In a nation where small businesses contribute $590 billion annually to the economy and employ 5.1 million Australians, a concerning pattern of corporate bullying continues to threaten the very foundation of our economic prosperity. While we celebrate the entrepreneurial spirit that drives 98% of Australian businesses, we must confront an uncomfortable truth: many large corporations are systematically using complex, onerous contracts to exploit their smaller counterparts, creating barriers that stifle growth, innovation, and economic opportunity.
After three decades in Australian procurement, I’ve witnessed firsthand how the phrase “it takes a village to raise a child” could equally apply to business relationships. Yet instead of fostering an ecosystem where businesses of all sizes can thrive together, we’re witnessing a troubling trend where contractual complexity has become a form of institutional bullying that threatens our economic future. This isn’t just poor practice—it’s a systematic abuse of market power that demands immediate attention and action.
The Anatomy of Corporate Contract Bullying
Corporate bullying through contract manipulation represents one of the most insidious forms of market abuse in modern Australian business. Having reviewed thousands of procurement contracts over my career, I can attest that what many large corporations present as “standard business practice” often amounts to deliberate exploitation of power imbalances.
Recently, I was reviewing a contract for a client who is a small sole proprietor. This contract was to supply plant to a Tier 1 Contractor on a major infrastructure project, and frankly, it was appalling. It was a bulky and onerous contract, with numerous appendices that contained multiple complex documents in each appendix.
This got me thinking. Are small business owners deliberately being given complex documents to frazzle them and waste their time? And how many large contractors are doing this to small business owners?
The mechanics are sophisticated yet brutally simple. Large corporations leverage their market position to impose non-negotiable standard form contracts that systematically favour their interests while exposing smaller partners to disproportionate risks. These contracts often contain automatic renewal clauses, unilateral variation terms, and penalty structures that would be unconscionable between parties of equal bargaining power.
Small businesses, defined as enterprises with fewer than 200 employees, account for 42% of Australia’s private sector workforce and contribute one-third of our national GDP. Yet these vital economic contributors face an average payment delay of 35.8 days, with many enduring waits of 120 days or more for payment. This isn’t merely inefficiency—it’s weaponized cash flow management designed to extract maximum value from smaller suppliers.
The Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman’s Payment Times Reporting Inquiry revealed that of 2,783 businesses surveyed, approximately half had more than 40% of their invoices paid late. These delays don’t occur in isolation—they’re embedded within contract structures that give large corporations unilateral power to change terms, impose penalties, and shift risks onto smaller partners who lack the resources to negotiate fairly.
The Legal Revolution: Unfair Contract Terms Get Teeth
The Australian legal framework underwent a seismic shift on November 9, 2023, when enhanced unfair contract terms legislation fundamentally changed how businesses can structure their relationships with smaller counterparts. As someone who has spent decades watching small businesses struggle against contractual bullying, this represents the most significant shift in procurement law I’ve witnessed.
Under the updated Australian Consumer Law, small businesses are now defined as those employing fewer than 100 people or having an annual turnover of less than $10 million—a substantial expansion from the previous threshold of 20 employees. This change brings hundreds of thousands of additional businesses under legal protection from exploitative contract terms, covering virtually every small business in Australia’s construction, professional services, and retail sectors.
The penalties for non-compliance represent a quantum leap in enforcement capability. Corporations can now face maximum penalties of up to $50 million per unfair contract term, or 30% of their adjusted turnover during the breach period if the benefit cannot be determined. For individuals, the maximum penalty is $2.5 million per contravention. These aren’t theoretical amounts—they represent a fundamental recognition that contract bullying threatens Australia’s economic foundation.
The legislation addresses three key criteria for unfair terms. A contract term is unfair if it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations, is not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the party who would benefit from the term, and would cause detriment if applied or relied upon. This framework provides clear guidance while maintaining flexibility to address the creative ways corporations devise to exploit smaller partners.
Case Study Analysis: Fujifilm’s $1.9 Billion Wake-Up Call
The landmark ACCC v Fujifilm Business Innovation Australia Pty Ltd case provides the most compelling example of how corporate bullying operates systematically and what the new legal framework means for businesses engaging in such practices. As someone who has analyzed similar contracts across multiple industries, Fujifilm’s practices represent a textbook example of contract weaponization.
