Mable backs down on unfair terms after ACCC pressure

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission found that Mable’s terms of use, applied between November 2023 and August 2024, gave the company excessive power over its users, while limiting their ability to dispute charges or leave the platform without penalty.

At the centre of the ACCC’s concern were terms that:

• allowed automatic approval of invoices after 24 hours, even if the client hadn’t reviewed or agreed to the timesheet;
• imposed a $5,000 dollar penalty for clients or workers who tried to continue working together outside of Mable;
• let Mable change fees and terms at will without notice; and

• shifted all legal liability to users, including forcing them to cover Mable’s enforcement costs.

ACCC Deputy Chair Catriona Lowe explained the breach of the Australian Consumer Law.

“We were concerned that the terms, which Mable has admitted were unfair, were so weighted in Mable’s favour that they created a significant imbalance in the contractual rights and obligations between Mable and its clients and support workers,” she said.

“We remind businesses who have not yet reviewed their contracts and removed or amended unfair terms that we are continuing to monitor the disability and aged care sector and will take appropriate action when warranted.”

In June 2025, the ACCC accepted a court-enforceable undertaking from Mable. The company admitted the terms were unfair and agreed to:

• remove all problematic clauses;
• provide clearer, upfront information about key terms; and
• introduce a compliance program to ensure future contract fairness.

The change comes after new laws introduced in late 2023 gave regulators more power to penalise businesses using unfair terms in standard form contracts — a common issue in tech-based service platforms.

For Mable users, this outcome brings relief. People with disability were at risk of being charged for services they didn’t knowingly approve, while also being locked in by the threat of penalties if they chose to continue with a support worker off-platform.

Support workers, often sole traders, were also vulnerable. Some faced the threat of legal costs or fines for simply continuing care arrangements outside Mable. Critics argue these terms reflect the darker side of the gig economy creeping into care.

While Mable has now corrected course, the ACCC has made clear that it is monitoring the broader sector.

“Businesses who have not yet reviewed their contracts and removed or amended unfair terms should do so,” Lowe warned.

Other platforms have not been named in similar actions to date, but are likely on notice. The ACCC’s broader review of the NDIS and aged care sector continues and providers who exploit vulnerable users through fine print may soon face consequences.

For disability communities, contracts should never come with hidden traps. Mable’s backdown shows that accountability is possible, but it often takes watchdogs, legal pressure and a public spotlight to enforce it.

Additionally, while the law has caught up in this case, it’s up to all of us — providers, participants and advocates — to ensure that choice and control aren’t just slogans, but lived rights in every care interaction.

What do you think of the Mable scandal? Let the team at Talking Disability know and subscribe to the newsletter for more information, news and industry updates.

Related content:

Government delays rollout of promised foundational supports

What Corri McKenzie’s exit means for people with disability

Shocking findings about Tourette syndrome in Australia