+64 7 872 0236 [email protected]

RegulatoryUpdates

Business briefs

Commercial Law, Consumer Protection, Employment Law, Privacy Law, Regulatory Compliance, Trade & Investment
0

Commerce Commission – unconscionable conduct

For the first time, the Commerce Commission has filed proceedings under the prohibition on unconscionable conduct in the Fair Trading Act 1986. This development suggests that active enforcement in this area is underway.

Unconscionable conduct is business behaviour that falls well below accepted New Zealand standards and goes beyond ordinary commercial practice to conduct that is clearly unfair and unreasonable. This is one of several areas the Commission has identified as an enforcement priority.

The Commission has taken action against Brand Developers Limited (trading as The TV Shop) and Tech Vault Enterprises Limited (trading as HouseSmile), alleging both used high-pressure sales tactics on vulnerable consumers, including people with cognitive impairments or serious illnesses. The Commission considers this conduct a clear departure from acceptable business standards.

Businesses found in breach of the prohibition risk a fine of up to $600,000 and individuals may be liable for a fine of up to $200,000. Courts may also order businesses to compensate affected customers.

This action serves as a timely reminder to all businesses to ensure their sales practices are up to scratch, especially when they are dealing with vulnerable customers.

 

Overseas Investment Act 2005 reform

The Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Act came into force on 6 March 2026, delivering a significant overhaul of New Zealand’s foreign investment framework.

The reforms are designed to make it easier and faster for overseas investors to invest in New Zealand, while ensuring the government retains the ability to scrutinise transactions that could affect New Zealand’s national interests.

Part of the reform involved streamlining the overseas investment application process. Previously, overseas investment applications had to satisfy several separate tests. A single national interest test now applies to transactions involving significant business assets and sensitive land, other than farmland, fishing quota and residential land (for which the existing consent pathways remain). Applications are assessed through a three-stage process:

  1. Risk identification: The Overseas Investment Office (OIO) assesses the application for any national interest concerns. If none are identified, consent is granted. The statutory timeframe for decisions under this stage is up to 15 working days.
  2. Risk assessment: If concerns are identified, a more detailed assessment follows. Consent can still be granted at this stage, with or without conditions. The statutory timeframe for review under this stage increases by 55 working days.
  3. Ministerial decision: In cases where the transaction may be contrary to New Zealand’s national interest, the matter may be referred to the Minister of Finance who can decline consent. There is no fixed statutory timeframe for a ministerial decision.

For business owners looking to attract overseas investment or to sell to a foreign buyer, this framework should make the consent process faster and more straightforward. That said, the regime still applies and any agreement must be specifically conditional on OIO consent being obtained before the deal proceeds.

 

New obligations for businesses collecting personal information from third parties

On 1 May 2026, Information Privacy Principle 3A (IPP3A) came into effect, expanding the notification requirement under the Privacy Act 2020 to cover indirect collection of personal information.

Previously, businesses had no obligation to notify individuals when collecting their personal information from a third party. IPP3A has changed that.

What your business must disclose: From now on, when your business collects personal information indirectly, you must take reasonable steps, as soon as is reasonably practicable, to make the individual aware of the:

  • Fact that their information has been collected
  • Purpose of the collection
  • Intended recipients of the information
  • Name and address of the agency, or agencies, collecting and holding the information
  • If applicable, which law authorises or requires the collection, and
  • Rights of the individual to access and correct their information.

Exceptions: IPP3A does not require notification in all circumstances. Exceptions include, but are not limited to, where:

  • The individual has already been notified
  • The information is publicly available
  • Compliance is not reasonably practicable, and/or
  • It is necessary for law enforcement or court proceedings.

Please note the above is to be treated as a guide rather than an exhaustive list. We recommend seeking tailored legal advice before relying on any exception.

Next steps: If you haven’t already, you may want to consider building notification into your existing policies and this should be communicated clearly to individuals. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner has released guidance on IPP3A which provides a helpful starting point for understanding your obligations. Non-compliance may result in a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner, which may lead to a formal investigation and have potentially significant consequences for your business, so it is important you take steps now to ensure your processes are up to date.

For more detailed information about IPP3A together with examples of how it works, click here. If you have any questions about how IPP3A applies specifically to your organisation, please feel free to contact us.

 

Employment Relations Amendment Act 2026 – key changes

The Employment Relations Amendment Act 2026 came into force on 21 February 2026, introducing some significant changes to the New Zealand employment law framework. Some of the key changes of which businesses should be aware are listed below.