Fujifilm, a major supplier of printing equipment and services, had deployed 11 types of standard form contracts containing 38 unfair terms to thousands of small businesses since November 2016. The Federal Court declared these terms unfair and void, but the timing of the case proved particularly significant for understanding the scale of potential penalties under the new regime.
The unfair terms revealed a sophisticated system of exploitation. Automatic renewal clauses required customers to cancel contracts a specific number of days before expiry or face automatic renewal for the full original term, sometimes up to six years. These clauses were deliberately buried in complex documentation, ensuring most small businesses would inadvertently trigger renewals they neither wanted nor could afford.
Disproportionate termination terms allowed Fujifilm to terminate contracts in circumstances where customers had no corresponding rights. Exit fee structures created financial barriers that effectively trapped customers in unsatisfactory arrangements, while liability limitation terms protected Fujifilm while leaving customers exposed to significant risks.
Perhaps most egregiously, payment terms required customers to pay for software regardless of whether it was delivered, and unilateral variation clauses allowed Fujifilm to change prices and terms without customer consent. These weren’t isolated clauses but components of an integrated system designed to extract maximum value while minimizing corporate obligations.
Under the pre-2023 regime, Fujifilm was ordered to stop enforcing the unfair terms, implement a compliance program, and pay $250,000 toward the ACCC’s legal costs. However, if the same conduct had occurred after November 9, 2023, Fujifilm could have faced maximum penalties of up to $50 million for each of the 38 unfair terms—a theoretical penalty approaching $1.9 billion.
This case demonstrates how corporate bullying operates at scale. Fujifilm’s approximately 34,000 contracts since 2016 show how unfair terms can be deployed systematically across entire industries, creating a cumulative disadvantage that distorts market competition and innovation.
Construction Industry: Building Barriers to Success
The construction industry provides particularly clear examples of how corporate bullying operates through contract structures. My experience reviewing construction contracts reveals systematic patterns of exploitation that extend far beyond individual project relationships. The case of Fowler Homes Pty Ltd demonstrates how fundamental rights like freedom of speech can be curtailed through contractual bullying.
Since July 2019, Fowler Homes has included non-disparagement clauses in contracts with 434 customers. These clauses prohibited clients from publishing or sharing negative reviews or feedback about the company’s services without prior written permission. The clauses also required customers to indemnify Fowler Homes against any losses from enforcing these terms, effectively making customers pay for their own silencing.
The construction industry’s structure makes these practices particularly damaging. Home building represents the largest single investment most families make, yet construction contracts are typically presented on a “take it or leave it” basis with no opportunity for negotiation. The emotional and financial stakes create conditions where customers feel compelled to accept unfair terms rather than delay essential projects.
The ACCC’s action against Fowler Homes revealed a pattern across the construction industry. Similar cases involved Wisdom Property Group Pty Ltd, which had used non-disparagement clauses since October 2008, affecting over 3,000 customers. These companies had used their contractual terms to suppress negative reviews on platforms like ProductReview.com.au, demonstrating how contractual bullying extends beyond financial arrangements to control information and consumer choice.
The construction industry’s reliance on subcontracting creates additional vulnerabilities. Prime contractors often impose contract terms on subcontractors that shift all project risks downward while maintaining maximum control. Payment terms that extend 60-90 days are common, forcing small subcontractors to provide free financing for major projects while bearing full performance risk.
In my experience reviewing EPIC Services Group’s workplace culture initiatives, I’ve seen how these contractual imbalances contribute to broader industry problems, including poor workplace safety, reduced innovation, and difficulty attracting skilled workers. When small businesses are fighting for survival against unfair contract terms, they lack the resources to invest in training, safety, and business development.
Financial Services: When Credit Becomes Control
The financial services sector presents some of the most sophisticated examples of contract bullying, leveraging the essential nature of banking and credit services to impose terms that would be unacceptable in competitive markets. Having analyzed numerous small business banking agreements, I can attest that many contain terms that systematically disadvantage smaller customers.
Personal guarantees represent perhaps the most egregious form of financial bullying. These guarantees expose small business owners’ personal assets to business liabilities, often extending far beyond the actual risk posed by the business loan. I’ve seen cases where modest business loans required guarantees covering family homes worth several times the loan amount, creating disproportionate consequences for small business owners while providing banks with risk-free lending.
Variable interest rate clauses that allow financial institutions to increase rates at their discretion, while borrowers have no corresponding right to reduce them when market conditions improve, represent another form of contractual imbalance. These clauses often contain vague language about “market conditions” or “cost of funds” that give banks virtually unlimited discretion to increase borrowing costs.
