The Commerce Commission is turning up the heat on anti-competitive conduct. Recent targets include courier companies, Christchurch real estate agents, Blenheim bricklayers - and even HelloFresh's subscription tactics. 

With criminal charges, hefty fines, and ongoing cases across multiple sectors, the message is clear: no business is too small, and no industry is exempt. 

This article covers the Commission's latest cartel enforcement action across a number of sectors, and HelloFresh's $845,000 fine for misleading consumers.

Cartel crackdown

What is a cartel? - a refresher

Cartel conduct is where two or more competing businesses agree not to compete with one another by price fixing, allocating markets or customers, or restricting the output or acquisition of goods and services, and is prohibited under section 30 of the Commerce Act. In addition to potential large fines, individuals who have engaged in cartel conduct can also be found criminally liable, with prison sentences of up to seven years on the table.  

Courier and delivery services: Aramex and GoSweetSpot 

Last week, the Commission announced that Aramex New Zealand (Aramex) and SweetSpot Group (GoSweetSpot) admitted entering into and giving effect to anti-competitive agreements that involved allocating customers - and, in Aramex’s case, also involved fixing prices - between competitors. Both companies are involved in courier services at different stages of the supply chain. Aramex is a ‘carrier’, responsible for the physical delivery of the goods while GoSweetSpot is a ‘reseller’, responsible for contracting carriers to provide courier services to customers. 

The parties both admitted the conduct, meaning they will not stand trial in a substantive hearing, instead going straight to a penalty hearing to decide the fines imposed against them (which the parties are likely to have agreed with the Commission beforehand). 

Interestingly, the Commission has not alleged that Aramex and GoSweetSpot entered into a cartel agreement with each other. Instead the Commission alleges that they separately entered into arrangements with “another competitor”. 

As the other competitor remains unnamed, it is likely that this party notified the Commission under its Cartel Leniency and Immunity Policy. This policy allows for participants engaged in cartel conduct to report the conduct to the Commission and cooperate with any subsequent investigation/proceedings, in return for the Commission’s agreement not to bring civil proceedings against them, and to recommend immunity from any criminal prosecution. 

An applicant for leniency/immunity must be the first cartel participant to come forward to the Commission. Parties that are not the first to notify the Commission, but admit their involvement and agree to cooperate, can still apply to co-operate with the Commission in return for a reduced penalty. 

Real estate: Harcourts

In September, the Commission filed proceedings against four Harcourts franchisees in Christchurch regarding alleged cartel conduct. The Commission alleges that the franchisees engaged in price fixing relating to their respective commission rates charged to customers. This is not the first time the Commission has pursued Harcourts, with the High Court imposing a $2.575 million penalty against Harcourts and a number of other independent real estate agencies for similar conduct in 2016 - although that earlier case did not involve Harcourts and its franchisees. 

As each agency is an independently owned franchise of Harcourts, they do technically compete with each other for real estate sales in Christchurch, meaning that any price fixing arrangement between them would amount to cartel conduct. While it remains to be seen what outcome the Commission’s proceedings have, this case serves as a useful reminder for franchisees to ensure they are aware of their obligations under section 30, and to take precautions not to engage in cartel conduct. Failure to do so could expose franchisees to criminal sanctions and pecuniary penalties. 

The Blenheim bricklayers

In October, the Commission issued a warning to bricklayers in Blenheim following an investigation that revealed suspected cartel conduct. The bricklayers are alleged to have been contacting each other to discuss specific quotes for projects and subsequently agreeing to allocate customers to each other through agreed pricing for those quotes. Such arrangements between competitors are very likely to constitute cartel conduct. This is a reminder that where discussions take place between competitors, particularly when specific pricing is disclosed, it could amount to cartel conduct. The warning also shows that the Commission is not just enforcing these provisions against large companies operating in the main urban centres.

Construction: New Zealand’s first criminal cartel case

New Zealand’s first criminal proceeding for cartel conduct continues to roll on (read our previous publication here). As a brief reminder, the High Court fined construction company MaxBuild Limited $500,000, and sentenced its director to six months’ community detention and 200 hours of community service, for engaging in bid rigging with a competing tenderer for public works construction projects.

In September 2025, the other company involved in the arrangement (which had previously maintained its innocence) pleaded guilty in the High Court. In exchange, the Commission withdrew criminal charges against the company’s director and maintained name suppression for both the director and the company. As the criminal charges have been withdrawn against the director, there will have been no prison sentences imposed in New Zealand’s first criminal cartel case - potentially a surprise to many who expected the Commission to push for these in its first criminal cartel case. We await the penalty hearing against the company to see what fine will be imposed. 

HelloFresh fined for misleading consumers

After the Commerce Commission filed legal proceedings against HelloFresh in March (read our previous article here), the popular meal kit company pleaded guilty to misleading customers in breach of the Fair Trading Act and has been fined a substantial sum of $845,000. 

The Commission alleged that HelloFresh’s cold-calling strategy sought to reactivate customer subscriptions (often without customers’ knowledge or consent) by offering vouchers in exchange for feedback. The Commission noted that this strategy was not a one off but rather was “embedded in HelloFresh’s business practices” with HelloFresh making more than 1.2 million cold calls over an 18-month period.

This case highlights growing concerns around subscription-based services and the need for other subscription providers to ensure that their terms and conditions are transparent. 

Get in touch

Please get in touch with one of our experts to discuss any aspect of this article, including the Commerce Commission’s Immunity and Leniency policy and its implications for your business.

Special thanks to Libby Muir, Tawhiwhi Watson and Henry King for their assistance in preparing this article.