Treated wastewater overflowed after a pipe broke, the council says.

Australian retirees could be left more than $200,000 in the lurch because of their underperforming superannuation funds, a new report has found.

The analysis by Super Consumers Australia found retirees have access to far fewer protections in the superannuation system than their younger counterparts.

It also found that almost a third of retirement products (29 per cent) are significant underperformers, producing "much lower returns than their peers".

READ MORE: NSW crackdown on 'vile' Nazi ideology seeks prison terms, heavy fines

And that is hitting older Australians hard in their hip pocket.

"A retiree starting with $250,000 in super in the worst performing options could earn approximately $57,000 to $205,000 less in investment returns across a typical retirement," the report states.

It added that most retirees who are invested in the underperforming funds have no idea that they're missing out on potential earnings.

"The superannuation system is meant to provide Australians with a dignified retirement, not leave them in the dark about whether their money is working for them," Super Consumers Australia deputy chief executive Dr Katrina Ellis said.

Since 2021, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has evaluated super products, comparing them to industry benchmarks. 

READ MORE: By not checking the time, Aussie workers are losing thousands

Those that fail the performance test two years in a row are barred from taking on new beneficiaries.

However, the test doesn't apply to products for retirees.

Super Consumers Australia said its findings showed the need for the government – which is currently reviewing the settings – to expand the performance test.

"It's unreasonable that a 64-year-old is protected by a performance test, yet the moment they retire and move into an identical product, that safeguard disappears," Ellis said.

"Retirees deserve the same protections as workers. Without them, people risk losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in retirement income and living standards will suffer…

"The federal government must extend the performance test and comparison tool to ensure retirees can avoid the duds and put their money in better-performing funds. 

"Anything less is leaving retirees exposed."

The Financial Services Council (FSC), though, said it would not be appropriate for the same test to be applied to retirement products.

READ MORE: Stocks drop after another jarring day on Wall Street

"Retirement products combine investment design with other important features that support varied individual retirement needs such as providing flexible access to cash when they need it, providing a sustainable income stream, and managing longevity risk," FSC chief executive Blake Briggs said.

"There is no one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to retirement.

"A performance test that focuses only on investment returns risks leading people out of products that may be appropriate for their circumstances… any expansion of this test to retirement products would be inappropriate.

"The industry strongly supports transparency for retirement products to assist those approaching retirement. However, Treasury's work on a retirement product data framework is a more appropriate step towards this."

In a hotly contested finding, the Super Consumers Australia report pointed the finger at four institutions.

It claimed that the "majority of retirement options with 10 years' investment history at AMP, Russell Investments, Colonial First State and Rest underperformed compared to peers across all growth categories".

"This suggests there may be broader problems with the investment approach at these funds, not simply poor investment choices in a single option," it added.

However, those findings were strenuously denied by AMP, which described them as "narrow analysis", "irresponsible claims", and "misleading".

READ MORE: One hurdle remains in race to release Epstein files – Trump himself

"The report fails to recognise that AMP has delivered strong relative returns for our retirement members for the past three years, in addition to our super offers achieving returns in excess of 13 per cent for the past three years to September," a spokesperson said.

"The report also fails to take into proper account the different objectives of retirement products, or consider contemporary lifetime income retirement solutions, which are delivering significantly better outcomes for retirees."

Colonial First State also slammed the findings as "not accurate".

"The report has selectively focused on 12 options out of the total CFS FirstChoice menu which has more than 200 investment options," a spokesperson said.

"In regard to options in the report, APRA assessed the accumulation equivalent of these same retirement investment options and they passed the annual superannuation performance test," they added.

Rest also rejected any suggestion its options were underperforming.

"Our Rest pension product is recognised for its value and quality by independent ratings agencies using established methodologies," a spokesperson said.

A spokesperson for Russell Investments, meanwhile, said the figures cisted for the company's options "are not accurate".

DOWNLOAD THE 9NEWS APP: Stay across all the latest in breaking news, sport, politics and the weather via our news app and get notifications sent straight to your smartphone. Available on the Apple App Store and Google Play.

