$2 is not a subscription disclosure.

On 8 July 2026, the Federal Court ordered JustAnswer LLC to pay $10 million in penalties after proceedings brought by the ACCC. The court also ordered refunds for Australian consumers who, between November 2022 and August 2025, were misled into thinking they could use the online question-and-answer service for AU$2 but were signed up to a more expensive ongoing monthly subscription.

The ACCC says the service’s chat widget told consumers that they could join for only AU$2, described as fully refundable. In fact, consumers were enrolled in a subscription costing between $45 and $75 per month and were charged whether they used the service or not. JustAnswer admitted the conduct breached Australian Consumer Law.

The price is the whole commitment

A sign-up screen cannot make the ongoing bill an implementation detail. When the advertised price is a tiny one-off amount but the product silently creates a recurring charge, the interface is not merely incomplete. It has changed what the customer believes they are buying.

The case also shows why a receipt is useful evidence. Keep the original offer, cancellation confirmation and bank entries together. If a service says a charge is a trial, demonstration or refundable fee, those records establish what the screen communicated at the moment of consent.

A remedy has to find the customer

The court ordered JustAnswer to contact eligible consumers who had complained and not already received a full refund. The ACCC says consumers who did not know they would pay monthly fees and have not previously complained can also contact JustAnswer to apply for a refund.

That is the practical standard for subscription enforcement: the fix should not depend on every affected person rediscovering the same confusing service and knowing which regulator to ask. A provider that benefited from a misleading flow should help reverse it.