Australia
Australian privacy penalties and OAIC decisions
Australia's first civil penalty under the Privacy Act was ordered in October 2025. Most OAIC outcomes are determinations that require a business to change how it handles data, and they are published with the business named.
The 2024 reforms added a statutory privacy tort from June 2025 and a duty to explain automated decisions from 10 December 2026.
Last checked . Amounts are in the original currency; conversions are approximate.
Fines, largest first
-
A$50m about £25m
Meta Platforms, Inc.
To settle civil penalty proceedings over the Cambridge Analytica matter, the Commissioner accepted an enforceable undertaking under which Meta funds an AUD 50 million payment scheme for eligible Australian Facebook users. The Commissioner had alleged that users' data was disclosed to the This is Your Digital Life app in breach of the Privacy Act, and withdrew the Federal Court case.
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)
Read the OAIC decision on Meta Platforms, Inc. -
A$5.8m about £2.84m
Australian Clinical Labs Limited (Medlab Pathology)
The Federal Court ordered Australian Clinical Labs to pay AUD 5.8 million, the first civil penalties under the Privacy Act, after a February 2022 cyberattack on its Medlab Pathology systems exposed data of over 223,000 people. The total comprised AUD 4.2 million for failing to protect the data and AUD 800,000 each for a slow breach assessment and late notification to the Commissioner.
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), APP 11.1, s 13G(a), s 26WH(2), s 26WK(2)
Read the OAIC decision on Australian Clinical Labs Limited (Medlab Pathology)
Orders, reprimands and findings
-
Order or finding
American Express Australia Limited
The Privacy Commissioner found that American Express Australia did not adequately guard against insider access risk, allowing a complainant's personal information to be accessed without authorisation. Amex must compensate the complainant for economic and non-economic loss and expenses, apologise in writing and add technical controls limiting staff access.
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), APP 11.1
Read the OAIC decision on American Express Australia Limited -
Order or finding
Optus
The Privacy Commissioner found that between 2015 and 2019 Optus failed to act on unlisted number requests from 41,278 customers who ported to it, leaving their details published in the White Pages despite knowing of the risk. She found Optus did not take reasonable steps to protect the information from unauthorised disclosure.
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), APP 11.1
Read the OAIC decision on Optus -
Order or finding
Monash IVF Pty Ltd
In a parallel determination, the Privacy Commissioner found that fertility clinic operator Monash IVF interfered with privacy by collecting sensitive information from website visitors via third-party tracking pixels without consent. The OAIC published a companion report on its inspection of 50 health service websites.
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)
Read the OAIC decision on Monash IVF Pty Ltd -
Order or finding
Medmate Australia Pty Ltd
The Privacy Commissioner found that telehealth provider Medmate interfered with visitors' privacy by collecting sensitive health information through third-party tracking pixels used for social media ad targeting, without consent. The determination sets the position that pixel tracking on health websites is a collection of sensitive information that needs consent.
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)
Read the OAIC decision on Medmate Australia Pty Ltd -
Order or finding
Vinomofo Pty Ltd
The Privacy Commissioner found that online wine retailer Vinomofo failed to take reasonable security steps before a 2022 breach during a cloud data migration exposed data of about 928,760 customers and members. She noted the company knew of its security governance gaps at least two years earlier and made declarations against repeating the conduct.
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), APP 11.1
Read the OAIC decision on Vinomofo Pty Ltd -
Order or finding
Kmart Australia Limited
The Privacy Commissioner found that Kmart collected biometric data of every shopper entering 28 stores, and everyone at returns counters, through facial recognition aimed at refund fraud between 2020 and 2022, without notice or consent. She found the collection disproportionate and rejected Kmart's reliance on the unlawful activity exemption, noting less intrusive options existed.
