In this update, we look at six recent Commerce Commission cases/investigations that illustrate the Commerce Commission’s current enforcement posture across consumer protection and resale price maintenance.

The cases are useful reminders for businesses that customer-facing representations, online review practices, pricing controls, and treatment of vulnerable customers remain firmly on the Commission’s radar.

Fair Trading Act cases

The TV Shop: guilty verdict and $1.104 million penalty

On 6 August 2026, the District Court fined Brand Developers Ltd (trading as The TV Shop) $1,104,000 for:

• directing staff to post more than 473 positive reviews of its products online without disclosing their employment;

• suppressing or withholding thousands of low-rated customer reviews;

• telling customers that its own warranties, money-back guarantees or internal policies governed their rights, and that remedies under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 were unavailable to them; and

• marketing its Air Roaster Pro as coming with a “free” or “bonus” accessory pack and as a limited time “special offer”, when the accessory pack was always included and was not sold separately. More than 5,000 units were sold during the relevant period.

The Court found that the review-related conduct was deliberate, systematic and driven by senior management, and that the company's approach to customer rights amounted to "the highest level of carelessness". The penalty included discounts for cooperation and remorse, but remains one of the more significant recent Fair Trading Act penalties.

This case is separate from proceedings the Commission filed in the District Court in December 2025 against Brand Developers alleging unconscionable conduct in the sale of high-value products to vulnerable customers, which remains undetermined.

Why this matters: Businesses should ensure online reviews are genuine, balanced and not filtered in a way that misleads consumers. Check that customer-facing scripts and policies do not misstate statutory rights under the Consumer Guarantees Act, and that "free" or "bonus" claims reflect something genuinely additional to what a customer would otherwise receive.

NZ Muscle: investigations continue

The Commission is investigating 41 complaints against NZ Muscle for alleged FTA breaches, including:

• selling expired or near-expiry supplements;

• displaying only positive reviews on its website;

• misleading "high protein" claims based on larger serving sizes rather than higher protein concentration;

• claims that all products were batch tested when only a small number were tested;

• relabelling third-party products as NZ Muscle products; and

• false country-of-origin and grass-fed claims.

No findings have yet been made against NZ Muscle, and the allegations remain untested. Shortly after the investigation was opened in June 2026, NZ Muscle announced that it had removed several products from sale following an internal review that identified labelling and packaging issues.

The investigation has prompted wider scrutiny of the supplements sector: the Commission has since received complaints about five other supplement companies. It has decided to take no further action on one of those, with the remaining four still awaiting assessment.

Why this matters: Supplement suppliers and retailers should expect heightened sector scrutiny and should proactively check labelling, testing and origin claims against actual practice.

Auckland International Airport: compliance advice over car parking fees

In August 2026, the Commission issued Auckland International Airport Limited with compliance advice after the airport charged some customers incorrect car parking fees between June and November 2025. The Commission considered the conduct may have raised Fair Trading Act issues. The matter is now closed, with the compliance advice letter the only outcome.

Why this matters: This illustrates the Commission's graduated approach - isolated, promptly identified and corrected pricing errors are more likely to attract compliance advice than formal enforcement, provided they are not part of a broader pattern.

Tech Vault (HouseSmile): $60,000 unconscionable conduct penalty

On 10 February 2026, Tech Vault Enterprises Ltd (trading as HouseSmile) was fined $60,000 for unconscionable conduct under the FTA, arising from repeated unsolicited sales calls to an elderly woman with dementia. The company knew she was vulnerable and unable to use the products sold to her, and was separately ordered to pay $7,500 for emotional harm. This is the first conviction for unconscionable conduct in New Zealand since the prohibition took effect in August 2022.

The Court started at a $200,000 penalty and applied discounts of 25% for the guilty plea, 10% for cooperation and previous good character, 5% for reparation already paid, and 50% because the company was in liquidation with limited ability to pay.

Although Tech Vault sought to attribute much of the wrongdoing to two sales agents, the Court found there were also serious failures in the company's systems and compliance processes: warnings were overlooked, the victim remained on calling lists, problematic sales were not consistently blocked, and inadequate controls allowed the conduct to continue over an extended period.

Why this matters: Businesses with outbound or vulnerable-customer sales channels should ensure do-not-call and vulnerability protocols are actively enforced, not just documented, since gaps in systems and oversight will not be excused by blaming front-line staff.

Resale price maintenance cases

Foodstuffs South Island: resale price maintenance proceedings to be filed

On 6 August 2026, the Commission announced it will file proceedings against Foodstuffs South Island (FSSI) alleging resale price maintenance in breach of the Commerce Act. The Commission alleges FSSI's centrally set "Super Deal" and "Every Day Low Price" guidelines prevented South Island PAK'nSAVE franchisees from discounting without prior approval, restricting stores' ability to compete on price, discounts and promotions.

Why this matters: Franchise systems, buying groups and suppliers should review any pricing guidance, promotional rules and approval processes to ensure they do not operate as a minimum resale price. The distinction between recommending prices and requiring retailers not to go below them remains critical. This applies where there are independent franchises or suppliers - not where all entities are part of the same corporate group with a common shareholding above 51%.

HP New Zealand: draft determination proposes 10-year RPM reauthorisation

The Commission has authorised HP New Zealand to continue setting the prices at which a third-party distributor can sell HP products directly to consumers through HP-branded online stores. The Commission previously authorised the same conduct in 2021. The statutory deadline for the Commission’s final decision is 21 October 2026.

The Commission granted authorisation for 10 years on the basis that the resale price maintenance is narrowly scoped (affecting only sales through HP, which are currently a small proportion of HP's total sales), that HP would likely not operate the HP Stores in New Zealand without it, and that the arrangement is likely to produce a small net public benefit through continued price and non-price competition, with no material detriment given the strength of ongoing intra- and inter-brand competition.

Why this matters: The HP draft determination is a useful counterpoint to the FSSI proceedings. It illustrates that RPM can be authorised by the Commission on application where it is narrowly targeted, affects only a small proportion of sales, is necessary to enable an otherwise unavailable sales channel, and is likely to produce a net public benefit. The decision is also notable for its discussion of emerging concerns around vertical integration, customer data and ecosystem effects, although the Commission concluded those risks were insufficient to outweigh the benefits in this case. Businesses considering similar vertical pricing arrangements should consider whether authorisation is a viable and preferable route before proceeding unilaterally.

Get in touch

If you would like to discuss what these updates mean for your business, please get in touch with one of our consumer, regulatory and competition team members.

Special thanks to Jenna Bernstein for her assistance in preparing this article.