Fast Fashion, Slow Delivery: How Broken Promises Cost Mosaic Brands $25m

Background

Last week, former Australian fashion retailer, Mosaic Brands Pty Ltd (“Mosaic”), which owned prominent brands such as Millers, Noni B, Rivers, Katies, Rockmans and W. Lane, was ordered to pay a $25.05 million penalty that serves as a stark warning for Australia’s consumer and retail community.  

Despite collapsing into voluntary administration in October 2024 (and subsequently entering liquidation in July 2025), at its zenith, Mosaic had approximately 7.8 million online members and circa 800 bricks-and-mortar stores across Australia.  

In March 2024, the ACCC initiated proceedings against Mosaic in the Federal Court of Australia, alleging that across its various brand websites, Mosaic represented to consumers that products purchased online would be dispatched and delivered to them within 2 to 14 business days (“Delivery Representations”).  

The Court found that Mosaic had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in breach of the Australian Consumer Law, by accepting payment for products from consumers whilst failing to deliver those products within a reasonable time.  

The extent of Mosaic’s delivery failures was truly staggering – the Court found that:  

• 739,114 items were not delivered within the times specified on Mosaic’s websites, or within a reasonable time, representing 25% of total online items ordered and dispatched by Mosaic within a 6-month period; and  

• 4,213 items were not delivered at all.  

The ACCC’s investigation into Mosaic also revealed systemic fulfillment issues involving its external logistics providers, noting that 50% of the items in question were dispatched from Mosaic’s warehouses more than 30 days after the order date, and about 33% were dispatched more than 40 days after the order date.  

In an effort to mitigate its legal exposure, Mosaic had included disclaimers across its various brand websites to suggest that it was experiencing shipment delays due to increased order volumes caused by COVID-19 and flagging that deliveries may be delayed by a “few more days”. These disclaimers were ultimately futile in circumventing the Delivery Representations.  

ACCC Deputy Chair, Ms Catriona Lowe, was emphatic in her criticism of Mosaic Brands and its conduct. She noted:  

“Delivery times matter and it is unacceptable to mislead consumers about this aspect of a sale. A large number of Australians – and close to a quarter of online goods ordered from the Mosaic Group were affected by it.”

Ms Lowe also put other eCommerce brands squarely on notice by commenting:  

“All online retailers should be aware that excessive delivery delays after accepting payment can lead to penalties of this magnitude.”  

Key Learnings

The Mosaic case establishes some clear takeaways for consumer and retail brands operating in Australia:  

1. Delivery times matter: representations as to anticipated delivery times are of paramount importance and should be backstopped by operational capability. When making delivery commitments to consumers, brands can expose themselves to legal risk if they fail to consistently meet those promises. We recommend that brands routinely reconcile their delivery commitments against actual performance data. If circumstances change, any purported disclaimers or qualifying statements ought to be coherent, genuine and precise to accommodate delays.  

2. Not just marketing copy: delivery promises can no longer be viewed as ‘set and forget’ marketing copy. They require ongoing calibration. When operational circumstances change (like during COVID-19) it is incumbent on brands to respond quickly by updating the delivery timeframes advertised to consumers. Mosaic continued to rely on the Delivery Representations in circumstances where it knew its delivery performance had dramatically deteriorated. The prudent approach would have been for Mosaic to temporarily adjust their advertised delivery timeframes to reflect more realistic outcomes during a period of considerable disruption.  

3. External logistics management: outsourcing fulfilment to third-party logistics providers does not automatically absolve brands of liability. This is why it is imperative that brands have robust contractual arrangements in place with their fulfilment partners, enabling them to proactively manage these parties and hold them accountable for inadequate performance.