Real Estate Institute of Australia Limited and Real Estate Institute of Western Australia Incorporated and Professionals Global Limited v REA Group Pty Ltd

The Federal Court of Australia heard a dispute between the Real Estate Institute of Australia Limited, the Real Estate Institute of Western Australia Incorporated, and Professionals Global Limited (collectively, the Institutes) as applicants, and REA Group Pty Ltd (REA Group) as the respondent. The Institutes alleged that REA Group had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of the *Australian Consumer Law* (ACL) by representing that it held exclusive rights to list properties on its real estate portals, such as realestate.com.au, when in fact it did not. The Institutes contended that this conduct misled consumers and real estate agents into believing that REA Group was the sole or primary platform for property listings, thereby impacting competition and the ability of other listing services to operate.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether REA Group's conduct in representing its market position and the exclusivity of its platform constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under section 18 of the Schedule 2 to the *Competition and Consumer Act 2010* (Cth) (the ACL). Specifically, the Court had to determine if the representations made by REA Group, through its marketing and communications, conveyed a false impression of exclusivity or dominance that was likely to deceive or mislead a significant portion of the relevant audience, comprising consumers and real estate professionals.

Justice Wilson found that REA Group's representations, particularly those suggesting it was the "number one" or "leading" property website and that agents needed to list with them to reach the widest audience, were not misleading or deceptive. The Court reasoned that these statements, when viewed in context and considering the overall understanding of the market by consumers and agents, were either puffery or accurate reflections of REA Group's substantial market share and reach. The Court applied the principles established in cases concerning misleading or deceptive conduct, focusing on whether the conduct, when viewed by the ordinary reasonable member of the relevant class, was likely to lead to an error. The evidence did not establish that REA Group's statements created a false belief in the minds of consumers or agents that REA Group held exclusive listing rights or that other platforms were insignificant.

The Court therefore dismissed the Institutes' application, finding that REA Group had not contravened section 18 of the ACL.