Online Course Terms and Conditions Lawyers Adelaide: Course Terms, Disclaimers, Refunds and Content Rights
Online course terms and disclaimers in South Australia
Students who pay for an online course or coaching are usually consumers, so the Australian Consumer Law guarantees apply to what they buy, and “no refunds” wording or a promise of results can breach that law. Talon Legal drafts and reviews online course terms and conditions, disclaimers and refund policies for Adelaide course creators, coaches, trainers, online academies and membership communities. Book a same-day free 30-minute consultation or call (08) 7094 2021.
Online course terms and conditions key facts
| Issue | Position in South Australia |
|---|---|
| Who is a consumer | A student paying $100,000 or less, or buying services of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use (ACL section 3(3); regulation 77A). |
| Service guarantees | Due care and skill, fitness for a purpose the student makes known, and supply within a reasonable time (sections 60, 61(1) and 62). |
| No contracting out | A term is void to the extent it excludes, restricts or modifies the guarantees (section 64(1)). |
| "No refunds" wording | Misrepresenting a guarantee, right or remedy is prohibited (section 29(1)(m)). Booktopia was penalised $6,000,000. |
| Results claims | A representation about a future matter made without reasonable grounds is taken to be misleading (section 4(1)). |
| Maximum penalty | Section 29 or an unfair term: for a body corporate, the greater of $100,000,000 and three times the benefit or, if that cannot be determined, 30% of adjusted turnover. Others: $2,500,000 (section 224). |
| Course content | Owned by its author, or the employer if an employee made it. Assignments need writing signed by the assignor (Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) sections 35(2), 35(6) and 196(3)). |
| Recording sessions | Recording a private conversation with a listening device, even as a party, is an offence without all principal parties' consent or another exception. Maximum $75,000 for a body corporate (Surveillance Devices Act 2016 (SA) section 4). |
| Memberships from 1 July 2027 | Rolling memberships and free trials can be subscription contracts. Contracts for payment in instalments are excluded (new ACL sections 48B and 48C(1)(d)). |
| First step | Same-day free 30-minute consultation. Call (08) 7094 2021. |
Need an online course lawyer in Adelaide?
Our online course lawyers in Adelaide act for course creators, coaches, trainers, online academies and membership communities. We draft online course terms and conditions, disclaimers, refund policies, community rules and content agreements. The Australian Consumer Law (ACL), in Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), sets students’ guarantees and limits marketing claims, and the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) decides who owns the materials. This page states the law current to 7 November 2026.
This guide is part of our online business and e-commerce practice. Related guides cover subscription and membership terms, online sales terms and consumer law and personal services agreements for one-to-one coaching.
Free Consultation. Send us your course terms, sales page and refund policy before the next launch. Book a same-day free 30-minute consultation or call (08) 7094 2021.
On this page
- What should online course terms and conditions cover?
- Which consumer guarantees apply to an online course?
- Can a course say "no refunds"?
- What can course marketing claim about results?
- What can a course disclaimer do?
- Who owns the course content, and what do students get?
- Can live sessions be recorded?
- Can student details be used for marketing?
- Is a payment plan or membership a subscription?
- Do the unfair contract terms rules apply?
- How similar matters tend to play out
- How we act on online course terms
- Case law
- Frequently asked questions
What should online course terms and conditions cover?
What the student is buying, and on what conditions. Online course terms and conditions should name the seller, describe the product (modules, live sessions, coaching calls, a community, downloads), and state the price, any payment plan and how long access lasts. They also need a course refund policy, a licence to use the materials, community rules, recording and privacy consents, and when content may change or access may end. Digital product terms for templates sold alone need the same care.
The ACL looks at the sales page, webinar and sales call as well as the written terms. Show the terms, and record acceptance, before payment; the website terms of use guide covers online acceptance. Overseas templates that promise no refunds and disclaim every warranty can be void or misleading here.
Accredited and nationally recognised training is regulated separately and is outside this page.
Which consumer guarantees apply to an online course?