The White House has defended President Donald Trump after he called a female reporter "piggy".

Trump was aboard Air Force One on Friday US time, speaking with reporters, CNN video of the incident shows.

Initially asked what Epstein had meant when he said in an email Trump "knew about the girls" the disgraced financier and sex offender's accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell was recruiting from Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort.

READ MORE: Web failure knocks out Uber, ChatGPT, X and Aussie airport sites

"I know nothing about that. They would have announced a long time ago ," Trump said.

He then tried to shift focus to Epstein's associations with prominent Democrat figures including former president Bill Clinton and former treasury secretary Larry Summers.

"Jeffrey Epstein and I had a very bad relationship for many years," Trump said.

READ MORE: Japanese bears attack almost 200 people over seven months

Another reporter began to ask, "If there's nothing incriminating in the files sir", before being brutally cut off.

"Quiet. Quiet, piggy," Trump said, leaning forward to point at the woman.

When asked about the insult, the White House levelled non-specific accusations at the journalist.

"This reporter behaved in an inappropriate and unprofessional way towards her colleagues on the plane," the statement read.

"If you're going to give it, you have to be able to take it."

No details were given.

At the time, Trump's opposition to the release of the Epstein files was still his public-facing stance, though later on the weekend he would undergo an about-face and urge Republicans to vote for making them public.

READ MORE: US House of Representatives votes in favour of publicly releasing files related to Jeffrey Epstein



Trump has also pledged to sign off on the file's release if it passes the House and the Senate.

The journalist's organisation, Bloomberg, issued a statement in her defence.

"Our White House journalists perform a vital public service, asking questions without fear or favour," the statement read.

"We remain focused on reporting issues of public interest fairly and accurately."

His insulting berating of the reporter, meanwhile, has begun to come in for some criticism from the US media.

CNN anchor Jake Tapper posted on X that the insult was "disgusting and completely unacceptable", while former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson said it was "degrading".

DOWNLOAD THE 9NEWS APP: Stay across all the latest in breaking news, sport, politics and the weather via our news app and get notifications sent straight to your smartphone. Available on the Apple App Store and Google Play.

ANZ chief executive Nuno Matos admitted it was "very tough" for him to cut 3500 jobs under his restructuring plan, before adding that half of the senior executive leadership had also been let go.

Australia's fourth-biggest bank is trying to reverse course after a series of costly scandals, and has signalled that mass redundancies were necessary to ensure future success.

The company is also under fire for the mistreatment of thousands of customers, including deceased ones, and lying to the federal government.

READ MORE: Mosquito outbreak at popular park divides council as residents left bleeding

Appearing at the House economics committee's review into the "big four" banks in Canberra today, Matos was grilled about whether it was fair that thousands were losing their jobs in the restructuring, while executives only lost their bonuses over the scandals.

Matos apologised for the failings and insisted that the senior executive team was held to "one of the most severe demonstrations of accountability observed in my professional life", with four out of nine members no longer with the company.

"They are not in the company because we thought new leadership was needed to weather the remediation and the new journey of the company," he said.

Matos, however, conceded that he was not proud to let go of so many of his staff. 

"I need to say the obvious: letting go of approximately 3500 people and impacting them and their families is not something I am proud, is not something I would like to do, not something a human being likes to do," he said.

"It is very, very tough."

ANZ announced in September that 3500 full-time roles and 1000 contractor jobs would be cut to eliminate duplication, work that did not support priorities and sharpen focus in what it described as a "rapidly evolving and highly competitive banking environment".

The bank said there would be a "limited impact" on customer-facing frontline roles, with the majority to be focused at the headquarters in Melbourne.

READ MORE: By not checking the time, Aussie workers are losing thousands

The cuts are estimated to cost the bank $585 million, contributing to a $1.1 billion hit to the bottom line in its half-year updates.

