Belle Gibson: The cost of faking cancer under consumer law

Belle Gibson rose to prominence by knowingly disseminating false and misleading representations about her health, which she leveraged for commercial gain within the wellness industry. Her claims of surviving terminal brain cancer through natural therapies inspired widespread admiration, drove media interest, and underpinned a lucrative personal brand. However, behind the aspirational lifestyle and polished social media presence was deliberate deception. What followed was not only a dramatic public unravelling but also a revealing case study in the limits of Australia’s consumer protection laws.

How Belle Gibson Built a Fraudulent Wellness Brand Through Social Media

Gibson’s brand centred on a compelling story, that she had overcome brain cancer through diet, holistic treatments, and positive thinking. She used social media, particularly her Instagram account, to promote this image, curating a feed of wellness advice, clean eating, and personal reflections that appeared to validate her claims.

This carefully crafted persona quickly attracted mainstream attention. In 2014, she was hailed as an inspiration by Elle Magazine and awarded Cosmopolitan’s ‘Fun Fearless Female of the Year’. A book deal with Penguin followed, as did a wellness app, The Whole Pantry, which received international attention and was prominently featured by Apple

However, the entire enterprise was built on a deliberate falsehood, Gibson had never been diagnosed with cancer. The unravelling of her claims began in 2015, following a detailed investigation by journalists Beau Donelly and Nick Toscano, published in The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. Their reporting identified numerous inconsistencies in Gibson’s story and prompted broader scrutiny across both traditional and digital media.

Under sustained pressure, Gibson ultimately admitted in an interview with The Australian Women’s Weekly that her cancer diagnosis had been entirely fabricated. A subsequent televised interview on 60 Minutes, during which she struggled to answer basic questions, including her own age, further intensified public criticism. The interview exposed the full extent of her deception and triggered widespread calls for legal and regulatory action.

Legal Consequences of Deceptive Conduct Under Australian Consumer Law

The exposure of Gibson’s conduct triggered enforcement action under the Australian Consumer Law (the ACL), found in Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). The ACL prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce and empowers regulators to take action against individuals and businesses who engage in conduct likely to mislead consumers.

Three key provisions of the ACL were engaged in Gibson’s case:

• Section 18: misleading or deceptive conduct;

• Section 29: false or misleading representations about goods and services; and

• Section 151(1)(g): false claims about sponsorship or approval, including false representations of charitable giving.

Misleading or Deceptive Conduct

Section 18 of the ACL provides that a person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive. Notably, a breach can occur regardless of whether the conduct was intentional, what matters is its effect on consumers.

In Gibson’s case, the misrepresentation of her health status formed the basis of her business. Her claim of surviving terminal illness through alternative treatments directly influenced consumer decisions to buy her app, her book, and to engage with her brand. This conduct was found to be in clear breach of section 18.

False Representations About Goods and Services

Section 29 of the Australian Consumer Law prohibits businesses from making false or misleading representations about a range of matters, including:

• the nature, characteristics, or benefits of goods or services;

• the approval or sponsorship of a business, service, or product; and

• testimonials or endorsements used to promote those goods or services.

Belle Gibson’s conduct amounted to a textbook breach of this provision.

She falsely claimed that her wellness regime, comprising alternative therapies and dietary practices, had cured her terminal brain cancer. In doing so, she misled consumers into believing her methods were medically effective, when in fact they lacked any scientific foundation. This misrepresentation went to the heart of the nature and benefits of her offerings.

She also marketed her book and app, The Whole Pantry, as trustworthy, evidence-based wellness resources. These products were promoted on the basis of her personal “recovery,” which had been entirely fabricated. Her use of this false narrative functioned as both a personal testimonial and an implicit endorsement, designed to persuade consumers to purchase based on the credibility of her experience.

In addition, Gibson suggested that her business operated with a philanthropic purpose. She claimed that proceeds from her commercial ventures would be donated to charitable organisations supporting cancer patients and children in need. These donations never eventuated. Representing a product or business as having a charitable or altruistic component, when this is untrue, constitutes a serious breach of section 29.