The services guarantees, where the student is a consumer. Most courses supply services: teaching, coaching, feedback and platform access. Supplying services includes providing, granting or conferring them (ACL section 2(1)), and services supplied to a consumer must be:
- rendered with due care and skill (section 60);
- reasonably fit, with any resulting product, for any purpose the consumer makes known (section 61(1)); and
- supplied within a reasonable time, where the contract does not fix one (section 62).
A person acquires services as a consumer if the price is $100,000 or less, or the services are of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use (section 3(3) and regulation 77A). On price alone, a company buying a $3,000 business coaching package is usually a consumer.
Can a course say “no refunds”?
Not if the wording suggests students have no remedy when the course fails a guarantee. A term is void to the extent it purports to exclude, restrict or modify the guarantees (ACL section 64(1)). A false or misleading representation about the existence, exclusion or effect of a guarantee, right or remedy is prohibited (section 29(1)(m)). For a body corporate, the maximum penalty is the greater of $100,000,000 and three times the benefit or, if that cannot be determined, 30% of adjusted turnover during the breach turnover period. For anyone else it is $2,500,000 (section 224).
In ACCC v Booktopia Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 194, an online bookseller’s returns policy required customers to report faulty items within 2 business days of delivery, while saying it included ACL rights ([15]). Booktopia accepted that the term represented customers had to notify within that time to have a remedy ([18]), and Burley J ordered a $6,000,000 penalty.
Change of mind is different. A seller can choose whether to give those refunds, if the policy cannot be read as applying when the course itself fell short.
A course sold through an uninvited phone call, for more than $100 or an unascertained price, can be an unsolicited consumer agreement (section 69(1)). The consumer can then terminate it, even after affirming it, within a period that for a telephone agreement ends at the end of the 10th business day after they were given the agreement document, or later if some selling rules were breached (section 82). “All sales final” wording would misstate that right.
What can course marketing claim about results?
Only what the business can support. Misleading or deceptive conduct is prohibited (ACL section 18(1)), and so are false or misleading representations that services have particular performance characteristics, uses or benefits (section 29(1)(g)). A representation about a future matter, such as what a student will earn, is taken to be misleading if made without reasonable grounds (section 4(1)), so income claims need evidence gathered first.
In ACCC v Employsure Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 142, the Full Court said many readers absorb an ad’s general thrust, and the first impression will often decide what it represents ([98]). A business owner may read an ad fleetingly, more so where the service is free, and a call to action encourages an immediate response ([153]). That describes a free webinar selling a paid course, where small print may not undo a headline promise.
Testimonials must be genuine. A false or misleading representation that purports to be a testimonial, or concerning one, is prohibited (section 29(1)(e) and (f)). In a proceeding it is taken to be misleading unless evidence is adduced to the contrary (section 29(2)), though that evidence does not by itself make it not misleading (section 29(3)). Keep each student’s words, consent and any reward given; the testimonial and image consents guide covers consent forms.
A countdown that resets, or invented scarcity, already risks contravening section 18. From 1 July 2027, a ban on unfair trading practices will also catch conduct that manipulates consumers, or unreasonably distorts the environment in which they decide, and causes or is likely to cause detriment (new section 28B(2)). Its examples of conduct that may be unfair include interface design that puts consumers under unreasonable pressure (section 28B(6)(d)).
A student who suffers loss from misleading conduct can claim damages, within 6 years after the cause of action accrued (section 236(1) and (2)).
What can a course disclaimer do?
Describe the course and limit some liability, within the ACL’s limits. A course disclaimer can say the course is general education rather than personal advice, and that results depend on the student’s own effort. It cannot remove the guarantees for a consumer (section 64(1)).
For services not ordinarily acquired for personal use, such as many business skills courses, liability may be limited to supplying the services again or paying the cost of having them supplied again (section 64A(2)). That limit does not apply if the student establishes that relying on it would not be fair or reasonable (section 64A(3)).
In Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd [1986] HCA 82, the High Court held that exclusion and limitation clauses take their natural and ordinary meaning, read in the light of the whole contract and its context, and may be read against the party relying on them if ambiguous ([16]). A clear cap beside an ACL carve-out works better than sweeping words, and a disclaimer at the foot of a sales page may not correct a bold promise at the top (Employsure at [98]).
Who owns the course content, and what do students get?
