On this page
About the National Disability Insurance Scheme
The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) provides funding to eligible people with permanent and significant disabilities, known as NDIS participants.
The scheme funds products and services that NDIS participants need to be independent, enjoy a better quality of life and take part in the community. These are called NDIS supports.
The businesses that supply NDIS supports are known as NDIS providers.
Taskforce into harms affecting NDIS participants
The ACCC chairs a taskforce to address consumer harms affecting NDIS participants. These harms include:
- participants paying higher prices for products or services compared to non-NDIS consumers
- conduct by providers that may breach the Australian Consumer Law
- unfair contract terms
- scams.
The taskforce includes the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) and NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (NDIS Commission).
Observations of consumer issues in the NDIS report
The ACCC released a report on its observations of consumer issues in the NDIS in February 2026.
Key findings
Like any other business, NDIS providers must comply with Australian Consumer Law.
Breaking consumer law attracts penalties and the ACCC can take enforcement action.
Our report identified concerns with providers not doing the right thing.
The key findings relate to:
- false or misleading advertising by providers
- providers failing to meet consumer guarantees rights
- providers overcharging or wrongfully accepting payment
- contract issues, including unfair terms
- harms to First Nations participants
- scams
- false or misleading claims about specialist disability accommodation.
False or misleading advertising by NDIS providers
NDIS providers must not make statements or create impressions that lead consumers to believe their products and services are eligible NDIS supports when they are not.
It’s illegal under consumer law to make false or misleading claims about a product or service, including claims a product or service is approved or endorsed by a third party.
No product or service is automatically NDIS approved or funded for all participants. Whether products and services will be funded generally depends on the needs and goals in a participant’s plan.
Some businesses falsely claim their products and services are NDIS approved, funded or endorsed by the NDIA. They tell participants they can claim them as a support under the participant’s plan without knowing if they are eligible NDIS supports.
Some products and services are excluded from being funded under the scheme. The NDIA provides guidance on what products and services are eligible for funding.
The NDIA can reject claims for non-eligible products and services. This can leave NDIS participants with debts they can’t afford to repay.
Read about what can happen when a business makes false or misleading claims.
Case study: Joan’s story
Joan is an NDIS participant living with mobility issues. After looking at a business website, she buys a massage chair thinking she can pay for it with NDIS funding.
Joan chooses this business as it has ‘I Heart NDIS’ logos and ‘NDIS approved’ banners on its website.
It also has a frequently asked questions page that states massage chairs are an eligible NDIS support item.
After buying the chair, Joan submits a claim to the NDIA. The NDIA rejects the claim because massage chairs aren’t eligible NDIS supports.
The business refuses to refund her because it doesn’t accept ‘change of mind’ returns.
Joan is now in debt. She can’t afford the repayments and is paying credit card interest.
The business has misled Joan by giving her incorrect information. It risks being fined if found to have broken consumer law.
ACCC action against false and misleading advertising
We have taken action to stop and deter false and misleading advertising about NDIS funded products and services.
We work with the NDIA to address false and misleading advertising. We have contacted many providers about our concerns with their advertising.
Misleading pricing which creates a false sense of urgency
Some providers use false and misleading ‘was/now’ pricing to promote NDIS supports. This type of pricing can create a false sense of urgency to buy.
This happens when businesses display a marked-down price, but:
- the item was never sold, or only sold for a short time, at the higher price before the sale
- the business sold only a few items at the ‘was’ price right before the sale
- the business offered the item at the sale price for an extended period, so the sale price has become the normal price.
This kind of pricing activity can make participants think they’re getting a bargain and stop them from looking around at other options. It can also lead participants to think if they don’t buy now, they’ll have to pay more later, which is often not the case.
Read about:
Consumer guarantees rights not being met
Consumer guarantees are automatic, legally protected rights consumers have when they buy products and services.
NDIS participants have the same rights as all consumers. The consumer guarantees apply to transactions between NDIS providers and participants.
Participants tell us they are having trouble exercising their consumer guarantee rights. This happens when:
- support equipment is faulty or doesn’t meet the specifications paid for
- support services are not carried out with due skill and care.
Some participants reported not receiving appropriate remedies for months or years.
Read about consumer rights and guarantees.
Case study: Mila’s story
Mila is an NDIS participant living with a neuromuscular disorder. The disorder affects her movement and breathing. She spends a lot of time in bed and has help from a carer.
Mila bought a hospital bed for $24,000 from an NDIS provider. The contract included several modifications to the bed to make it suitable for her.
The bed arrived damaged and did not include many of the modifications.
In line with her consumer rights, Mila contacted the provider to ask them to repair or replace the bed. The provider said they would contact the manufacturer to try to get the repairs done.
After almost a year, Mila still does not have a remedy.
Without a modified bed, Mila is at risk of serious falls and compromised breathing.
The business has not met its consumer guarantees obligation to provide a bed matching the description in the contract. The provider is responsible for providing Mila with a remedy.
Case study: Dawood’s story
Dawood’s NDIS plan funds a wheelchair to ensure he can be mobile and can take part in community activities.
Dawood bought an electric wheelchair for $10,000 from a registered NDIS provider.
Just over 12 months later, it started losing power and coming to sudden stops.
Dawood contacted the provider. They said that as the 12-month warranty had expired, the repairs would cost $2,000.
Dawood tried for months without success to press for his rights under the consumer guarantees protections.
Until the provider fixes the chair, Dawood must limit activities outside of his home.
The business has not met its consumer guarantees obligation. Dawood should not need to pay for repairs or rely on a warranty where there is a major failure of a product intended to work for more than 12 months.
ACCC action relating to consumer guarantees
The ACCC can take court action against NDIS providers for making false or misleading claims about consumer guarantees and how these protections apply.
