Federal Court Orders Mobil Oil Australia to Pay A$16 Million for Misleading Fuel Claims
Mobil Oil Australia fined for false advertising about ‘Mobil Synergy Fuel’ at Queensland petrol stations in breach of Australian consumer law
Mobil Oil Australia has been ordered by the Federal Court of Australia to pay A$16 million in penalties after admitting it made false or misleading representations about the fuel sold at a number of its petrol stations in Queensland.
The ruling follows legal action initiated by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which found that between August 2020 and July 2024 the company’s branding and signage at nine Mobil-branded sites in north and central Queensland conveyed that the fuel on offer was ‘Mobil Synergy Fuel’ containing specific performance-enhancing additives when, in fact, no such fuel was supplied at those locations.
The court found that the representations breached Australian Consumer Law by suggesting consumers would receive a unique product with benefits such as improved engine protection, reduced emissions and enhanced performance, when the fuel sold was substantially the same as unadditised petrol available at other retail sites.
The affected locations included service stations in Aitkenvale, Barcaldine, Berserker, Biloela, Guthalungra, Proserpine, Rasmussen, Rural View and Yeppoon.
The misleading conduct was carried out through various signage, branding and promotional statements displayed at the stations, which the regulator said could lead motorists to choose Mobil sites under the mistaken belief they were purchasing a premium fuel.
In its submissions to the court, Mobil cooperated with the ACCC and admitted liability for the conduct.
As part of the court’s orders, the company must also publish corrective notices at the relevant sites, implement a consumer law compliance program and contribute to the ACCC’s legal costs.
A spokesperson for Mobil expressed regret for the conduct and apologised to customers, noting that the affected sites represent a small portion of its overall network and saying that all fuel sold complied with Australian fuel quality specifications.
ACCC Deputy Chair Mick Keogh stated the penalty sends a clear message about the importance of accurate advertising of essential goods and that consumers must be able to rely on retailer claims when making purchasing decisions.
The ruling follows legal action initiated by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which found that between August 2020 and July 2024 the company’s branding and signage at nine Mobil-branded sites in north and central Queensland conveyed that the fuel on offer was ‘Mobil Synergy Fuel’ containing specific performance-enhancing additives when, in fact, no such fuel was supplied at those locations.
The court found that the representations breached Australian Consumer Law by suggesting consumers would receive a unique product with benefits such as improved engine protection, reduced emissions and enhanced performance, when the fuel sold was substantially the same as unadditised petrol available at other retail sites.
The affected locations included service stations in Aitkenvale, Barcaldine, Berserker, Biloela, Guthalungra, Proserpine, Rasmussen, Rural View and Yeppoon.
The misleading conduct was carried out through various signage, branding and promotional statements displayed at the stations, which the regulator said could lead motorists to choose Mobil sites under the mistaken belief they were purchasing a premium fuel.
In its submissions to the court, Mobil cooperated with the ACCC and admitted liability for the conduct.
As part of the court’s orders, the company must also publish corrective notices at the relevant sites, implement a consumer law compliance program and contribute to the ACCC’s legal costs.
A spokesperson for Mobil expressed regret for the conduct and apologised to customers, noting that the affected sites represent a small portion of its overall network and saying that all fuel sold complied with Australian fuel quality specifications.
ACCC Deputy Chair Mick Keogh stated the penalty sends a clear message about the importance of accurate advertising of essential goods and that consumers must be able to rely on retailer claims when making purchasing decisions.
AI Disclaimer: An advanced artificial intelligence (AI) system generated the content of this page on its own. This innovative technology conducts extensive research from a variety of reliable sources, performs rigorous fact-checking and verification, cleans up and balances biased or manipulated content, and presents a minimal factual summary that is just enough yet essential for you to function as an informed and educated citizen. Please keep in mind, however, that this system is an evolving technology, and as a result, the article may contain accidental inaccuracies or errors. We urge you to help us improve our site by reporting any inaccuracies you find using the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of this page. Your helpful feedback helps us improve our system and deliver more precise content. When you find an article of interest here, please look for the full and extensive coverage of this topic in traditional news sources, as they are written by professional journalists that we try to support, not replace. We appreciate your understanding and assistance.
