Scams and Misinformation in Australia Explained

Description

Scams and misinformation in Australia: what is illegal, what slips through, and how to check emails, texts and YouTube claims.

I receive suspicious emails and text messages that appear designed to scam me. I also watch quite a bit of YouTube, where I come across claims I believe are misleading, and sometimes outright false. Questioning so much of what reaches us is tiring.

But my experience doesn’t represent the whole internet. We need to check a doubtful claim before calling it a lie, and we need evidence for dishonest intent. Understanding scams and misinformation starts with asking what a message wants us to do, what evidence supports it, and which rules apply.

Some conduct is criminal fraud. Some breaches consumer law. Other content can be unreliable, manipulative or irresponsible without necessarily being unlawful. Why do these different forms of deception reach us so easily, and what protection should Australians reasonably expect?

Quick Answer

Scams and misinformation overlap, but they are not the same. Fraud can be criminal; misleading commercial claims can breach Australian Consumer Law even without an intention to deceive. Other false or manipulative content requires a closer look at its context and the applicable law. YouTube also has platform rules separate from Australian law, and they do not guarantee every video is accurate. Australians can reduce risk by checking requests independently, tracing claims to original evidence and reporting problems through the right channel. Stronger prevention and fair complaint processes should support those personal precautions, rather than leaving individuals to carry the whole burden.

What the Australian figures actually show

The National Anti-Scam Centre’s 2025 figures, published in March 2026, put combined reported losses at $2.18 billion, up 7.8 per cent from 2024. They draw on several reporting bodies, not just Scamwatch. Reported numbers were lower than in 2024, and losses remained below the $3.1 billion peak recorded in 2022. 1

These are reported losses, not a complete count of every scam or every victim. They also tell us nothing directly about the proportion of YouTube videos containing false claims. It would be misleading to turn them into proof that all online deception is growing at the same rate.

There is evidence of improvement. In the first quarter of 2026, Scamwatch recorded a 17 per cent fall in reported losses compared with the same quarter a year earlier. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) cautioned against drawing a trend from one quarter. It also reported that 5,834 scam websites were taken down during that period. 2

The picture is serious, but it is not hopeless. Prevention can interrupt scams, while changes in reported figures need careful interpretation.

Where scams and misinformation cross the legal line

People often use the word “scam” for anything that feels dishonest or like a bad deal. That understandable reaction can conceal important differences. A disappointing purchase is not automatically fraud, and a familiar business can still break consumer law.

What you encounter	The important distinction
A fake request designed to steal money	Potential criminal fraud or another offence. The facts and applicable offence must be established.
A misleading price or product claim	May breach consumer law. A criminal conviction is not required for conduct to be unlawful.
Sales pressure or exaggerated praise	Not automatically unlawful. An invented factual claim or misleading overall impression changes the assessment.
A false or misleading video	Its legality depends on context. Platform rules are a separate test; remaining online proves neither truth nor legality.

Fraud involves more than an annoying message

Queensland’s Criminal Code, for example, includes dishonestly obtaining property or a financial advantage within its fraud provisions. Other jurisdictions have their own offences. A fake bank message used to obtain money can involve criminal conduct; a message collecting passwords may involve other offences or steps towards a fraud. The precise charge depends on the evidence. 3

Scamwatch calls attempts to trick people into revealing sensitive information “phishing”. Such messages can impersonate trusted organisations. They may seek account details rather than an immediate payment, so an apparently small request can still matter. 4

Misleading commerce is already regulated

Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct, or conduct likely to mislead or deceive, in trade or commerce. Section 29 separately addresses specified false or misleading representations. The law is not simply a general ban on every untrue statement in public life. 5

The ACCC explains that a business can mislead without intending to. The overall impression matters, including important information left out. This is a different legal question from proving criminal fraud. 6

The everyday phrase “sort of legal” therefore needs care. Sometimes conduct is lawful. Sometimes its status is uncertain. Sometimes it is unlawful but has not yet been investigated or tested in court. Those are different situations.

A real subscription case shows why the distinction matters

On 8 July 2026, the ACCC announced that the Federal Court had ordered JustAnswer LLC to pay $10 million in penalties for misleading pricing and affiliation claims. Consumers were led to believe they could use its service for a $2 joining payment, but were enrolled in subscriptions costing $45 to $75 a month. The court also ordered refunds for Australian consumers misled into those subscriptions between November 2022 and August 2025. 7

JustAnswer admitted breaches and agreed to joint submissions on penalties. This was an established consumer-law outcome, not merely an accusation about a business. It shows why subscription traps shouldn’t be casually described as a legal loophole.