The Payment Times Reporting Scheme has revealed how some financial institutions use their position as bankers to delay payments to small business suppliers. When a bank that holds a small business’s operating account also delays payments to that business, the financial leverage becomes particularly coercive.
Business banking terms of service often include broad set-off clauses that allow banks to freeze accounts or seize funds without notice if any related business or personal account falls into default. These clauses can effectively shut down business operations overnight, creating leverage that goes far beyond normal creditor rights.
Agriculture: Cultivating Unfair Advantages Through Contract Control
Agriculture provides stark examples of corporate bullying where seasonal pressures and limited supplier options create conditions ripe for exploitation. The ACCC’s 2023 investigation into fertilizer suppliers revealed systematic use of unfair contract terms that disadvantaged farming businesses across Australia.
The agricultural sector’s structure makes farmers particularly vulnerable to corporate bullying. Seasonal pressures mean farmers often must accept available terms rather than risk crop failures, while limited supplier options in regional areas reduce competitive pressure on contract terms. Input suppliers leverage these vulnerabilities through contracts that lock farmers into long-term commitments while providing suppliers maximum flexibility to adjust prices and terms.
Fertilizer contracts I’ve reviewed often contain clauses requiring farmers to purchase minimum quantities regardless of seasonal conditions or crop performance. These clauses transfer weather and market risks from suppliers to farmers while providing suppliers with guaranteed revenue streams. Price escalation clauses tied to vague market indices give suppliers unilateral power to increase costs without corresponding farmer protections.
The investigation revealed how standard form contracts were being used to disadvantage farmers through terms that created significant imbalances in rights and obligations. While specific details of the unfair terms weren’t publicly disclosed, the willingness of suppliers to amend contracts following ACCC intervention suggests the severity of the problematic clauses.
Seasonal payment terms that require farmers to pay for inputs months before harvest, while providing no protection against crop failures, represent another form of risk transfer that favours suppliers. These terms effectively force farmers to provide interest-free loans to input suppliers while bearing full production risk.
Technology Platforms: Digital Dependency and Contract Control
The technology sector presents unique challenges for addressing corporate bullying, as digital platforms increasingly serve as essential infrastructure for small business operations. E-commerce platforms, social media advertising systems, and software-as-a-service providers operate through standard form agreements that give platforms significant power over small business operations.
Platform dependency creates particularly exploitative conditions. Small businesses may invest significant time and resources in building their presence on platforms, only to find themselves subject to arbitrary policy changes or account suspensions that can destroy years of work overnight. Terms of service that allow platforms to suspend accounts with minimal notice or change fee structures unilaterally represent forms of digital bullying that can devastate platform-dependent businesses.
Revenue sharing agreements that give platforms discretionary power to adjust commission rates or payment terms create ongoing vulnerability for small businesses. I’ve seen platforms use algorithm changes to effectively force businesses into higher-cost advertising arrangements, leveraging dependency relationships to extract additional revenue.
Data ownership clauses that allow platforms to use small business customer data for competitive purposes represent another form of exploitation. Small businesses often unknowingly grant platforms rights to their customer relationships and business intelligence, which platforms can then use to compete directly with their own customers.
Payment Delays: The Silent Weapon of Corporate Bullying
Payment delays represent perhaps the most widespread and immediately damaging form of corporate bullying, affecting hundreds of thousands of small businesses across all sectors. The Payment Times Reporting Scheme data reveals the systematic nature of this problem across Australian businesses.
Large businesses and government enterprises with annual income over $100 million must report their payment terms and practices every six months. The data reveals troubling patterns: despite reporting requirements introduced in 2021, the proportion of invoices paid to small businesses within 30 days has shown minimal improvement, increasing only from 62.9% to 67.6%.
More concerning is that average payment terms have barely fallen, dropping only from 37.5 days to 35.8 days. This marginal improvement masks significant variations across industries and individual companies, with some small businesses reporting payment delays of 120 days or more. In my procurement experience, these delays are rarely accidental—they represent deliberate cash flow management strategies that force small businesses to provide free financing to larger customers.
The Business Council of Australia’s voluntary supplier payment code requires signatories to pay small business suppliers within 30 days of receiving a correct invoice. However, the code allows exemptions for “mutually agreed terms” and “standard industry practice,” creating loopholes that can be exploited by companies seeking to extend payment periods.
