Regulators know under-quoting works, and the law is still catching up
is not just an ethics problem. It is a regulated offence in several Australian states, and the rules that exist sit on a spectrum from prescriptive disclosure regimes to outright bans on price guides. Victoria has invested more enforcement into the issue than any other jurisdiction — yet the practice persists as the top real estate sales complaint the regulator receives . Understanding what the law actually requires, and where it falls short, helps you calibrate your expectations before you walk into an open home.
Alongside the headline figure:
- 5,000+ complaints received and 2,800+ sales campaigns monitored since September 2022 .
- 292 official warnings issued in addition to the 203 fines .
- Around 30% of 2024 complaints came from other real estate agents .
Nearly a third of complaints coming from other agents is telling. Ethical agents lose business to competitors who under-quote, because the under-quoted listings attract more buyer enquiries. The agents themselves see the problem and are using the complaint system to level the field.
The three regulatory models, and why none of them fully work
Australian states fall into three camps on under-quoting regulation. The differences matter, because the protections you can rely on change the moment you cross a border.
The first model is prescriptive disclosure. Victoria and NSW define exactly what agents must disclose, how price ranges must be calculated, and what language is prohibited. Victoria requires a for every listing, listing the agent's , the suburb median, and three used to support the estimate . The range, if a range is quoted, cannot exceed the bottom figure by more than 10%. NSW applies similar rules through the Property and Stock Agents Act 2002 . NSW is currently consulting on reforms modelled on Victoria's laws .
The second model is an outright price-guide ban. Queensland took the opposite approach. Under the Property Occupations Act 2014, agents cannot give any price guide for properties going to auction . The logic: if agents cannot quote a price, they cannot under-quote. The trade-off is that buyers get no official price indication before auction day, which creates its own information problems.
The third model is general consumer law only. SA, WA, TAS and NT have no specific under-quoting legislation. Buyers rely on the general prohibition on misleading and deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law . A buyer who suspects under-quoting must prove the agent's conduct was misleading, which is a higher bar than simply showing the property sold above the stated range.
State | Primary rule | Max penalty |
|---|---|---|
VIC | Statement of Information + 10% range cap | $47,422 per breach |
NSW | Estimated price in agency agreement + 10% cap | $22,000 per breach + loss of commission |
QLD | No price guides permitted at auction | General consumer law penalties |
SA, WA, TAS, NT | General misleading conduct provisions | ACL penalties |
ACT | Price must reflect reasonable market value | Penalties under Agents Act 2003 |
Why the rules have not eliminated under-quoting
Even in the most tightly regulated states, under-quoting persists. Three structural factors explain why.
Incentive misalignment. Agents are paid on commission. More buyer interest means more competitive bidding, which means a higher sale price and a higher commission. The financial incentive to under-quote is baked into the business model.
Enforcement lag. Taskforces investigate after the sale. By the time a fine lands, the buyer has already overpaid and the agent has already collected their commission. Extended commission confiscation powers introduced in Victoria in 2024 may change this, but retrospective enforcement cannot undo the emotional and financial cost to the buyer .
The comparable sales loophole. An estimated selling price is only as honest as the comparables used to calculate it. An agent who cherry-picks older sales, smaller properties, or homes in less desirable streets can justify a lower estimate while technically complying with the law. Strengthened Victorian guidelines introduced in 2025 now require agents to justify their selection and use "more appropriate comparable local properties" . Enforcement still depends on complaints and investigations after the fact.
What this means before your next open home
The rules offer real protections, but they are not a substitute for doing your own research. In Victoria or NSW, request the Statement of Information or ask the agent to show you the comparable sales backing their estimate — these are legal requirements, not optional courtesies. In Queensland, do not expect a price guide at auction; build your own valuation from comparable sales data before the auction. In SA, WA, TAS and NT, the responsibility for price verification falls entirely on you.
The 10% range cap sounds straightforward, but it constrains how wide the range can be, not how low the bottom can sit. An agent who believes a property will sell for around $1.1 million can legally quote "$950,000 to $1,045,000" if they select comparables that support the lower end. The range is within 10%, so it complies with the letter of the law. A buyer budgeting at $1 million will still waste weeks of emotional energy on a property they cannot afford.