The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has decided that when Grill'd promised to donate $1 for every burger sold on a Tuesday to plant trees, the fine print might as well have been written in disappearing ink. The consumer watchdog sued the burger chain on Tuesday, alleging that between January 2021 and April 2024, Grill'd dramatically overstated its environmental generosity.
Here's how it worked: Grill'd told customers it would donate $1 from every burger purchased on a Tuesday toward tree planting. Simple, right? Not quite. According to the ACCC, while Grill'd sold over 5 million burgers during that period, only about 4% of those sales actually triggered a donation. The terms and conditions were so restrictive that only dine-in orders made at the front counter qualified. Online orders, takeaway, and even orders placed in the restaurant via a QR code at the table? Sorry, no tree for you. Oh, and you also had to be a member of Grill'd's Relish loyalty program. So much for saving the planet on a whim.
On Tuesday, Grill'd admitted it had donated just $250,000 to tree planting from the campaign. The ACCC chair, Gina Cass-Gottlieb, said this was a clear case of greenwashing. “Grill’d is a large fast-food chain and operates across Australia, meaning that its conduct had the potential to mislead many consumers nationwide about the environmental benefits of their purchase,” she said, in what is probably the least surprising statement of the week.
A spokesperson for Grill'd insisted the promotion was “undertaken with positive intent” and resulted in the planting of 100,000 trees and restoration of more than 40 hectares of forest. They added that Grill'd takes Australian Consumer Law “very seriously,” which is a curious claim given the current lawsuit. But hey, they also said their reputation is “forged in trust,” so maybe we're all just being cynical.
This isn't Grill'd's first brush with controversy. The chain, which operates 180 stores, has previously been in hot water over pay and conditions, including employing young people in a training program that legally allowed them to pay less than the minimum wage. It's also facing a separate class action from Gordon Legal, backed by the retail workers' union SDA, over allegedly denying staff their entitled 10-minute paid rest breaks on shifts of four hours or more. When that class action was launched in December last year, CEO Simon Crowe called staff “our greatest asset” and said the company's enterprise agreement made it among the highest-paying employers in the industry. So, you know, swings and roundabouts.