The economic impact of payment delays extends far beyond individual transactions. Late payments force small businesses to carry working capital costs that should rightfully be borne by their customers, creating cash flow problems that limit growth and investment capacity. Research suggests that addressing payment delays could significantly improve small business resilience and enable increased employment and innovation.
Regional Vulnerabilities: Geographic Isolation as Leverage
Small businesses in regional and rural Australia face particular vulnerabilities to corporate bullying due to limited market options and geographic isolation. My experience working with regional contractors reveals how distance and limited alternatives create conditions where corporate bullying can flourish unchecked.
Regional businesses often have fewer supplier and customer options, making them more dependent on relationships with larger corporations. This dependency can be exploited through contract terms that would be unacceptable in competitive urban markets. Transport and logistics costs create additional barriers to switching suppliers or customers, giving incumbent partners leverage to impose unfavourable terms.
The concentration of legal and business advisory services in major cities means regional small businesses have limited access to expert advice when negotiating or challenging unfair contract terms. This information asymmetry favours larger corporations with in-house legal teams and greater resources, creating a systematic disadvantage for regional businesses.
Infrastructure limitations in regional areas can be leveraged through contract terms that transfer technology and connectivity risks to small businesses. I’ve seen cases where large corporations impose technology requirements on regional suppliers without considering local infrastructure limitations, creating performance standards that are impossible to meet.
The Economic Multiplier Effect of Contract Bullying
The economic impact of corporate bullying extends far beyond individual business relationships, creating ripple effects that reduce overall economic efficiency and innovation. Small businesses contribute 53% of value in construction, 79% in agriculture, and 74% in rental services—sectors where corporate bullying is particularly prevalent.
When small businesses are forced to divert resources to managing unfair contractual obligations rather than investing in growth and innovation, the entire economy suffers reduced productivity gains. The administrative burden of dealing with complex, unfair contracts creates efficiency losses that compound across supply chains and industry networks.
Employment impacts are equally significant. Small businesses train 42% of all apprentices, nearly double the proportion supported by large businesses. When corporate bullying threatens small business viability, it also threatens the development of Australia’s future workforce.
The multiplier effects are particularly pronounced in regional communities where small businesses often serve as economic anchors. Corporate bullying that weakens these businesses ultimately weakens entire regional economies, contributing to urban migration and regional decline.
International Perspectives: Learning from Global Approaches
Australia’s approach to addressing corporate bullying through unfair contract terms legislation represents significant progress, but international comparisons reveal additional strategies that could strengthen protections for small businesses. The European Union’s approach emphasizes prevention through mandatory disclosure requirements and standardized contract terms for certain industries.
The United Kingdom has implemented similar unfair contract terms protections, with particular focus on business-to-business relationships. The UK’s approach includes sector-specific guidance and clearer safe harbours for legitimate business practices.
In the United States, various state-level initiatives have focused on payment times and dispute resolution mechanisms. Some states have implemented interest penalties for late payments and expedited dispute resolution processes specifically for small business contracts.
These international approaches suggest that Australia could benefit from sector-specific guidance, mandatory disclosure requirements for certain contract terms, and enhanced dispute resolution mechanisms tailored to small business needs.
Industry-Specific Solutions and Best Practices
Different industries require tailored approaches to addressing corporate bullying, reflecting unique market dynamics and contractual practices in each sector. My experience across multiple industries reveals that effective solutions must address both systemic market power imbalances and specific contractual practices.
The construction industry could benefit from standardized payment terms and milestone-based progress payments that reduce the ability of larger contractors to use payment delays as leverage over subcontractors. Industry codes of conduct that go beyond minimum legal requirements could establish fairer standard practices.
The agricultural sector might require specific protections for seasonal businesses that face unique vulnerabilities during planting and harvest periods when bargaining power is particularly limited. Seasonal payment arrangements and crop insurance integration could reduce farmer vulnerability to input supplier contract bullying.
Technology sector interventions could focus on data portability requirements that reduce switching costs for small businesses dependent on digital platforms, thereby improving their bargaining position in contract negotiations. Interoperability standards could prevent platform lock-in that enables contract bullying.
Enforcement Mechanisms and Practical Remedies
The effectiveness of unfair contract terms legislation depends critically on enforcement mechanisms that are accessible to small businesses and provide meaningful deterrence to large corporations. Traditional court proceedings are often impractical for small businesses due to cost and time requirements, making alternative approaches essential.
