It is alleged that between August 2020 and July 2024, Mobil represented to consumers through the signage and posters at the six retail sites that the fuel being sold was ‘Mobil Synergy’ fuel which contained certain additives, when Mobil did not in fact supply Mobil Synergy fuel to these sites.

As a civil action, this case does not give rise to allegations of criminal fraud and therefore there is no laundering of the proceeds of the making of any sale subject to the allegations.

As such, the case again raises the question of criminal liability of companies and that of "failure to prevent" offences. It also emphasises the difference between burdens of proof in civil v criminal cases.
Additionally, the ACCC alleges that Mobil misrepresented that the fuel sold at the six sites was different in composition or quality to fuel sold at other non-Mobil retail sites, and that it contained additives which provided benefits including:

- protecting the engines against corrosion;
- reducing and/or removed harmful engine deposits
- improving economy
- reducing emissions
- protecting and cleaning the engine
- improving and/or ensuring peak engine performance.

The six retail fuel sites at which Mobil allegedly made these false and misleading representations were in Rasmussen, Yeppoon, Barcaldine, Rural View, Proserpine and Aitkenvale, all in far north Queensland.

“Consumers have no way of verifying the claims made about the fuel they put into their tank and rely on the accuracy of claims made by the fuel supplier,” ACCC Commissioner Liza Carver said.

The ACCC is seeking penalties, declarations, costs and other orders.

Further Reading: https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/ACCC%20v%20Mobil%20Oil%20Australia…