The historic $240 million fine the bank was handed came after ASIC found it had acted "unconscionably" in dealing with the Australian government while managing a $14 billion bond deal, and incorrectly reporting its bond trading data to the government by overstating the volumes by tens of billions of dollars over almost two years.

The fine has yet to be approved by the federal court.

Matos insisted that the redundancies would help the bank work in a simpler manner, creating an expanded frontline and shrunken headquarters.

He added that he wanted to maintain a "constructive relationship" with the Finance Sector Union, which had been critical of the bank's leadership.

"While the bank congratulates itself for raking in $5.7 billion, thousands of its employees are living with anxiety, burnout and dread," Finance Sector Union national president Wendy Streets said last week.

"We're hearing from people who can't sleep, who've developed panic attacks, and who dread going to work.

"ANZ's profits are up, but so is the human cost. The bank has a culture of uncertainty so severe it's making people sick."

DOWNLOAD THE 9NEWS APP: Stay across all the latest in breaking news, sport, politics and the weather via our news app and get notifications sent straight to your smartphone. Available on the Apple App Store and Google Play.

US President Donald Trump called the Epstein files a "Democratic hoax" for months, but now his Justice Department has been ordered to publicly release them – and it's just his signature that stands in the way.

But what does that actually mean, and what comes next in the Jeffrey Epstein saga?

The US House of Representatives voted 427-1 in favour of publicly releasing all Justice Department investigative files into the convicted sex offender on Tuesday (US time).

READ MORE: Trump hurls outrageous slur at female reporter

Just hours later, the Senate unanimously agreed to pass the bill.

Trump, who railed against releasing the Epstein files before suddenly changing his tune this week, said he would sign the bill if it passes both chambers of Congress.

What happens next with the Epstein files?

Now that the Senate has agreed to pass the House-backed Epstein Files Transparency Act, it will pass to Trump himself.

The legislation will be transmitted to his desk as soon as it arrives to the Senate.

When that will actually happen remains unclear.

The Senate has yet to receive the bill from the House and it typically takes some time to transmit legislation from one chamber to another.

It could still be hours before Senate receives the bill and can pass it on to the president.

Trump wrote on social media that he "doesn't care" when that happens.

"I don't care when the Senate passes the House Bill, whether tonight, or at some other time in the near future," he said.

"I just don't want Republicans to take their eyes off all of the Victories that we've had."

Once the bill hits his desk, it will be up to Trump to actually sign it into law.

Despite previously calling the whole issue a "Democratic hoax", the president has said that he would sign the measure if it passed both houses of Congress.

READ MORE: Huge vote on Epstein files after Trump backflip

When will the Epstein files be released?

Once Trump signs the act into law, the US Justice Department will have just 30 days to release all of the Epstein files.

Some sensitive documents and details may be withheld or redacted, including:

• personal information about victims
• explicit depictions of child abuse
• anything that could jeopardise ongoing federal investigations
• depictions of death or injury
• information that has been classified to protect national security

Once the files have been released, the Justice Department will have 15 days to provide Congress with a full list of what has been released and what has been withheld.

It will also be required to provide a report on any redactions and a full list of government officials and "politically exposed persons" named in the files.

How would the material be released?

It's unclear at this stage how the Epstein files will be released.

Some documents that have already been made public by the administration have been released via the House Oversight Committee.

Additional files may be handed over to the Committee to release, but nothing has been confirmed yet.

READ MORE: 'It's just crazy': Youngest-ever Aussie baby to survive premature birth

Who voted against the Epstein files being released?

All but one member of the US House of Representatives voted in favour of releasing the Epstein files.

The one holdout was Congressman Clay Higgins, who voted against passing the bill.

"I have been a principled 'NO' on this bill from the beginning," Higgins said in a post on X after the vote.

"What was wrong with the bill three months ago is still wrong today.

"It abandons 250 years of criminal justice procedure in America."

Higgins voiced concern with the legislative language of the bill and claimed that if enacted in its current form, it could reveal and injure "thousands of innocent people".