Independent contractors: The Act introduces a new gateway test to determine whether a worker is an employee or a contractor. To qualify as a ‘specified contractor,’ five criteria must be met that cover matters such as having a written agreement, freedom to work for others, flexible hours, the ability to decline work and having had a reasonable opportunity to seek legal advice. There is more information about the test here.

Personal grievances: Where an employee’s conduct amounts to serious misconduct and has contributed to the situation giving rise to the personal grievance, no remedies will be awarded. Where the conduct falls short of serious misconduct but still contributed to the grievance, remedies may be reduced by up to 100%.

High-income earner: Employees earning $200,000+ per year in total remuneration will no longer be able to bring a personal grievance or file proceedings in relation to an unjustified dismissal. A 12-month transitional protection applies to those already in roles when the legislation came into force.

Collective agreements: The requirement to apply collective agreement terms to new employees during their first 30 days, and the automatic sharing of new employee information with the union, will no longer apply.

Justification test: The section 103A justification test has been amended to take into account whether an employee obstructed the employer’s process. Significant procedural failures will no longer render a dismissal unjustifiable where the employee was not actually treated unfairly.

If you would like to discuss any aspect of how this new legislation affects your business, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Commercial eSpeaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Commercial eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Content Copyright © NZ LAW Limited, 2026.    Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]      Ph: 029 286 3650

 

Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill

Employment Law, Government & Policy, Health and Safety, Regulatory Compliance, Risk Management, Workplace Regulation
0

Expected to be enacted in the spring

The Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill was introduced into Parliament on 8 February 2026 and passed its first reading on 12 February 2026. It is currently before the Education and Workforce Select Committee. Submissions closed at the end of March and the committee is scheduled to report back to Parliament by 12 June 2026. It is anticipated that the Bill will be passed before the election (early November).

If enacted, the Bill will represent the most significant reform of health and safety law in New Zealand since the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA) was passed in 2015.

 

Purpose of Bill

Workplace Relations and Safety Minister, the Hon Brooke van Velden, said that the Bill is intended to reduce compliance obligations, focus on preventing serious harm and clarify businesses’ obligations under the HSWA.[1] The key proposed changes in the Bill are:

  • Increased focus on preventing serious harm
  • Reducing compliance obligations for small businesses
  • Clarification of the health and safety obligations of landowners, and
  • Clarification of the relationship between health and safety legislation, and other legal requirements.

 

Introducing ‘critical risk’

The Bill introduces a new defined term of ‘critical risk.’ Small businesses must focus on avoiding critical risks. All other businesses must manage all risks but are required to ‘prioritise’ critical risks.

The Bill defines a ‘critical risk’ as a risk associated with one of the matters specified in Schedule 1A of the Bill; this lists a number of specific high-risk activities such as working with asbestos and other hazardous substances. A critical risk also includes any hazard that is likely to result in death, a notifiable injury or illness, a notifiable incident or an occupational disease listed in Schedule 2 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001.

Identifying what the critical risks are for a particular business is likely to be one of the more challenging aspects of the new legislation.

 

The impact on small to medium-sized businesses

The most significant change contained in the Bill is the narrowing of the duties of small to medium-sized businesses, referred to as ‘small PCBUs,’ to risks that are defined as critical risks under the Act.

This does not mean that small businesses have no obligations in relation to other risks. They are still required to provide adequate facilities to ensure the safety of their employees.

A small PCBU will be defined as a business with fewer than 20 employees. Businesses that have a fluctuating workforce will qualify provided that they have fewer than 20 employees for at least nine months of the year. This change is likely to have a significant impact on the compliance obligations of businesses in New Zealand, given that approximately 97% of businesses would qualify as a small PCBU.[1]

 

Obligations of landowners and recreational activities

Potential exposure to prosecution under health and safety legislation in New Zealand has long been a concern for landowners who wish to make their land available for recreational activities.

In the past, this has been a particular concern for rural landowners who have often avoided providing access to their land due to such concerns. It has also discouraged public landowners, such as schools and councils, from allowing their land to be used for recreational activities.

The potential liability of landowners was recently highlighted by the prosecution of the owner of Whakaari/White Island following the eruption in 2019, which resulted in the deaths of 22 people. The landowner was initially convicted in the District Court under the HSWA, despite not directly operating the tours to the island.[2] The High Court overturned this conviction on appeal.[3]

The passing of the Bill would mean that landowners would not generally owe health and safety obligations to people using their land for recreational activities.