What can remain lawful?

Obvious, vague advertising exaggeration is sometimes called “puffery”. The ACCC says claims of this kind, which nobody would take seriously as factual promises, are generally not misleading. A clearly disclosed limited-time sale is also different from invented urgency. 6

An emotional argument or one-sided opinion does not become fraud merely because we dislike it. Even so, the label “opinion” should never excuse an invented fact. Readers can demand evidence and corrections whether or not the conduct meets a legal threshold.

Why YouTube can contain misinformation despite its rules

YouTube’s published misinformation policy prohibits certain misleading material carrying a serious risk of harm. It includes manipulated footage and old footage falsely presented as current. Its rules allow contextual exceptions, such as some educational or documentary uses. They are not a promise to remove every inaccurate sentence. 8

YouTube separately prohibits scams and deceptive practices and requires disclosure for content made or meaningfully altered with artificial intelligence (AI). A disclosure helps viewers understand how something was made; it does not certify the underlying claims. Equally, an AI voice alone does not prove a video is false. 9 10

These policies describe what the platform says it requires. They do not establish how consistently it detects or removes every violation. A video remaining available might not meet a removal threshold, might have been missed, or might require more context to assess. Without investigating the particular item, we cannot know which explanation applies.

The practical lesson is to separate three questions: Is the claim supported? Does it break platform rules? Does it breach Australian law? A recommendation, advertisement or impressive viewing count does not answer all three.

The connection between attention and deception

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) distinguishes misinformation from disinformation deliberately spread. It notes that deceptive material can attract people to advertising or lure them towards financial scams. People can also share inaccurate information without knowing it is false. 11

That distinction matters when discussing motives. A mistaken video, deliberate propaganda, and a fake investment promotion can look equally polished, but they aren’t necessarily made for the same reason.

My concern is the burden placed on the audience. A person checking an email cannot see the systems behind the sender. A viewer may not know who funded a video or whether its apparent expert has relevant knowledge. Organisations controlling distribution and payments are better placed to address some risks than an isolated individual.

SJA’s earlier discussion of how propaganda works in Australian politics and media considers persuasion and repetition. Here, the additional issue is accountability: what should happen when persuasion becomes a false claim, a deceptive transaction or an attempted theft?

A practical routine for checking messages and videos

For unexpected emails and texts

• Pause when a message demands money, passwords or urgent action. Don’t use the link to check whether it is genuine.
• Open the organisation’s app or use contact details you obtained independently. Ask whether the request is real.
• Treat requests for personal details seriously even when no money is requested. If credentials have been disclosed, secure the affected accounts promptly. 4

For a startling YouTube claim

• Identify the exact claim. “This policy is bad” is a judgement; “this law passed yesterday” is something you can check.
• Look for the original source: the legislation, full interview, research paper or official announcement. A link to another video repeating the claim is not independent confirmation.
• Check the date, location and context. Old footage can be genuine, but a new caption can be false.
• Compare credible sources, including evidence that challenges your first reaction. If you cannot verify the claim, avoid sharing it as established fact. 11

These checks cannot guarantee safety. They do, however, give us a manageable pause between being shown something and acting on it. Apply them just as carefully to claims that support your own beliefs.

Where Australians can turn when something goes wrong

Act quickly if money or financial details are involved. Scamwatch advises contacting your bank or card provider immediately and asking it to stop transactions. Its recovery guidance also points to free identity support through IDCARE and warns about follow-up offers to recover stolen money. 12

After urgent protective steps, report suspicious contact to Scamwatch. Its reporting page links to the police reporting route for cybercrime. A Scamwatch report and a police report serve different purposes. 13

For a misleading transaction with a genuine business, keep the advertisement, receipt and correspondence. Raise the issue with the business and use the ACCC’s consumer guidance to find further help. Reporting a pattern to the ACCC is useful, but the commission does not resolve individual disputes. 6

For a YouTube policy concern, report the specific video or channel with a clear description of the problematic content. ACMA’s misinformation guidance directs individual content complaints to platforms; it says ACMA cannot action those complaints or enforce the voluntary misinformation code. 8 11

People deserve help without humiliation. If someone tells you they may have been scammed, help them take the next practical step. Blame won’t get their money back or secure their account.