The author, unless an employee made it or the copyright has been assigned in writing. Workbooks, scripts and quizzes are literary works, and the author owns the copyright (Copyright Act section 35(2)), including the exclusive rights to reproduce, publish, communicate to the public and adapt them (section 31(1)(a)). A work made by an employee under a contract of service belongs to the employer (section 35(6)).
A contractor or guest presenter owns what they create unless the agreement assigns it. An assignment has no effect unless it is in writing signed by or on behalf of the assignor (section 196(3)). An agreement signed in advance can assign future copyright, which then vests in the business when the work is made (section 197(1)).
AI output is a weak asset. In Telstra Corporation Ltd v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd [2010] FCAFC 149, Perram J said a person operating software who does not control the material form it produces is not its author ([118]). In Acohs Pty Ltd v Ucorp Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 16, source code generated by a system did not emanate from authors and was not an original work ([57] to [58]). Neither case concerned AI tools, but a course built mostly from AI output may carry little copyright to enforce.
Students get only the licence the terms give them. Doing, or authorising, an act comprised in the copyright without the owner’s licence infringes it (section 36(1)), and the remedies include an injunction and either damages or an account of profits (section 115(2)). The terms should give a personal licence for the access period, prohibit login sharing, recording, downloading streamed content and resale, and say whose lifetime “lifetime access” means. Membership community terms should also take a licence to host and moderate members’ posts, since any copyright in a post belongs to the member (section 35(2)).
Can live sessions be recorded?
Yes, with consent. A person must not knowingly install, use or maintain a listening device to record a private conversation, even one they are a party to (Surveillance Devices Act 2016 (SA) section 4(1)). The maximum penalty is $75,000 for a body corporate, and $15,000 or imprisonment for 3 years for a natural person.
A conversation is not private where all parties ought reasonably to expect it may be heard by someone else (section 3). A one-to-one coaching call will usually be private. A large webinar announced as recorded usually will not be.
A party may record with the express or implied consent of all principal parties, the people by or to whom words are spoken (sections 3 and 4(2)(a)). Put consent in the terms, give notice at booking and announce recording when it starts. Clips of students used in marketing need separate written consent.
Can student details be used for marketing?
With consent for messages, and within the Privacy Act if it applies. A small business has annual turnover of $3,000,000 or less for the previous financial year (Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) section 6D(1)), and a small business operator is generally not an “organisation” bound by the Australian Privacy Principles (section 6C). But a business that discloses personal information for a benefit, or provides a benefit to collect it from anyone else, is not a small business operator (section 6D(4)(c) and (d)). Selling a student list, or rewarding referrals of friends’ details, can bring a small course business within the Act.
A covered business needs a clearly expressed and up-to-date privacy policy (APP 1.3 and 1.4), and breach attracts a civil penalty of up to 200 penalty units (section 13K). It must not use personal information for direct marketing except as APP 7 allows (APP 7.1).
Marketing emails and texts need consent whatever the business’s size, express or reasonably inferred from conduct and relationships (Spam Act 2003 (Cth) section 16(1) and (2); Schedule 2 clause 2), and must identify the sender and include an unsubscribe facility (sections 17 and 18). An unticked consent box is the clearest evidence; see the data protection and privacy guide.
Is a payment plan or membership a subscription?
From 1 July 2027 the difference matters. A contract can then be a subscription contract if it provides for supply for an indefinite period, or a fixed period that rolls on, with payment incurred automatically and a right to end it, or starts with a free or discounted period (new ACL section 48B, inserted by the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Act 2026 (Cth)). A monthly community or an annual membership that renews is the typical example.
From 1 July 2027, a contract for payment in instalments is excluded (section 48C(1)(d)), so a fixed course paid for in four instalments is likely to sit outside the rules.
From 1 July 2027, subscription contracts will need disclosure when offered (section 48D), and subscribers who meet the consumer or small business requirement must be given an easy way to end them, online where they signed up online (sections 48F and 48G). The exit rules reach existing contracts from any renewal, extension, continuation or variation on or after 1 July 2027 (section 312). Until then, the unfair terms rules below apply; the subscription and membership terms guide covers the detail.