 

The Health and Safety at Work Act and other legislation

The Bill would clarify the relationship between general health and safety legislation, and other legislation that applies to specific industries such as the aviation and maritime sectors.

In the past, there has been confusion as to whether or not businesses in industries covered by specific legislation have additional duties under the HSWA. The Bill clarifies that compliance with industry-specific legislation or approved industry codes of practice is also compliance with the HSWA, so there are no additional obligations.

The Bill also states that the owners of earthquake-prone buildings do not need to take additional steps under the HSWA, provided that they comply with the requirements of the Building Act 2004.

The Bill is intended to reduce the compliance work that is required by businesses under current health and safety legislation, which has become an expensive ’tick-box’ exercise for many. However, it will still be important for small businesses to identify the ‘critical risks’ in their businesses and to take steps to mitigate them.

If you have any concerns about the impact that this proposed legislation may have on your business, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

 

[1] New Zealand business demography statistics at February 2025, Statistics New Zealand.

[2] WorkSafe New Zealand v Whakaari Management Ltd [2023] NZDC 4149.

[3] Whakaari Management Ltd v WorkSafe New Zealand [2025] NZHC 288.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Commerical eSpeaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Commerical eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Content Copyright © NZ LAW Limited, 2026.    Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]      Ph: 029 286 3650

Over the fence

Employment Law, Government & Policy, Rural & Agricultural Law, Succession Planning, Trusts & Asset Planning, Wills & Estates
0

Biosecurity overhaul

In July 2025, the Ministry of Primary Industries released its proposed ‘Biosecurity System Action Plan.’ It is intended to guide new legislation to amend the Biosecurity Act 1993, and to overhaul current biosecurity regimes to improve process, obligations and rights. This will impact importing/exporting, practices on farm and government accessibility to farms.

The action plan is presented in two tranches. The first focuses on immediate priorities – clarifying roles, modernising processes and providing training tools. The second tranche will build on successful initiatives, consider social and cultural impacts and develop long term resolutions. Significant progress on both tranches by 2030 is proposed.

Key proposed amendments following submissions and consultation include:

  • Placing greater decision-making discretion with regional councils and management agencies – including the ability to create exemptions, issue permits for pests and produce small scale management plans
  • Increasing and introducing new penalties, including for obstructing a lawful search
  • The ability to grant one-off or ad hoc permits for imported goods, and
  • Removing the need for the current exemption for regional councils to enter private land to manage pests.

A draft bill is anticipated to be presented to Parliament in late 2026.

To read more on the Biosecurity System Action Plan, the steering group workshops and the proposed next steps, click here.

 

Employee v contractor

On 21 February 2026, a new ‘gateway test’ was introduced to determine whether an individual is an employee or a contractor in terms of employment law. The gateway test does not apply retrospectively.

Gateway test: An individual is a contractor if they meet all the gateway test criteria. These are:

  • There must be a written agreement stating they are an independent contractor or are not an employee
  • No restriction from working for others (except while undertaking agreed work)
  • They are not required to work at a specified time/period OR they can subcontract the work, subject to legally required or justifiable vetting
  • Additional future work can be declined without the arrangement being terminated, and
  • There has been a reasonable opportunity to seek independent advice before entering into the arrangement.

If all criteria are satisfied, the individual is a contractor. If any of the criteria is not met or for claims brought prior to 21 February 2026 the common law test (below) applies.

The four factors below are considered together to determine whether an individual is a contractor:

  1. Intention – what did the parties intend the relationship to be? Consider entitlements received – for example, contractors are not entitled to holiday pay.
  2. Control v independence – high employer control over hours, work and methods may be indicative of an employer/employee relationship
  3. Integration – is the role fundamental to an employer’s business and continuous in nature, and
  4. Fundamental/economic reality – does the economic reality reflect a person in business on their own account? Consider fee structure, tax obligations, ability for the individual to profit and who bears financial risk.

The distinction between an employee and contractor is highly relevant for the rural sector as you may have both contractors (such as sharemilkers and contract milkers) and employees (farm hands, managers, etc) working on your property.

