top of page

Episode 3 - The Case of the Anti-Viral Activewear: ACCC v Lorna Jane

Join Joel Grieger and Joel Lisk for episode 3 of Keeping Up with the Consumer Law and a discussion about the intriguing case of ACCC v Lorna Jane.

In July 2020, Lorna Jane began advertising a product line under the name of “LJ Shield Activewear”. Being at the height of some of the first waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, this activewear was described as being able to eliminate viruses including COVID-19. Marketing for LJ Shield includes some of the photos below. While highly ambitious – especially at a time well before the first vaccine had been developed – the statements were ultimately false and amounted to false or misleading conduct, conduct that ultimately cost Lorna Jane $5 million.

Join the Joels as they discuss the case, how the law worked and why such claims are ultimately misleading.

For more information on ACCC v Lorna Jane, check the links below to read the case, check out the official KUWTCL Case note and read what the ACCC had to say about the case.

This is the third episode of Keeping Up with the Consumer Law. In our next episode, we unpack the complex 2020 case of ACCC v Trivago.


Want to learn more about anything we’ve discussed?

Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is financially supported by the Law Foundation of South Australia.

Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is intended to be for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Does this episode raise any questions for you about how you can use the ACL or what your obligations are under the ACL? We recommend seeing a lawyer, head over to for more information

Keeping Up with the Consumer Law is recorded and produced on Kaurna Country.



Commenting has been turned off.
bottom of page