Do the unfair contract terms rules apply?
Yes, for most students. A term of a standard form consumer or small business contract is void if it is unfair (ACL section 23(1)). A consumer contract is with an individual acquiring wholly or predominantly for personal, domestic or household use (section 23(3)); a small business contract includes one where a party employs fewer than 100 people or had turnover under $10,000,000 in its last income year (section 23(4)). A contract alleged to be standard form is presumed to be one (section 27(1)).
A term is unfair if it causes a significant imbalance, is not reasonably necessary to protect the business’s legitimate interests, and would cause detriment if relied on (section 24(1)). The business must prove a term is reasonably necessary (section 24(4)). Course terms often contain the kinds of term section 25 gives as examples: a right for the business alone to vary the terms or the course, or to end access; a right to decide on its own whether a member breached the rules; and limits on the student’s right to sue (section 25(b), (d), (g), (h) and (k)). Since 9 November 2023, proposing or relying on an unfair term is a contravention (section 23(2A) and (2C)).
In ACCC v JJ Richards & Sons Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 1224, the Federal Court declared eight terms of a supplier’s small business contracts unfair and void. It accepted that automatic renewal unless the customer cancelled within 30 days before the end, with no notice of expiry, caused a significant imbalance ([56](a)). An annual membership that renews without warning raises the same issue.
How similar matters tend to play out
Illustrations of how the law on this page combines on ordinary facts, not predictions. Outcome depends on the documents, the evidence and the court.
Lower range. An Adelaide bookkeeper sells a $297 recorded course on terms saying “all sales final, no refunds”, and two modules never load. The student is a consumer (section 3(3)) and the services had to be rendered with due care and skill (section 60). The term is void so far as it excludes that guarantee (section 64(1)), and invites the representation Booktopia accepted it had made ([18]). A refund clause that preserves ACL rights fixes it.
Middle range. A business coach’s free masterclass leads into a $6,000 group package. The sales page promises “$10,000 a month within 90 days” beside three hand-picked screenshots; most students earn nothing like it. Without reasonable grounds the promise is taken to be misleading (section 4(1)), and a “results not typical” footnote is unlikely to correct the first impression (Employsure at [98], [153]). Students who lost money may claim damages (section 236).
Upper range. An online academy’s annual membership renews automatically, lets the business change content at will, and ends access if the business decides a member broke the rules. It records small-group coaching calls without telling members. The terms risk being unfair and void (sections 23(1) and 25(d), (g) and (h); JJ Richards at [56](a)), and the recordings risk an offence (Surveillance Devices Act section 4(1)). From 1 July 2027 the membership will also need subscription disclosures and an easy exit (new sections 48D and 48F).
How we act on online course terms
Our online course lawyers act for course creators, coaches, online academies and membership communities. The aim is terms that state students’ rights correctly, and clear ownership of the content the business sells.
| Stage | What happens | What we do |
|---|---|---|
| Review | The terms, sales page, refund policy and checkout are sent. | Check them against the guarantees, section 29(1)(m), the testimonial rules and the unfair terms provisions. |
| Drafting | Course terms and policies are prepared. | Draft online course terms and conditions, a disclaimer, refund wording, community rules and a privacy policy. |
| Content | Contractors, guest presenters and videographers are engaged. | Draft assignments and licences so the business owns or controls what it sells. |
| Launch | Ads, webinars and testimonials go live. | Check results claims, consents and marketing permissions. |
| Complaint | A student asks for a refund or the regulator writes. | Advise on the guarantee, the representation and the response. |
We cannot promise an outcome, and no lawyer can. We can make sure the terms are checked before the next launch.
Every hour matters. Book a same-day free 30-minute consultation, or call (08) 7094 2021 now.
