The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) has launched an investigation into The Wiggles, alleging that it sold headbands without mandatory safety warnings required for products containing button batteries.
The Wiggles’ Emma Bow headband featured four button battery-powered lights. Between June 2022 and March 2024, The Wiggles sold the headband without mandatory safety warnings that it contained button batteries and about the risks that button batteries pose. The children’s entertainment behemoth is cooperating with the ACCC’s investigation of the headbands.
The Wiggles has provided the ACCC with a court-enforceable undertaking in which it admits it likely breached the Australian Consumer Law by supplying headbands that failed to adhere to the Button Battery Information Standard.
As part of its cooperation with the ACCC investigation, the children’s entertainment group has pledged to implement a consumer law compliance program within its organisation, as well as produce an episode of its ‘Wiggle Talk – A Podcast For Parents’ podcast which will refer to the recall of the Emma Bow headband, and discuss safety issues relating to button batteries and children’s toys to help raise awareness.
“Reputational considerations would have been a factor in their agreeing to an enforceable undertaking with the ACCC in the first place rather than fighting the issue in Court, and that’s effectively the first step in their issues management strategy,” Sefiani’s president of corporate and crisis communication, Nick Owens told B&T.
“If there was a brand that needed to be 100 per cent squeaky clean from a kids’ safety perspective, it’s The Wiggles. Their management would be acutely aware of that. The compliance program they’ve outlined as part of the settlement looks comprehensive and genuine so they are going about it the right way. Going forward, they need to be careful – there has been scrutiny on the Wiggles as a business lately, with references to “Big Wiggles” and their lobbying to be excluded from the social media ban,” Owens told B&T.
“It’s a different, more complex and valuable brand than it was 25 years ago and inevitably corporate aspects come into play. But they won’t want to lose the sense of childlike innocence and play that made them so successful in the first place,” Owens added.
“The Wiggles’ admission it likely breached Australian Consumer Law by not carrying a battery warning on the Emma Bow headband has caused short-term reputation damage to an iconic brand. However, the Wiggles’ commitment to now address the issue swiftly in an educational podcast for parents removes some heat from the situation, by demonstrating the group takes the situation seriously and is taking action to address it. The massive love for, and goodwill towards the Wiggles will likely mean a quick and full reputation recovery from the public shaming by the ACCC,” added Robyn Sefiani, the eponymous president of the PR firm.
The importer and distributor of the headband, CA Australia, provided a written commitment to the ACCC to improve its consumer law compliance.
“The Emma Bow was aimed for children’s use and was available at The Wiggles’ live concerts. It was also sold by other suppliers on The Wiggles online store and through various physical retail stores. Without a warning on the product, parents may not have known it contained button batteries and not understood the severity of the risk. If swallowed, a button battery can become stuck in a child’s throat and result in catastrophic injuries, and even death, in as little as two hours,” ACCC deputy chair Catriona Lowe said.
The Wiggles and CA Australia have recalled the product, with a recall notice published on the ACCC website on 1 August 2024.
This isn’t the first time that The Wiggles has found itself in hot legal water this year. In August, former Wiggles CEO Luke O’Neill launched legal action against his former employer alleging it breached the Fair Work Act following his dismissal a few months earlier. He also filed suits against the Blue Wiggle, Anthony Field, and the group’s general counsel Matthew Salgo.
He claims he was undermined by the blue Wiggle in front of staff after raising concerns about friends and family members being employed by the children’s entertainment group. He also claims to have been denied bonuses and excluded from meetings, including one with Kmart to discuss selling Wiggles toys, before being dismissed with no reasonable basis in documents filed with the Federal Court.
O’Neill said he also complained to Field “in or around October 2024” about the unnecessary costs of hiring someone for shows in Canberra. Two months later, O’Neill said he complained to the Wiggles’ head of production about Field’s conduct, which he said increased costs on the Tree of Wisdom production. He claimed these decisions included Field hiring a nephew to work on the show, hiring a director from New Zealand and approving costs for air travel on “numerous occasions” for a friend of his daughter.
The legal case between former O’Neill and the entertainment group was settled through a confidential payout and a non-disclosure agreement last month.
The drama that launched the cheery children’s entertainment group into the spotlight is a stark reminder to all about the fragility of brand reputation, particularly brands built on “squeaky clean” images like The Wiggles. The Wiggle’s swift, erm, wiggling into action on the battery matter—which differs from the silence and defense that sometimes marks public disputes between brands and regulatory bodies, or the law—might have made all the difference in this case.