"This type of broad reveal of criminal investigative files, released to a rabid media, will absolutely result in innocent people being hurt," he said.

The congressman said he would change his vote if the Senate amended the bill to "properly address privacy of victims and other Americans, who are named but not criminally implicated".

READ MORE: Legendary radio broadcaster John Laws to be farewelled at state funeral today

What are the Epstein files?

The so-called Epstein files are a collection of documents from multiple investigations into disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Epstein and his co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell.

One case is from 2008 and involved a 14-year-old girl.

Her parents alleged that Epstein had molested her at his Palm Beach home and photos of girls were later found in the home.

Epstein was convicted of soliciting prostitution from a minor and was registered as a sex offender, but a plea deal allowed him to escape a jail sentence.

Then in 2019, Epstein was charged with running a network of underage girls for sex.

He was arrested but died by suicide in prison before going to trial.

Over the years, the US Justice Department collected countless documents and other pieces of evidence pertaining to these and other investigations into Epstein, including victim interview transcripts, items taken in raids, and photographs.

Until now, most of these documents have been kept from the public.

Some have been put into the public domain in the years since Epstein's death, either through official releases or leaks.

Several of the released documents have mentioned Trump, including one email released this month in which Epstein wrote "I know how dirty Donald is".

Trump has repeatedly downplayed his connection to Epstein.

DOWNLOAD THE 9NEWS APP: Stay across all the latest in breaking news, sport, politics and the weather via our news app and get notifications sent straight to your smartphone. Available on the Apple App Store and Google Play.

A shark alert has been issued for a popular surf spot in Western Australia today following the bumping of a diver by a 2.5m great white shark.

The diver was fishing for rock lobster off the Gnarabup Boat Ramp, near Margaret River, when he was jolted by the predator 30 metres offshore about 4.30pm yesterday.

The state government said the diver was not injured.

READ MORE: Shark knocks panicked foilboarder into the water at WA's Prevelly Beach

Officers from the Department of Primary Industries are monitoring the situation.

Beachgoers are being urged to take extra caution in the Gnarabup Boat Ramp area, which is about three hours south-west of Perth.

They should also follow any beach closures and keep up to date on shark activity in the area.

Anyone who spots a shark should report it to the Water Police by calling (08) 9442 8600.

The alert comes after a kite surfer had a lucky escape at a nearby beach when he was attacked by a shark.

Andy McDonald was on his daily surf at Prevelly Beach last Tuesday when the sail of his wingfoil was pulled under.

The 61-year-old managed to fight off the shark, making it out with only a bite to his board.

DOWNLOAD THE 9NEWS APP: Stay across all the latest in breaking news, sport, politics and the weather via our news app and get notifications sent straight to your smartphone. Available on the Apple App Store and Google Play.



Both Democrats and Republicans readied for a unanimous vote this morning to pass a bill that would force a release of the case files relating to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

But in the end, one man stood alone in opposition: Republican Representative Clay Higgins.

Higgins, who is in his fifth term representing a congressional district in south-west Louisiana, explained in a lengthy statement that he was "a principled 'NO' on this bill from the beginning".

READ MORE: Trump hurls outrageous slur at female reporter

He raised some of the same objections that House Speaker Mike Johnson, another Louisiana Republican, had with the bill, yet even Johnson said he would vote for it because, "None of us want to go on record and in any way be accused of not being for maximum transparency."

For Higgins, a fervent Trump supporter and a member of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, that wasn't a problem.

He refused to give in to the building pressure, both within the Republican base and from survivors of Epstein's abuse, to pass the bill, even as both President Donald Trump and Johnson relented in their opposition to the legislation.

READ MORE: Huge vote on Epstein files after Trump backflip

He said that his concern with the bill was that it "reveals and injures thousands of innocent people – witnesses, people who provided alibis, family members, etc. If enacted in its current form, this type of broad reveal of criminal investigative files, released to a rabid media, will absolutely result in innocent people being hurt."

Higgins suggested he would be open to voting for the bill if the Senate amended it to protect the privacy of those "who are named but not criminally implicated".