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)
Read the OAIC decision on Kmart Australia Limited -
Order or finding
Master Wealth Control Pty Ltd (DG Institute) and Property Lovers Pty Ltd
The Privacy Commissioner found that two companies linked to Dominique Grubisa scraped personal information from court lists and databases into weekly leads lists aimed at vulnerable people, without fair collection, notice or reasonable accuracy checks. A May 2026 follow-up investigation concluded that the later fastproperty.ai service did not handle personal information.
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)
Read the OAIC decision on Master Wealth Control Pty Ltd (DG Institute) and Property Lovers Pty Ltd -
Order or finding
Bunnings Group Limited
The Privacy Commissioner found that Bunnings used facial recognition on CCTV to capture the faces of everyone entering 63 stores in Victoria and New South Wales between 2018 and 2021, without consent, adequate notice or required privacy policy content, and ordered it not to repeat the conduct. On review in February 2026 the Administrative Review Tribunal upheld the notice and governance findings but accepted that Bunnings could rely on an exemption from the consent requirement.
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), APP 1, APP 3.3, APP 5
Read the OAIC decision on Bunnings Group Limited
Laws, deadlines and guidance
-
Law and guidance
New resources on transparency for use of AI and automated decision-making | OAIC
From 10 December 2026, organisations covered by the Privacy Act must say in their privacy policy when a computer program makes, or substantially helps make, decisions that could significantly affect people, and what personal information it uses. The OAIC released fact sheets, a flowchart and updated APP 1 guidelines on 30 September 2026.
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) as amended by Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024, APP 1.7, APP 1.8, APP 1.9
Read the OAIC decision on New resources on transparency for use of AI and automated decision-making | OAIC -
Law and guidance
OAIC releases Exposure Draft of the Children's Online Privacy Code | OAIC
The OAIC published an exposure draft of the Children's Online Privacy Code for 60 days of consultation, with the code due to become law in December 2026. Draft rules include putting children's best interests first, consent before using children's data for targeted ads, and a right for children to ask for deletion.
Children's Online Privacy Code (exposure draft), Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)
Read the OAIC decision on OAIC releases Exposure Draft of the Children's Online Privacy Code | OAIC -
Law and guidance
Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (No. 128, 2024), Federal Register of Legislation
A new statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy, added by Schedule 2 of the 2024 amendment Act, commenced on 10 June 2025. It lets individuals sue in court directly for serious intrusions into seclusion or misuse of their information.
Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Cth), Schedule 2, Schedule 2
Read the AU-GOV decision on Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (No. 128, 2024), Federal Register of Legislation -
Law and guidance
Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (No. 128, 2024), Federal Register of Legislation
The Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 received Royal Assent on 10 December 2024, and most of its privacy reforms, including new tiers of civil penalties, OAIC infringement notices and new investigation powers, commenced the next day. The Act also mandates a Children's Online Privacy Code and adds automated decision transparency duties that start later.
Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Cth), Schedule 1 Parts 1 to 14
Read the OAIC decision on Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (No. 128, 2024), Federal Register of Legislation -
Law and guidance
OAIC publishes guidance on tracking pixels and privacy obligations | OAIC
The OAIC issued guidance to private sector organisations on meeting Privacy Act obligations when they place third-party tracking pixels on their websites. The guidance later underpinned the 2026 Medmate and Monash IVF determinations on health website pixels.
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)
Read the OAIC decision on OAIC publishes guidance on tracking pixels and privacy obligations | OAIC
Would your website pass?
The free Trust Center scan checks the failures behind these decisions: trackers before consent, advertising pixels, security headers, where visitor data goes, privacy requests and AI tools.
How this list is built
- Every record links to the regulator's own decision, press release, the official journal or a court judgment. Trackers and news coverage are used only to find cases.
- The amount, date and organisation were read on that page. Where a regulator first proposed a different amount, the final one is shown.
- Status follows the regulator: final, reduced, or under appeal. Decisions overturned in court are removed from this list.
- Summaries are our own words and describe what the regulator found. They are not legal advice.
- Conversions use the European Central Bank reference rate on the decision date. The data is also available as JSON at /api/fines.