The sales-call claims that get Australian SMEs in trouble

Most of the trouble on Australian sales calls comes from a small set of phrases. That's not an exaggeration. When we review a client's recorded calls during calibration, the flagged moments cluster around a shortlist of maybe twenty phrases across all products and industries. Some are fine in some contexts and problematic in others. Some are never fine. The difference is almost never in the training deck.

This is the operator's shortlist: what the regulators are watching for, why each one is a problem, and what "safe" looks like on the call.

The framework, in one paragraph

Under Australian Consumer Law, section 18 prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce. Section 29 prohibits false or misleading representations about goods or services, including their nature, standard, quality, price, and any guarantees. The ACCC enforces both across every sales channel, phone included. On top of that, ASIC layers financial-services specific rules (RG 38 anti-hawking, best-interests duty), and the ACMA layers telemarketing conduct rules. Different regulators, overlapping obligations, one common failure mode: a specific phrase, said on a specific call, that the business can't back up.

The phrases that trigger flags

"Guaranteed" / "guaranteed returns" / "guaranteed savings"

Why it's a problem. A guarantee is a representation. If the outcome isn't actually guaranteed, or if there are material conditions that qualify it, the phrase is misleading. Financial products with any downside exposure basically can't use "guaranteed returns" in the retail context. Investment products with market risk can't either. Neither can most B2B services that promise cost savings, unless the savings are actually contractually guaranteed with a refund mechanism.

What safe looks like. If a guarantee genuinely exists, name what it covers, what it doesn't, and what happens if it isn't met. "We offer a 30-day money-back guarantee under these conditions" is a guarantee. "It's guaranteed, mate, don't worry about it" is a compliance incident.

"You can't lose"

Why it's a problem. Explicitly denies risk. For any product with actual risk (which is most of them), this is a direct misleading representation. In investment and insurance contexts, it's almost always a breach on its face.

What safe looks like. Don't say it. If a customer asks "am I going to lose money?", the answer covers what the actual risk is, not a denial that risk exists.

"100% safe" / "no risk" / "risk-free"

Why it's a problem. Same category as "you can't lose." Some products can accurately describe themselves as low-risk or with specific risk mitigation, but "100% safe" and "no risk" almost never survive scrutiny. In health contexts, "100% safe" is a specific problem under Therapeutic Goods Administration rules. In investment contexts, ASIC.

What safe looks like. Describe the actual risk profile in plain language, and describe the specific mitigation that exists.

"No interest, no fees" / "interest-free"

Why it's a problem. Common on education and consumer-goods sales floors offering payment plans. The claim breaks the moment there is any interest, fee, late-payment charge, or third-party finance cost. Buy Now Pay Later products in particular have merchant fees the customer pays indirectly. The ACCC has been active in this space.

What safe looks like. Explicit disclosure of the payment structure, including any fees the customer will pay or that will be applied under specific conditions. "No interest for the standard 12-month term, and here's what happens if a payment is missed."

"Accredited" / "nationally recognised"

Why it's a problem. In the education and training sector, "nationally recognised" is a specific regulated term under the VET Quality Framework, and applies only to accredited courses or units of competency. Using it about a non-accredited short course is a straightforward breach that ASQA takes seriously. In other contexts, "accredited" is often used loosely to mean "endorsed by someone," which invites the same problem.

What safe looks like. If a course is nationally recognised, say so and name the code. If it isn't, describe it accurately as a short course, professional development or similar.

"Cure" / "treatment" / "clinically proven"

Why it's a problem. In health and wellness sales, these words trigger the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code. The TGA maintains a specific list of restricted representations, and any claim about curing, preventing, alleviating or treating a serious condition faces strict scrutiny. "Clinically proven" without an actual controlled trial to point to is the same category.

What safe looks like. Descriptive language that doesn't cross into therapeutic claims, and specific evidence when a claim is made.

"You're locked in" / "the price expires today"

Why it's a problem. Pressure tactics. Even when they're literally true (the promotion does expire), the way they're deployed can constitute undue influence or unconscionable conduct, particularly with vulnerable customers. In B2B contexts, "you're locked in" often conflicts with actual cooling-off or cancellation rights the customer has under the contract.

What safe looks like. Time-bound offers described neutrally. "This price is available until Friday" without the pressure choreography.

"Best rate on the market" / "cheapest" / "lowest price"

Why it's a problem. These are comparative claims. They need to be true and substantiable. "Best" without a comparison basis is what the ACCC calls an unsupportable claim.

What safe looks like. Comparative claims backed by a specific, current basis. "We're 15% below the average of the top three providers in this market, based on our monthly comparison." Or don't make the claim.

The pattern behind all of them

Notice what these phrases have in common. Each one is a shortcut. The agent is trying to close a sale, and the shortcut is a compressed, emotionally compelling version of a more complicated truth. That's not a training problem you can fix once. It's a systemic pressure that surfaces on some percentage of every sales floor, every week.

Manual QA catches the shortcuts on a sample of calls. Full-coverage checking catches them on every call, which changes what the shortcut costs the business. When every use of "guaranteed" is flagged and reviewed, the phrase stops being an option. That's the mechanism by which coverage improves compliance, not just measurement.

What to actually do about it

Three practical steps for any sales operation.

Get the list of phrases into your QA rubric. The specific ones your product attracts, the general ones ACL applies to. Written down, not vibes-based.
Score every call, not a sample. Sampling misses the outlier calls that generate complaints. It also fails to change agent behaviour because agents know the odds of being reviewed on any specific call are low.
Attach the transcript moment to every flag. A red dot on a dashboard is not evidence. The exact phrase, timestamp and rule that triggered it is.

That's the pipeline we build for clients. The free checker runs the same logic on a single call, if you want to see what it flags on one of your own.

Want to run this on your own recordings?

We calibrate the ruleset to your industry, your products and the way your team actually sells. Book a free discovery call →

General information about the regulatory environment, not legal advice. Your specific obligations depend on your products, your customers and your jurisdiction.