What stronger protection should look like

Australia’s Scams Prevention Framework introduces obligations for regulated banking, telecommunications and digital-platform services in stages. According to the ACCC’s guidance (checked 14 October 2026), most obligations will apply from 31 March 2027. Affected entities must join the Australian Financial Complaints Authority from 1 September 2026. 14

That is a framework being implemented, not proof that future protections have already delivered results. Its success should be judged by prevented losses, complaint handling and meaningful remedies, rather than announcements alone.

SJA’s editorial view is that consumer protection should make honest decisions easier. Priorities should include clearer recurring charges, straightforward cancellation, effective action against impersonation, and accessible help for people who cannot navigate a complicated online complaint process.

Stronger safeguards also need fair limits. Moderation should explain decisions and offer review, while distinguishing an evidence dispute from a deceptive sales pitch. Protecting people should not require treating every unpopular interpretation as misinformation.

There are reasons for practical optimism. Website disruption is happening, and the JustAnswer case shows consumer law can produce penalties and refund orders. Neither proves the problem is solved. Both show that Australians have options beyond simply accepting deception as the price of being online.

A safer internet requires shared responsibility

We should be able to read messages, shop and watch videos without becoming full-time investigators. Personal checking remains useful, but businesses and platforms also need to take responsibility for the risks they can control.

The evidence supports neither complacency nor the belief that nothing can be trusted. Some deception is plainly actionable; other claims require careful assessment. Knowing the difference helps us protect ourselves, seek the right remedy and argue for reforms that address the actual harm.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does a professional-looking email prove the sender is genuine?

No. Check a request through independently obtained contact details or the organisation’s app. A convincing appearance does not establish the sender’s identity. 4

Does every misleading business claim require proof of intent?

No. Under consumer law, conduct can be misleading without a deliberate intention to deceive. That differs from the evidence needed to establish criminal fraud. 3 6

Does an AI disclosure mean a video is unreliable?

No. It describes production methods, not whether the argument is supported. Check the evidence regardless of whether a human or an AI voice presents it. 10

Will reporting a scam guarantee my money comes back?

No. Contact your bank promptly, but do not assume recovery is assured. Reporting helps authorities identify activity; it is not itself a refund process. Be wary of anyone demanding payment to recover your loss. 12 13

Should I publicly call a channel a scammer?

Describe the specific claim and the evidence you can verify. Report suspected wrongdoing through the appropriate channel. An unsupported accusation can distract from the facts; criticism is stronger when readers can check it themselves.

Share your experience

What would make you feel better protected online while preserving room for honest disagreement?

Share your experiences, evidence and views in the comments, including respectful disagreement, alternative interpretations or corrections. Please remove personal details and avoid posting active scam links. You can also use our Reader Feedback page to tell us how this work has helped you.

Explore our Media and Democracy coverage, share this article with your community, and consider raising practical consumer-protection improvements with your elected representatives.

If you believe in what we are trying to achieve, your support can help Social Justice Australia continue producing independent public-interest analysis. We appreciate every contribution, large or small. Support Social Justice Australia.

Social media description

A suspicious text, a misleading subscription and a false YouTube claim can leave us equally frustrated—but different rules apply. Find out where Australian law draws the line, how to check what reaches you, and where to seek help. There is progress worth building on.

#ScamAwareness #MediaLiteracy #ConsumerRights #SocialJusticeAustralia

Authoritative Sources

Sources checked 14 October 2026. Where a page displays no clear publication or update date, the access date is given. Source numbers correspond to the article’s references.

1. Continued action critical to combat fraud as annual scam losses exceed $2 billion. 30 March 2026.
2. Thousands of scam websites taken down as online scams continue to cost Australians. 5 June 2026.
3. Queensland Government. Criminal Code Act 1899, section 408C. Current version accessed 14 October 2026.
4. Phishing scams. Accessed 14 October 2026.
5. Australian Government, Federal Register of Legislation. Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Schedule 2, sections 18 and 29. Compilation dated 16 September 2026.
6. False or misleading claims. Accessed 14 October 2026.
7. JustAnswer to pay $10m in penalties for misleading pricing representations and misleading affiliation claims. 8 July 2026.
8. YouTube Help. Misinformation policies. Accessed 14 October 2026.
9. YouTube Help. Spam Policy. Accessed 14 October 2026.
10. YouTube Help. Disclosing use of GenAI content. Accessed 14 October 2026.
11. Australian Communications and Media Authority. Online disinformation and misinformation. Updated 24 September 2025.
12. What to do if you’ve been scammed. Accessed 14 October 2026.
13. Report a scam. Accessed 14 October 2026.
14. Scams Prevention Framework. Accessed 14 October 2026.