proceed via the Federal Court docket of Australia, New South Wales Registry. The ACCC is in search of declarations, penalties, prices, and different orders. No findings of legal responsibility have been made – these are allegations at this stage.

In response to the ACCC, it won’t be importing additional courtroom paperwork past the preliminary concise assertion, even when that doc is subsequently amended. The case was ready by counsel Geoffrey Kozminsky and Gary Zhang, with AGS lawyer Jane Healy appearing as solicitor for the ACCC.

For shoppers who bought the Unicorn Toddler Backpack or comparable merchandise containing button batteries, the ACCC advises that button batteries are harmful if swallowed or inserted. If a baby is suspected of swallowing or inserting a button battery, the ACCC advises calling Triple Zero (000) instantly if the kid is having issue respiration, or calling the Poisons Data Centre on 13 11 26 at any hour for knowledgeable recommendation. The regulator explicitly warns to not anticipate signs, to not let the kid eat or drink, and to not induce vomiting.

Timeline

• 15 January 2021 – Brokbridge registers as a third-party vendor on amazon.com.au
• 29 October 2021 – Brokbridge lists the Unicorn Backpack on amazon.com.au and registers it for FBA providers
• 19 November 2021 – Amazon begins offering FBA providers to Brokbridge for the Unicorn Backpack, together with non-obligatory barcode labelling
• 22 June 2022 – Client Items (Merchandise Containing Button/Coin Batteries) Data Commonplace 2020 commences; Related Interval begins
• 6 July 2022 – ACCC purchases 4 models of the Unicorn Backpack by way of amazon.com.au as a part of its investigation
• 11 July 2022 – ACCC contacts Amazon AU to lift potential security dangers related to the Unicorn Backpacks
• 12 July 2022 – Amazon removes the Unicorn Backpack itemizing from amazon.com.au
• 22 July 2022 – Amazon ships its final unit of the Unicorn Backpack to a client, ten days after delisting
• 20 October 2022 – Unicorn Backpack itemizing briefly reappears on amazon.com.au for a number of hours earlier than being eliminated pending a bin verify
• 1 November 2022 – Amazon conducts a bin verify; confirms Unicorn Backpacks don’t adjust to the Data Commonplace; Related Interval ends; 267 models stay in Australian fulfilment centres
• 19 February 2026 – ACCC outlines 2026-27 enforcement priorities, together with unsafe merchandise in digital markets and button battery compliance as a spotlight space
• 29 Might 2026 – ACCC recordsdata Federal Court docket proceedings (NSD905/2026) in opposition to Amazon Business Providers Pty Ltd; first Federal Court docket case in opposition to a web based market over alleged non-compliance with obligatory product security requirements

Abstract

Who: The Australian Competitors and Client Fee (ACCC) as applicant, and Amazon Business Providers Pty Ltd (Amazon AU, ACN 616 935 623) as respondent. The case entails a third-party vendor registered as “Brokbridge” and was ready by AGS lawyer Jane Healy, with counsel Geoffrey Kozminsky and Gary Zhang.

What: Federal Court docket proceedings alleging Amazon AU contravened part 136(3) of the Australian Client Legislation by possessing or controlling youngsters’s unicorn backpacks at its Australian FBA fulfilment centres with out obligatory button battery warning labels required below the Client Items (Merchandise Containing Button/Coin Batteries) Data Commonplace 2020. The ACCC alleges 41 models had been bought by shoppers and 267 models remained in Amazon’s fulfilment centres on the finish of the Related Interval. The ACCC is in search of declarations, monetary penalties, and prices.

When: The alleged contraventions occurred between 22 June 2022 and 1 November 2022. The Federal Court docket proceedings had been filed at this time, 29 Might 2026, with the case accepted for submitting at 9:56 AM AEST.

The place: Amazon’s Australian fulfilment centres. The case was filed within the New South Wales Registry of the Federal Court docket of Australia (case quantity NSD905/2026). The merchandise had been bought on amazon.com.au.

Why: The ACCC’s case is that part 136(3) of the Australian Client Legislation applies to on-line marketplaces that bodily retailer and ship items by way of fulfilment networks, not solely to conventional retailers. That is the primary Federal Court docket motion of its variety in Australia. The motion displays the ACCC’s acknowledged 2026-27 enforcement priorities round unsafe merchandise in digital markets and youngster product security – significantly button battery compliance, which the regulator has recognized as a precedence space given the doubtless deadly hazard button batteries pose to youngsters below 5.