But the bill's main sponsors have warned that was only a measure to protect people in Epstein's orbit from embarrassment, and Senate leaders have shown no interest in taking up the proposed changes.

READ MORE: 'It's just crazy': Youngest-ever Aussie baby to survive premature birth

Yet Higgins is also no stranger to controversy. As a former law enforcement officer, he faced a series of allegations of misconduct and became politically involved after achieving viral fame by creating brash Crime Stoppers videos.

In Congress, he chairs the subcommittee of the House Oversight Committee that initiated a subpoena of the Department of Justice for the Epstein case files.

But even when Democrats on the subcommittee convinced several Republicans to vote with them to issue the subpoena, Higgins was one of the few who stood opposed. He also pressed to have the subcommittee subpoena former president Bill Clinton.

"I've never handled a subpoena like this. This is some fascinating stuff," Higgins said at the time. On Tuesday, he pointed to the oversight panel's work to investigate the government's handling of the Epstein, saying that it was being done "in a manner that provides all due protections for innocent Americans."

READ MORE: The Epstein files: What can we expect to learn once they are released?

Last year, Higgins also faced an attempt by Democrats to censure him for racist comments he had made about Haitian immigrants after Trump's own comments about the Haitian community in Springfield, Ohio.

In a social media post, Higgins called Haitians "wild. Eating pets, vudu, nastiest country in the western hemisphere, cults, slapstick gangsters."

But after members of the Congressional Black Caucus, a group of Democratic lawmakers, confronted him about the post, Higgins deleted it and partially walked back the comments, saying they were intended for gang members.

At the time, Johnson defended Higgins, calling him "a very frank and outspoken person."

"He's also a very principled man," Johnson added.

DOWNLOAD THE 9NEWS APP: Stay across all the latest in breaking news, sport, politics and the weather via our news app and get notifications sent straight to your smartphone. Available on the Apple App Store and Google Play.

Criminals are offering "quick cash" to international university students heading home in exchange for their bank accounts and identity documents, Australian Federal Police warn.

Scam syndicates looking to launder millions are targeting students with deals ranging from $200 to $500 for access to their Australian bank accounts, plus a potential commission on the illegal funds that flow through. 

They are also offering to buy or rent identity documents – like passports and driver's licences – to open new, fake accounts.

READ MORE: 'Quiet, piggy': Trump insults female reporter after Epstein query

The AFP-led Joint Policing Cybercrime Coordination Centre says these offers might sound like an easy way to make money before flying home, but they are a trap that links students directly to global crime networks.

"What might look like a harmless favour, or an easy money earner can result in criminal charges, visa cancellations, and permanent bans from returning to Australia," AFP Detective Superintendent Marie Andersson said.

The real price of 'easy money'

Det-Supt Andersson explained that by selling their accounts, students become "money mules" and enable serious fraud against innocent people, including retirees and other vulnerable Australians.

"We are seeing criminal networks overseas launder millions through bank accounts belonging to young people, and as a result, they too could be charged with offences like money laundering," she said, adding that once a student is caught, they are the one who faces the heavy consequences.

The AFP's new awareness campaign, "Your Name. Your Responsibility" is urging students to understand the massive risk.

Det-Supt Andersson stressed that leaving Australia doesn't make the problem disappear: "Leaving the country doesn't erase your digital footprint. Your bank accounts, name and identity are traceable by police around the world, and you'll still be connected to any crimes to which you are tied or responsible."

According to Scamwatch, $141.7 million was lost to scammers via bank transfers last year.

Speaking out about the crimes earlier this year, Australian Banking Association Chief Executive Anna Bligh said mule accounts were a key part of a scammer's business model and banks were focused on shutting them down.

"I urge Australians to steer clear if you've seen an advertisement or are approached to rent or sell your bank account," she said.

"There's a good chance you're being recruited to hide the profits of criminal activity."

If you are concerned your identity has been compromised, contact the national identity and cyber support service IDCARE.