 

Wills and EPAs: essential for rural sector

For people who are responsible for farms and other major assets, it is important to ensure you have a current will and Enduring Powers of Attorney (EPAs). If you don’t have these and you die unexpectedly, lose mental capacity, or are unable to attend to your personal affairs for a period, it could lead to not only farming operations being disrupted, but also family uncertainty and having to spend time and money on sorting things out.

Will: Your will sets out your instructions about the distribution of your property to your family after you die. Even if you have a will, it is good practice to regularly review it, so it reflects your current situation and wishes.

If you don’t have a will, there is legislation[1] that decides how your estate is divided up; this arrangement may not be what you would wish. To prevent this, it’s optimal (and much easier) to ensure you have a valid will that reflects your wishes. Your family will thank you for it.

EPA: An EPA is a legal document that allows a trusted person (your attorney) to manage your affairs and personal care. There are two forms of EPA – one covering property affairs and the other about your personal wellbeing. An EPA for personal care only applies if you lose mental capacity, while an EPA for property can also apply while you have capacity.

For a property EPA, your attorney could be a trusted friend or relative, or you could appoint a trustee company to manage your property matters.

For a personal care and welfare EPA, you can only appoint a person as your attorney.

We can help you set up EPAs and a will or, if you already have them, review them so they reflect your current situation.

[1] Administration Act 1969.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Rural eSpeaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Rural eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Content Copyright © NZ LAW Limited, 2026.    Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]      Ph: 029 286 3650

Taxing the business income of charities

Charities & Not-for-Profits, Government & Policy, Regulatory Compliance, Taxation, Trusts & Legal Governance
0

Inland Revenue proposal unlikely to proceed

In February 2025, Inland Revenue issued a paper entitled ‘Taxation and the not-for-profit sector’ (the Issues Paper).

Among other things, the Issues Paper proposed taxing the business income of charities, where that income did not relate to their charitable purposes. This was highly controversial and resulted in a flurry of submissions.

 

Charities in New Zealand

Section 5 of the Charities Act 2005 defines ‘charitable purpose’ as including ‘every charitable purpose, whether it relates to the relief of poverty, the advancement of education or religion, or any other matter beneficial to the community.’

From time to time, public debate arises over organisations that have been granted charitable status, particularly where that status is seen as controversial. For example, Greenpeace has gained and lost charitable status a number of times, and Family First has had charitable status declined by the Supreme Court. After serious allegations of abuse and law-breaking, Gloriavale’s charitable status is under review.

One charity in New Zealand has been controversial for some years. Sanitarium, the company that makes Weet-bix and other breakfast cereals, is owned by the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

As a general rule, where a charity owns a business, and receives business profits, tax does not need to be paid on those profits, because they are being distributed to a charity which can only use them for charitable purposes. This tax exemption was closely scrutinized by Inland Revenue in the Issues Paper.

 

Taxing business income

The Issues Paper suggested that businesses owned or operated by charities have certain competitive advantages over non-charitable businesses. These businesses:

  • Can accumulate funds without paying tax, and therefore invest in and grow their businesses faster, and
  • May not face the same compliance costs as tax-paying businesses.

This led to Inland Revenue’s proposal to tax charities’ business profits where they were not related to the charitable activities in question.

The charitable sector argued that it would be very difficult to identify what business activities were related to furthering a charitable purpose and what activities were unconnected.

The Salvation Army’s thrift stores might remain untaxed, but what about Sanitarium’s production of healthy breakfast cereals?  Sanitarium might argue that it provides free healthy breakfasts in more than 1,400 schools as part of the overall charitable endeavours of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. (It might also make the point that John Kellogg invented cornflakes in the late 1800s because he believed that eating bland breakfast cereals facilitated godly morality.)

More specific counterarguments were also made in submissions. Charities said that they faced a number of competitive ‘disadvantages’ which for-profit businesses did not face; these include a limited ability to raise finance and differences in their ability to claim imputation credits. Any advantages their businesses might enjoy were offset by disadvantages.

Submissions also said that where business profits were taxed and then distributed to the charity which owned the business, they would always have to be used for charitable purposes, and a tax credit would need to be given to the charity in due course. It was argued that it would be time-consuming and costly (for both the charities and Inland Revenue) to make a tax payment and later receive a credit in respect of the same funds.

A number of charities also said that they face much greater compliance costs than small businesses. They have, for example, much more stringent audit requirements; if the law changed, there might need to be an income threshold whereby small charities are exempted from having to distinguish between types of income earned.