Providers risk penalties under consumer law when they make false or misleading statements about consumer guarantees.
Overcharging for products and services
The NDIS Commission has powers under the NDIS Code of Conduct to take action against providers who set a higher price for NDIS participants and cannot justify the price difference.
Report any conduct like this to the NDIS Commission.
Charging for products and services not supplied
Some NDIS participants told us providers were charging for NDIS supports they never provided.
It is illegal under consumer law for NDIS providers to charge for products or services when they:
- don’t intend to supply them
- know or should know they can’t supply them at the agreed time or within a reasonable time
- intend to supply different goods or services than what they promised.
This is called wrongly accepting payment.
Case study: Aisha’s story
Aisha’s daughter has difficulties with speaking. The speech therapist purchased a tablet with a pre-installed accessibility app.
The business told Aisha the tablet with the app installed was in stock. They said they’d deliver it within 4 weeks. The business knew the product wasn’t in stock and didn’t know when new stock would arrive.
After 3 months, Aisha contacted the company who told her they were waiting for stock to arrive.
The business shouldn’t have told Aisha it was in stock or accepted payment as they knew they couldn’t deliver it within the time specified or a reasonable timeframe. The business is likely to have broken consumer law.
ACCC actions for businesses wrongly accepting payment
Wrongly accepting payment is against consumer law. When reported, we may refer these types of complaints as fraud allegations to the NDIA.
The ACCC works with the NDIS Commission and NDIA to investigate and may take compliance or enforcement action. NDIS providers who break consumer law risk high penalties.
Read about fines and penalties for breaking consumer law.
Scams targeting NDIS participants
ACCC data indicates NDIS participants are frequent targets of scam activity. Common scams include people pretending to work for government agencies, and romance scams.
NDIS providers can also be targets of scam activity.
Impersonation scams
Scammers often impersonate myGov to steal personal information and money. They usually send phishing emails or text messages that link to a fake login page. After stealing login details, they access myGov accounts to redirect payments and lodge false claims.
Scamwatch has heard of scammers impersonating NDIS government representatives. These scammers request donations or personal details.
Scammers also target NDIS providers. They impersonate businesses to get money or sensitive information.
Visit the Scamwatch website to learn about impersonation scams.
Romance scams
Scamwatch reports show that people with disability report high losses to romance scams.
Case study: Shelley’s story
A scammer spent months grooming Shelley, a 65-year-old NDIS participant.
Grooming is when a scammer builds trust with the victim through regular contact.
The scammer pretended to be a celebrity and said he would move to Australia to be with her in a relationship. Over several months Shelley sent the scammer more than $9,000 in gift cards. This left her unable to afford basic expenses.
Shelley’s physiotherapist and carer noticed the warning signs and reported it to Scamwatch.
This case highlights:
- the crucial role of NDIS providers in recognising red flags
- the need for stronger referral processes to protect victims.
Harms to First Nations participants
There are over 60,000 active NDIS participants who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.
First Nations people and people living in remote communities have the same consumer rights as all consumers.
Some NDIS participants in remote First Nations communities reported concerns about:
- a lack of access to the NDIS and a lack of understanding about how it works
- plan managers spending NDIS funding inappropriately
- NDIS providers taking payment for supports not provided
- specialist disability housing that doesn’t meet the housing needs of participants
- disconnected data on First Nations people’s access to and outcomes within the NDIS. This makes it difficult to accurately assess needs and develop targeted solutions
- availability not meeting demand for services in rural, regional and remote locations
- lack of support services with ties to local communities and cultural understanding.
ACCC action to support First Nations NDIS participants
The ACCC has a dedicated team focused on better understanding and addressing the harms faced by First Nations peoples.
The team shares information for First Nations consumers by targeted outreach and the Your Rights Mob Facebook page.
Specialist disability accommodation
Specialist disability accommodation is for NDIS participants with high support needs.
This housing often includes wider doors, wheelchair accessible ramps, and flatter surfaces.
The ACCC has concerns about some businesses’ conduct in specialist disability accommodation markets.
Read about specialist disability accommodation contracts.
Contract issues
Contracts for NDIS supports are called service agreements. When an NDIS participant agrees to buy products or services from an NDIS provider, this is entering into a contract.
For many NDIS supports, the service agreement can be in writing or based on conversations or electronic communications.
The NDIA and NDIS Commission recommend that all agreements are in writing. This way, both participants and providers can make sure:
- the costs and support expectations are clear
- there is a record of what has been agreed to check back on.
Agreements for specialist disability accommodation or certain behavioural therapies must be in writing.
NDIS participants should not be pressured into accepting a contract. They should have access to a person who is independent from the NDIS provider to help make decisions.
Case study: Maeve's story
Maeve is the carer for her adult daughter Lucy, an NDIS participant.
Maeve engaged an NDIS provider to help her bathe, dress, feed and support Lucy when she leaves the house.
There was no written contract in place; all arrangements were made by conversation.
There was a dispute with the provider about payment rates. Lucy’s NDIS funding ran out much quicker than anticipated.
This meant Maeve received invoices for past services that she needed to pay out of her own savings.
Maeve didn’t pay the invoices as she wasn’t sure if the provider was charging for services not delivered.
Maeve tried to get help from Lucy’s plan manager and the NDIA but couldn’t resolve the issue with the provider.
The NDIS provider took legal action, but Maeve was never notified of the proceedings. Because she didn’t attend the hearing, the provider was able to get a default judgment. This resulted in a court order that took over $20,000 from Maeve’s bank account to pay the invoices.
The money in Maeve’s account was her entire savings. Maeve is now under financial stress and struggling to provide for herself and her family.