Sign up here to receive our daily newsletters and breaking news alerts, sent straight to your inbox.

Kids are dropping sport, reading, music, and the arts as social media use soars, prompting concerns about their development.

New research from the University of South Australia found that social media use among children and teens had risen by more than 200 per cent since before the COVID-19 pandemic.

The researchers tracked more than 14,000 South Australian students aged 11 to 14 from 2019 to 2022.

READ MORE: Optus hit with maximum fine over phone scam

Over the four-year period, the number of young people who used social media daily jumped from 26 per cent to 85 per cent.

This correlated with an increase of the proportion of children who never read for fun from 11 per cent to 53 per cent.

The amount of young people who never took part in arts activities rose from 26 per cent to 70 per cent.

READ MORE: Aussies sit on 209 million days of unused leave as job market shifts

The proportion of students who never did extra-curricular music activities rose from 70 per cent to 85 per cent.

And non-users of social media went from 31 per cent of the cohort to just 3 per cent.

Boys experienced a steeper drop in reading, while girls consistently used social media more often.

READ MORE: Tropical Cyclone Fina forms off Australian coast

The researchers said these figures had not reversed in the years since the pandemic restrictions were lifted.

Conversely, time spent watching TV, doing chores, and playing electronic games increased during the pandemic but returned to pre-pandemic levels by 2022.

"There's no doubt that social media has become deeply embedded in children's daily lives. But now it's at the point where it's replacing many of the activities that support healthy development – like sport, reading, and creative play," UniSA researcher and PhD candidate Mason Zhou said.

"Because these changes happened during a critical stage of adolescence, and because they've persisted three years after COVID restrictions ended, they may have lasting impacts on young people's health and wellbeing – and that's a real cause for concern."

With the looming implementation of Australia's social media ban for children under 16, the researchers said this study could show where extra support would be needed for younger teens and children.

Co-researcher Professor Dot Dumuid said more programs and policies that encouraged young people to re-engage in enriching activities such as sport, music, arts, and reading were needed.

"If we want to support young people's wellbeing, we need to help them rebalance their time – encouraging them to reconnect with real-world activities that build skills, confidence and social connection," Dumuid said.

"Children who participate in sports, arts and other extra-curricular activities generally have better academic outcomes, stronger self-identity, improved social skills and better mental health."

Dumuid said the dominance of social media posed developmental risks to adolescents.

"The pending social media bans are certainly an intervention aimed at protecting children," she said.

"When access is restricted, children may shift to alternative platforms like gaming, messaging apps or TV. Tracking these behavioural shifts and examining their short- and long-term impacts on young people's health and wellbeing will be important as we move beyond the ban."

The full paper can be found here.

DOWNLOAD THE 9NEWS APP: Stay across all the latest in breaking news, sport, politics and the weather via our news app and get notifications sent straight to your smartphone. Available on the Apple App Store and Google Play.

Australians are being warned to watch out for dodgy sales tactics and false advertising as the Black Friday sales continue.

The ACCC has already put retailers on notice for misleading or deceptive sales advertising urged consumers to watch out for shopping scams.

Here a consumer law expert breaks down how to spot misleading deals and what to do if you think you've been misled by false advertising during the Black Friday sales.

READ MORE: The new European Entry/Exit System explained

Are Black Friday deals really worth it?

They can be if you shop smart, according to University of Melbourne law professor Jeannie Marie Paterson.

That means watching out for manipulative advertising tactics like countdowns and timers designed to pressure consumers into overspending.

"Retailers and marketers want people to buy more than they need," Paterson told 9news.com.au.

"People who run marketing campaigns have studied psychology [and] we need to realise that they know more about us than we know about ourselves, so just beware."

How do retailers create fake or misleading discounts?