Sue Barker, a well-known tax and charities lawyer, said that the Issues Paper did not start by asking the fundamental question of whether there is a problem in the charitable sector regarding the payment of business income tax? If charities are misusing funds and not using them for charitable purposes, this would justify more scrutiny over charitable activities and perhaps better enforcement of existing laws, but it would not justify a law change.

 

Government response

Recently, Revenue Minister, Simon Watts confirmed that Inland Revenue is unlikely to pursue the proposal to tax charities’ business income. He suggested that there might be more scrutiny over the way charities use funds to ensure that existing laws are being followed, and there may be changes yet to come regarding ‘donor controlled’ charities, including rules about minimum distributions which must be made each year.

Charities seem to agree that better enforcement of existing laws is preferable to more law changes. The not-for-profit sector has already responded to considerable change in recent years; charitable trusts were impacted by the Trusts Act 2019, and incorporated societies have been significantly affected by substantial law changes under the Incorporated Societies Act 2022.

The most common criticism of New Zealand law relating to charities seems to be that ‘advancement of religion’ qualifies as a charitable purpose, even where the religion (or a popular figure associated with it) has a questionable reputation. There are, however, no current proposals to review that aspect of the law.

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Trust eSpeaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Trust eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2026.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]      Ph: 029 286 3650

 

Business briefs

Artificial Intelligence & Technology, Business & Investment, Consumer Rights, Immigration Law, Regulatory Compliance
0

Launch of the Business Investor Visa

The government has introduced the Business Investor Visa (BIV), a new immigration pathway aimed at attracting experienced international investors to strengthen New Zealand’s economy. The launch of the BIV follows the closure of the Entrepreneur Work Visa and represents a significant shift toward sustained investment in established New Zealand businesses.

The BIV offers two residency pathways:

  1. Work-to-residency (3 years) – minimum investment threshold of $1 million, or
  2. Fast-track residency (12 months) – minimum investment threshold of $2 million.

Investments must be directed into an existing, actively operated New Zealand business. Other key requirements include demonstrated business experience by the investor, investment in a business that employs at least five full-time staff, and compliance with approved and qualifying business categories.

For New Zealand business owners, the BIV presents an opportunity to attract new capital, expand operations and generate employment that, in turn, will promote long-term economic growth.

Responsible AI usage

AI is advancing and reshaping how businesses operate. However, if you adopt AI without a clear strategy it may expose your business to serious risk – including, without limitation, bias, errors, privacy breaches and cybersecurity threats.

To help businesses navigate this, the Ministry of business, innovation and Employment has released Responsible AI Guidance for Businesses, The Guidance outlines practical steps to ensure AI use is responsible and aligns with your commercial goals, legal obligations and ethical standards.

Key recommendations include:

  • Defining your purpose for using AI and starting with low-risk projects
  • Maintaining human oversight to prevent errors and unintended consequences
  • Reviewing governance, risk management and compliance processes
  • Choosing trusted AI providers and implementing strong data protection methods, and
  • Training staff to understand AI’s capabilities and limitations.

For a more comprehensive overview, we encourage you to read the Guidance and consider seeking legal advice to protect your business as you implement AI. While AI can deliver significant benefits, successful implementation requires a cautious and comprehensive approach.

HelloFresh and the Fair Trading Act 1986

In the Winter 2025 edition of Commercial eSpeaking, we reported on the Commerce Commission’s allegations against HelloFresh for misleading conduct under the Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA).

The commission’s prosecution focused on an 18-month cold call campaign, during which former customers of HelloFresh were offered discount vouchers without a clear explanation that accepting those offers would result in subscriptions being reactivated, consequently triggering customer account charges.

Recently, in the Auckland District Court, it was found that the way the discount vouchers were presented created a misleading overall impression for former customers. HelloFresh was fined $845,000 as a result.

The above decision underscores the serious consequences of breaching the FTA. This is particularly relevant now, as the government has proposed to substantially increase the penalties for non-compliance. At present, the maximum penalties for misleading and deceptive conduct under the FTA are capped at $200,000 for individuals and $600,000 for businesses. The proposal to increase these limits will allow penalties to reach the greater of:

  • $1 million for individuals
  • $5 million for businesses
  • Three times the value of any commercial gain or loss avoided, or
  • The value of the transaction(s) involved.

Although a new civil regime will also apply for most breaches, the most serious or deliberate conduct will remain a criminal offence. These changes are expected to take effect by late 2026.