The ACCC’s enforcement strategy focuses on systemic cases that establish precedents and influence industry-wide practices. This approach can benefit multiple businesses simultaneously, but may leave individual cases without practical remedies.
Industry-specific ombudsman services could provide more accessible enforcement options for small businesses facing contract bullying. The Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman provides valuable services but lacks sector-specific expertise needed for complex contractual disputes.
Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, including expedited arbitration processes and mediation services, could provide faster and less expensive remedies than traditional court proceedings. These mechanisms would need to be designed specifically for small business contracts to be effective.
Future Challenges and Emerging Threats
The regulatory framework for addressing corporate bullying continues to evolve, with several key challenges and opportunities emerging. Digital transformation is creating new forms of dependency and potential exploitation that existing legal frameworks may not adequately address.
Artificial intelligence and automated decision-making systems used in contract management and payment processing could create new forms of discrimination against small businesses. Algorithmic bias that favours larger suppliers or customers could systematically disadvantage smaller businesses without obvious contractual clauses to challenge.
Cross-border e-commerce and digital platform relationships create enforcement challenges when corporate bullying crosses jurisdictional boundaries. Australian small businesses dealing with overseas platforms or suppliers may find existing protections difficult to enforce.
Climate change and supply chain disruption are creating new vulnerabilities that could be exploited through force majeure clauses and risk allocation terms. Contract terms that transfer all climate and disruption risks to small businesses could become new forms of corporate bullying.
Building Resilient Business Ecosystems Through Fair Contracting
The ultimate goal of addressing corporate bullying should be creating business ecosystems where companies of all sizes can thrive and contribute to economic growth. This requires moving beyond preventing the worst abuses to actively fostering conditions that support fair and productive business relationships.
EPIC Services Group’s approach to workplace culture demonstrates how industry leaders can model fair practices that benefit entire sectors. When large corporations commit to fair contracting practices, they create competitive pressure that encourages industry-wide improvements.
Education programs that help small business owners understand contract terms and their rights can prevent exploitative relationships from forming in the first place. These programs should be industry-specific and accessible to businesses in regional and rural areas.
Alternative financing mechanisms that reduce small business dependence on large corporate customers could improve bargaining power and reduce vulnerability to contractual bullying. Government-backed loan programs and peer-to-peer lending platforms could provide such alternatives.
Technology Solutions for Contract Transparency
Emerging technologies offer potential solutions to some forms of corporate bullying, though they also create new vulnerabilities that must be addressed. Automated contract analysis tools could help small businesses identify potentially unfair terms before signing agreements, reducing their vulnerability to exploitation.
Blockchain-based payment systems could eliminate many forms of payment delay by automating payments upon delivery or completion of contractual milestones. Smart contracts could enforce fair payment terms without requiring ongoing dispute resolution.
Artificial intelligence systems could monitor ongoing contractual relationships for signs of bullying behaviour and alert small businesses to potential problems before they become critical. However, these same technologies could also be used to create more sophisticated forms of exploitation.
Professional Responsibility and Industry Leadership
Lawyers, accountants, and business advisors play crucial roles in either preventing or enabling corporate bullying through the advice they provide to both large and small businesses. Professional education programs should emphasize ethical obligations to consider fairness in contractual arrangements.
Professional liability insurance and regulatory frameworks should provide incentives for advisors to identify and address unfair contract terms rather than simply focusing on technical legal compliance. Professional associations could develop best practice guidelines for fair contracting.
Industry associations can play vital roles in developing codes of conduct that go beyond minimum legal requirements. The success of such initiatives depends on broad industry participation and effective enforcement mechanisms.
Conclusion: Transforming Australian Business Culture
The evidence is overwhelming: corporate bullying through unfair contracts represents a fundamental threat to Australia’s economic prosperity and entrepreneurial spirit. The $590 billion annual contribution of small businesses to our economy and their role in employing 5.1 million Australians make addressing this problem an economic imperative.
After two decades in Australian procurement, I’ve witnessed the transformation from an era where contract bullying was accepted as “just business” to the current environment where such practices face serious legal consequences. The enhanced unfair contract terms legislation represents crucial progress, but legislation alone cannot solve deeply embedded cultural problems.