The ACCC has warned retailers it is on high alert for misleading advertising tactics during the Black Friday sales period, including:

• advertising a sale as 'up to X per cent off' but the 'up to' text is not prominently displayed, or few products are on sale at the advertised rate
• using misleading time representations (e.g. saying sale is for 'X days only', using a countdown timer) that don't reflect the true duration of the sale
• claiming a sale is store-wide or site-wide when some products are excluded
• using fine print or disclaimers to limit headline claims about a sale (e.g. members-only deals)
• using misleading pricing representations that inflate the pre-sale price of a product

Paterson said many of these tactics boil down to creating a misleading sense of pressure for consumers to buy and warned Aussie shoppers to avoid such deals.

Companies caught breaking the rules can face investigations and fines.

Michael Hill, My House and Hairhouse online paid penalties earlier this year for allegedly making false and misleading representations about their Black Friday sales in 2024.

READ MORE: Are we really in an AI tech bubble and what happens if it bursts?

What can I do if I've been misled by false advertising?

Businesses that mislead consumers through false advertising or claims can be subject to fines and other penalties in Australia.

To protect yourself from potentially false or misleading advertising, Paterson recommends taking screenshots of online advertisements, product listings, and shopping carts.

It takes just a few seconds and can provide crucial evidence if you don't get what was promised.

If you think you've been a victim of false advertising, you can report it to the ACCC.

Is it legal for stores to inflate prices before a sale?

No, but that doesn't stop it from happening.

Some retailers increase the price of a product before discounting it, resulting in a sale price that seems better than it really is.

This is misleading and illegal, but it's hard for consumers to spot unless they were tracking the product's price before it went on sale.

Some use online archives like The Wayback Machine to check a product's price history before buying, but it doesn't always work.

It's better to plan ahead if you want to avoid being duped.

"Go and do some research on the products you might be interested in first," Paterson said.

"Then when sales times comes, you can shop from an informed position that you're getting the discount you actually think you are."

READ MORE: Cancelling a gym membership? These are your consumer rights in Australia

What are the most common Black Friday scams to look out for?

Aussies have lost millions to shopping scams already this year and they're currently the most reported scam type involving financial loss in 2025, according to the ACCC.

It's warning consumers to watch out for these scams over the Black Friday sales period.

"Scammers love Black Friday sales too because they know shoppers are looking for bargains and they rely on creating urgency and pressure that can come with a busy shopping period," ACCC Deputy Chair Catriona Lowe said.

"We remind consumers to take their time, check the legitimacy of websites and its offers, and be cautious about sharing personal or financial information online."

Shopping scams initiated through fake websites, advertisements, social media, and mobile apps have already resulted in $122 million in losses this year.

Paterson said that if a Black Friday deal sounds "too good to be true", it probably is.

She also issued a specific warning for the 'ghost store' scam, which has tricked plenty of Aussies out of their hard-earned cash in a matter of minutes.

"Ghost stores are stores that often say they're closing down and selling off their stock, but in fact don't really exist," she explained.

"They're just a scam."

READ MORE: Australia Post reveals deadline for mailing Christmas parcels

Are online deals better than in-store deals?

It depends on the retailer.

Some retailers offer online-exclusive deals, including discounts that may be better than what they can afford to offer in bricks and mortar stores.

"The overheads for retailers selling online are much lower than selling in store," Paterson explained.

"We also know that people are less likely to return products they buy online."

But she warned that digital deals may come with hidden catches.

For example, if you order a product from an overseas retailer your consumer protections will be more limited than if you buy from an Australian business.

"If you buy a product and it's faulty or it doesn't fit, you don't have a lot of return rights," Paterson said.

Can I get a refund on a Black Friday sale item?

It depends.

Some retailers say that products bought in Black Friday sales can't be returned, but that doesn't override your consumer rights.

"In Australia we have consumer guarantees, which means you do have a right to a refund or replacement for goods that are faulty," Paterson said.

"But there is no legal right for change of mind returns."

The rules also apply to overseas retailers that sell here as Australian law applies to goods sold into Australia, but it may be harder to enforce.

If in doubt, check the fine print before making purchases in the Black Friday sales.

Have you got a story? Contact reporter Maddison Leach at Google Play.