Huge number of complaints about RAT price gouging, pharmacies worst offenders

More than 50 retailers have been ordered to explain alleged price gouging as complaints pile up about the cost of rapid antigen tests.

More than 3900 complaints have been filed to Australia’s consumer watchdog over rapid antigen test pricing and selling issues in just a month.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission established an investigation into RATs in early January, encouraging Australians who were concerned about excessive pricing to report their experiences.

As a result of the complaints filed so far, more than 50 suppliers of the tests, including major retailers and pharmacy chains, have been asked by the ACCC to explain their costs, pricing and stock availability.

Those suppliers have been warned that they must be able to substantiate any claims made about the reasons for high prices.

Pharmacies are the most complained-about sector – making up a third of all complaints.

ACCC chair Rod Sims said the watchdog was taking the issue seriously and would not hesitate to “name and shame” the offenders.

“Businesses now know we will be in touch very quickly if they choose to impose unjustifiably high mark-ups on rapid antigen tests or make misleading statements to consumers,” he said.

“In view of the public interest in this issue, we will continue to name business chains whose stores are reported to have engaged in this conduct, and (we) are working very closely with our fellow law enforcement agencies in this area, particularly in relation to individual stores.”

More than 3900 complaints about the price of rapid antigen tests have been received by the ACCC, more than 1300 of which relate to pharmacies. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Flavio Brancaleone

In addition, the ACCC has referred some retailers to both the Australian Federal Police and the Therapeutic Goods Administration over allegations of “illegal” reselling of rapid antigen tests, alleged package splitting, and sales of tests not approved for home use in Australia.

Mr Sims thanked those who had filed a report and urged others who had encountered high prices to speak up.

“Community concerns about sales practices for rapid antigen tests remain very high, for good reason,” he said.

“We thank the consumers who have taken the time to pass on to us crucial information about what is happening in this market.

“These reports, and the public scrutiny, are helping to keep prices at lower levels than otherwise.”

Mr Sims announced that the ACCC had also launched an investigation into whether governments diverted or “sought priority supply” of RATs after reports emerged that some retailers had been pushed down the list as state and federal governments sought to build up their stockpile of the tests.

Some suppliers made such claims in emails and on their websites.

Mr Sims said the federal government had given “clear and repeated advice” that it had not commandeered or asked for priority supply.

“ACCC investigators are speaking with the suppliers involved and will look to address any misrepresentations identified,” he said.

“The ACCC takes this opportunity to remind suppliers about the importance of honouring any contractual arrangements for supply and of being honest about why rapid antigen tests may currently be unavailable.

“Suppliers must be able to substantiate any claims they make about test availability, and we are asking them to do so.”

The ACCC has launched an investigation into whether state and federal governments diverted supply of rapid antigen tests. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Flavio Brancaleone

Of the more than 3900 reports filed between December 25 and January 26, almost 95 per cent were about the price of the tests.

Analysis suggests many consumers are still paying between $20-$30 per test, well above the wholesale prices of $3.82-$11.42.

“While $20 retail prices remain lower than the most extreme reports received by the ACCC, there is still an unusually high mark-up that in our view is very difficult to justify,” Mr Sims said.

More than two-thirds of the consumer reports were about traders in NSW, while 10 per cent of complaints related to traders in regional and remote Australia.