This announcement marks a significant increase in potential liability, emphasising the need for businesses to ensure advertising, pricing and promotional terms are accurate and transparent. Disclaimers buried in fine print may not be enough to correct misleading impressions. With penalties expected to become significantly higher, compliance with the FTA is essential to avoid financial and reputational consequences.

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Commercial eSpeaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Commercial eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2026.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]       Ph: 029 286 3650

Business briefs

Business Regulation & Compliance, Consumer & Fair Trading, Employment Law & Workplace Wellbeing, News & Legal Updates, Privacy & Technology
0

Commerce Commission – Misleading and deceptive conduct – Noel Leeming

The Commerce Commission has filed criminal charges against electronics retailer Noel Leeming, alleging that its well-known ‘Price Promise’ misled consumers.

 

The retailer had promoted the promise as a guarantee that customers would always receive a match with a competitor’s price. In practice, however, the exclusions and restrictions in the terms and conditions significantly limited the application of this and many shoppers were unable to rely on the promise as advertised.

 

The Commission has alleged multiple breaches of the Fair Trading Act 1986 that prohibits businesses from engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct. The Commission emphasised the importance of large retailers being clear and honest in their advertising. It has previously warned businesses that disclaimers buried in fine print may not be enough to correct misleading impressions.

 

This investigation serves as a reminder to all New Zealand businesses of the importance of ensuring promotional promises are accurate and not undermined by hidden conditions. For consumers, it highlights the need to be cautious of marketing claims that may not tell the full story.

 

Online Casino Gambling Bill

The government has introduced the Online Casino Gambling Bill. This is a significant reform in the gambling sector that would allow online casino operators to be licensed and regulated in New Zealand for the first time.

 

Up to 15 operator licences will be allocated by auction to businesses seeking to offer online casino services to individuals in New Zealand, whether based locally or offshore. It is anticipated that large offshore gambling companies will feature prominently among applicants for the 15 licences. These licences will be valid for three years and renewable for a further period of five years. Operators will be subject to strict conditions, including mandatory age and identity verification, advertising restrictions, harm minimisation obligations and fines of up to $5 million for breaches.

 

While the Bill is intended to facilitate a safe and compliant regulated online casino gambling market, it has attracted strong opposition from more than 50 sporting organisations. Unlike the current Class 4 ‘pokie trusts’ system, which distributes millions each year to grassroots and community sport, the new framework does not require online casino operators to contribute to community funding. Sporting leaders have warned that the change could severely impact local organisations already facing financial pressure due to a lack of funding.

 

The Bill is currently before the select committee and a report on the Bill is due in November 2025.

 

Biometrics Processing Privacy Code 2025

In last summer’s edition of Commercial eSpeaking (#69), we reported on the draft Biometrics Processing Privacy Code. Since then, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has finalised the Code; this will take effect on 3 November 2025. Organisations already using biometric technologies will have until 3 August 2026 to ensure full compliance.

 

The Code applies to organisations using automated processes to collect and use biometric information – that is, information about a person’s physical features or behavioural traits, such as facial features, fingerprints, voice or eye patterns.

 

The Code introduces 13 rules that go beyond the general information privacy principles in the Privacy Act 2020, requiring businesses that collect biometric data to take a more rigorous and transparent approach. These rules can be broadly categorised in the following way:

 

  • Purpose: Organisations must clearly identify why they are collecting biometric information and ensure that collection is necessary, effective and proportionate to that purpose
  • Safeguards: Adequate privacy protections must be in place before collection, including measures to reduce privacy risks, ensure system accuracy and strengthen security
  • Proportionality: Biometric data should only be collected where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the benefits of collection outweigh the potential privacy impacts on individuals
  • Openness: Individuals must be informed about how their biometric data will be used and disclosed so they can make an informed decision about providing it, and
  • Use limits: The Code places clear limitations on how biometric data can be used and when it may be disclosed.

 

Each rule contains specific obligations that may impact how your business collects, uses and protects biometric information. As a result, it is important that businesses review their biometric systems and policies to ensure compliance with the Code as the effective date (3 November) approaches.

 

To view the full and detailed list of the rules under the Code, please click here.

 

If you need any guidance on any of the above topics, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Commercial eSpeaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Commercial eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2025.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen     E-mail: [email protected]    Ph: 029 286 3650

Get in touch today, we’d love to talk.

+64 7 872 0236 [email protected]