Creating a business environment where companies of all sizes can thrive requires recognizing that sustainable competitive advantage comes from innovation and efficiency, not from exploiting smaller partners through unfair contractual terms. The cases examined—from Fujifilm’s potential $1.9 billion penalty to the systematic silencing of customer reviews—demonstrate that corporate bullying is not merely isolated incidents but systematic abuse requiring comprehensive responses.
Just as it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a supportive business community to foster innovation and economic growth. When large corporations use market power to exploit smaller partners, they undermine the very ecosystem that enables their own long-term success.
The path forward requires commitment from all stakeholders. Small businesses must become more sophisticated in recognizing and addressing unfair terms, supported by education programs and accessible enforcement mechanisms. Large corporations must recognize that sustainable success depends on healthy supply chain relationships and competitive markets.
Government policy should continue strengthening protections while ensuring legitimate business needs for contractual certainty are preserved. The $70-135 billion in additional economic value that could be created by supporting small business growth represents our obligation to future generations of entrepreneurs and innovators.
The choice is clear: we can continue allowing corporate bullying to stifle innovation and economic growth, or we can take comprehensive action to create the supportive business environment Australia’s economic future demands. The evidence shows the problem is real and significant. The question now is whether we have the collective will to address it effectively and build a business culture worthy of our entrepreneurial traditions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What exactly constitutes an unfair contract term under current Australian law?
A: Under the Australian Consumer Law, a term is unfair if it: (1) causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations; (2) is not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the party who would benefit from the term; and (3) would cause detriment if applied or relied upon. Examples include unilateral termination rights, automatic renewal clauses without adequate notice, excessive penalty fees, and liability exclusions that don’t provide corresponding protections to the other party.
Q: What are the specific penalties for using unfair contract terms since November 2023?
A: Since November 9, 2023, corporations can face maximum penalties of up to $50 million per unfair contract term, or 30% of their adjusted turnover during the breach period if the benefit cannot be determined. For individuals, the maximum penalty is $2.5 million per contravention. These penalties apply to proposing, using, or relying on unfair contract terms in standard form contracts.
Q: How can small businesses practically protect themselves from unfair contract terms?
A: Small businesses should: (1) carefully review all contracts before signing, particularly standard form agreements; (2) seek legal advice for significant agreements or those with complex terms; (3) document any instances where unfair terms are enforced against them; (4) report systematic problems to the ACCC or Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman; and (5) join industry associations that provide contract guidance and collective bargaining power.
Q: What is the Payment Times Reporting Scheme, and how does it help address payment delays?
A: The Payment Times Reporting Scheme requires large businesses with annual income over $100 million to publicly report their payment terms and times to small suppliers every six months. This creates transparency that helps small businesses make informed decisions about potential customers and creates public pressure for improved payment practices. The data is freely accessible and doesn’t require registration to view.
Q: Can small businesses challenge existing contracts that contain unfair terms?
A: Yes, small businesses can challenge unfair terms in existing contracts through courts, tribunals, or by reporting systematic issues to the ACCC. However, it’s often more practical to report systematic problems to regulators who can take enforcement action, benefiting multiple businesses simultaneously. The new penalties make it more likely that large corporations will voluntarily remove unfair terms when challenged.
Q: What specific steps should small businesses take when experiencing payment delays?
A: Small businesses should: (1) document all payment delays and related communications; (2) check if the paying company is subject to Payment Times Reporting requirements; (3) review contract terms for potentially unfair payment clauses; (4) consider invoice financing or factoring services for cash flow management; (5) seek assistance from the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman; and (6) report systematic payment delays to relevant industry associations or regulators.
Q: Are franchise agreements covered by the unfair contract terms laws?
A: Yes, franchise agreements can be subject to unfair contract terms laws if they are standard form contracts with small businesses. The Franchising Code of Conduct provides additional protections, but many franchise terms could potentially be challenged as unfair under the Australian Consumer Law. Franchisees should review their agreements for terms that create significant imbalances in rights and obligations.
Q: What resources and support are available for small businesses dealing with corporate bullying?
A: Key resources include: the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman (1300 650 460) for general small business support and dispute resolution; the ACCC for unfair contract terms complaints and competition issues; state small business commissioners in each jurisdiction; industry associations that provide sector-specific guidance; legal aid services for businesses that cannot afford private legal advice; and business advisory services through local councils and chambers of commerce. Many of these services are free or low-cost for small businesses.