Online course case law
None of the decisions below concerned an online course; each decided a point that applies to one.
| Case | Court | Principle | Pinpoint |
|---|---|---|---|
| ACCC v Booktopia Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 194 | Federal Court | Returns terms misstating consumers' rights; $6,000,000 penalty | [15], [18] |
| ACCC v Employsure Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 142 | Full Federal Court | Ads are judged by their first impression | [98], [153] |
| Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd [1986] HCA 82 | High Court | How exclusion and limitation clauses are read | [16] |
| ACCC v JJ Richards & Sons Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 1224 | Federal Court | Automatic renewal without notice of expiry was unfair | [56](a), [57] |
| Telstra Corporation Ltd v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd [2010] FCAFC 149 | Full Federal Court | No author where an automated process fashioned the work | Perram J [118]; Yates J [169] |
| Acohs Pty Ltd v Ucorp Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 16 | Full Federal Court | System-generated code was not an original work | [57] to [58] |
Case notes
ACCC v Booktopia Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 194
Booktopia accepted that its term requiring notice of faulty items within 2 business days represented consumers had no remedy without it ([15], [18]). Burley J declared contraventions of sections 18 and 29(1)(m) and ordered a $6,000,000 penalty.
ACCC v Employsure Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 142
Search ads using government agency names conveyed an affiliation Employsure did not have ([6]). The first impression will often decide what an ad represents ([98]), and an ad for a free service may be read fleetingly ([153]).
Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd [1986] HCA 82
Exclusion and limitation clauses take their natural and ordinary meaning, read with the whole contract, and may be read against the party relying on them where ambiguous ([16]).
ACCC v JJ Richards & Sons Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 1224
Moshinsky J declared eight terms of the supplier’s small business standard form contracts unfair and void, accepting that automatic renewal without notice of expiry caused a significant imbalance ([56](a)). The supplier did not show the terms were reasonably necessary ([57] to [58]).
Telstra Corporation Ltd v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd [2010] FCAFC 149
Copyright did not subsist in directories compiled largely by automated processes. Perram J said a person who does not control the material form software produces is not its author ([118]); Yates J said the works did not originate from authors ([169]).
Acohs Pty Ltd v Ucorp Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 16
Source code of safety data sheets generated by a software system did not emanate from authors and was not an original work ([50], [57] to [58]).
Frequently asked questions
Do online courses have to offer refunds?
Not for change of mind, but consumers keep their ACL rights if the course fails a guarantee. The services must be rendered with due care and skill (ACL section 60), and a term cannot exclude that (section 64(1)).
Is a "no refunds" policy legal for an online course?
Not if it suggests students have no remedy when the course fails a guarantee. That misrepresents their rights (ACL section 29(1)(m)), and Booktopia was penalised $6,000,000 over returns terms that did so.
Can a course guarantee income or results?
Only with reasonable grounds. A representation about a future matter made without them is taken to be misleading (ACL section 4(1)), and false claims about the benefits of services are prohibited (section 29(1)(g)).
Does a disclaimer protect a course creator from claims?
Partly. It can describe the course as general education, but it cannot exclude the consumer guarantees (ACL section 64(1)). For services not ordinarily acquired for personal use, liability can be limited to supplying the services again or its cost (section 64A(2)).
Who owns course content made by a contractor?
The contractor, unless the copyright is assigned in writing signed by or on behalf of the contractor (Copyright Act section 196(3)). Future copyright can be assigned in advance (section 197(1)).
Can AI-generated course materials be protected by copyright?
It depends on how far a person directed their form. Material produced by automated processes was held not to be original in Telstra v Phone Directories (Perram J at [118]) and Acohs v Ucorp ([57] to [58]), neither of which concerned AI tools.
Can a coach record coaching calls?
With consent. Recording a private conversation with a listening device, even as a party, is an offence in South Australia unless all principal parties consent or another exception applies (Surveillance Devices Act 2016 (SA) section 4).
Can a course business add students to its email list?
Only with consent, express or inferred (Spam Act section 16 and Schedule 2 clause 2). Each marketing email or text must include an unsubscribe facility (section 18).
Is a course payment plan a subscription under the 2027 rules?
Generally not, if it only spreads a fixed price. From 1 July 2027 a contract for payment in instalments is excluded (new ACL section 48C(1)(d)), but a rolling membership or a free trial that converts to paid can be a subscription contract (section 48B).
Do I need an online course lawyer?
Before a launch or a move to memberships, yes. An online course lawyer can align the online course terms and conditions, sales page, refund policy and content agreements with the ACL and the Copyright Act. A free 30-minute consultation will tell you where you stand.