Under the ACL, businesses are prohibited from making false statements to induce consumer transactions. Gibson’s representations were not merely careless, they were intentionally constructed to drive consumer trust and sales. As such, her conduct amounted to a clear and serious contravention of section 29.

False Claims About Charitable Donations

It is not uncommon for businesses to enhance consumer trust by publicly committing to charitable giving. However, under the Australian Consumer Law, any such representations must be truthful, accurate, and capable of verification. Belle Gibson repeatedly claimed that a portion of the profits from The Whole Pantry app and related products would be donated to charitable organisations, including hospitals and causes supporting children with cancer.

These assertions formed a central part of her public persona and brand positioning. By aligning her commercial activities with a philanthropic purpose, Gibson cultivated a socially responsible image that resonated strongly with consumers. Purchasers of her app and book were led to believe their spending contributed to meaningful charitable causes.

In reality, no such donations were ever made. Investigations conducted by both journalists and Consumer Affairs Victoria revealed that none of the named charities had received any funds. Gibson’s statements about charitable giving were false.

Section 151(1)(g) of the ACL prohibits a person from making false or misleading representations regarding sponsorship, approval, or affiliation. This provision extends to representations about charitable partnerships and prevents businesses from gaining a commercial advantage through claims of philanthropy that are untrue or misleading. Gibson’s conduct was found to be a clear contravention of this section.

Her attempt to explain the failure to donate funds by citing “cash flow issues” was rejected by the Court. It held that her representations were materially misleading and had induced consumers to engage with her products under false pretences. The case serves as a critical reminder that businesses must not make charitable claims unless those claims are both accurate and fulfilled.

Legal Proceedings and Penalties.

There are significant monetary penalties for breaches of the consumer law. In 2017, Gibson was fined a total of $410,000 by the Federal Court of Australia for multiple breaches of the ACL. These included her misleading health claims, false representations concerning her charitable contributions, and deceptive conduct in promoting her app and book.

Unsurprisingly, Gibson never paid any of the penalties, raising questions about the enforceability of consumer law fines.

Why Belle Gibson Faced Civil Penalties, Not Criminal Charges

Although her conduct was deeply deceptive, Gibson was never criminally charged with fraud. Instead, regulators pursued her under the ACL which permits civil penalties but does not provide for imprisonment. Liability under the ACL is established on the balance of probabilities, a lower threshold than the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Despite Gibson’s scam, it was unlikely to meet the threshold for criminal charges. Unlike direct fraud cases where victims knowingly hand over money based on false representations, Gibson’s business dealings involved purchases through third-party platforms, complicating the link between her misleading claims and consumer financial loss.

Additionally, the ACL is designed to address misleading and deceptive conduct without requiring proof of intent to defraud. Regulators pursued Gibson under the ACL allowing enforcement action against misleading claims made in trade or commerce. The objective of consumer law protections in Australia is to prioritise misleading conduct in a commercial context, regardless of intent.

Gibsons’s case was pursued under the ACL because her claims were made through her business. namely her book and app, rather than as part of a direct scheme to fraudulently obtain money from individuals.

Conclusion

The Belle Gibson saga underscores the legal consequences of misleading conduct in trade or commerce, and the importance of consumer law as a framework for public accountability. In an age where influence is monetised and personal narratives can drive commercial empires, businesses and individuals alike must ensure that claims made to consumers, whether about health outcomes, endorsements, or charitable giving, are truthful and legally compliant.

Gibson’s case is not just a cautionary tale about dishonesty,  it is a compelling reminder that consumer protection laws are central to maintaining public trust and commercial integrity in the digital marketplace.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Naomi Shivaraman  has been an award winning journalist and producer for 25 years. She joined BlackBay as the team’s Legal Affairs Strategist, a role created to utilise her combined legal and media strategy skills, helping clients and stakeholders navigate the court of public opinion.

Not only does she assist the team in a paralegal capacity on complex litigation matters, but she also provides reputational, media and communications counsel. For the past few years, Naomi has combined her law studies with a full-time career. Naomi will finish her Bachelor of Laws degree at Macquarie University next year.