A class action lawsuit filed in Federal Court alleges that Arcare, a major aged care provider, collected over $100 million from elderly residents by charging mandatory daily fees for amenities they were physically unable to access. Lawyer Damian Scattini filed the suit on behalf of residents across more than 50 Arcare facilities in four states, with 82-year-old Dianne Strickland, a former resident of Arcare Carnegie in Victoria, named as lead plaintiff. The alleged conduct spans six years, from July 2020 to July 2026.

At the center of the claim lies what Arcare called the "signature package"—a bundled set of extra services attached to a mandatory daily fee presented as a non-negotiable condition of admission. According to the statement of claim, this fee was not standardized. Arcare allegedly used residents' financial information to determine what each person was charged, setting fees based on what they could afford rather than the actual cost of delivering those services.

The specific mismatches are difficult to overlook. Residents on prescribed diets, receiving tube feeding, or on pureed foods were charged for high teas, menu choices, and alcohol they could not consume. Those unable to walk or confined to bed were billed for bus outings and exercise classes. Some residents without the cognitive or physical capacity to use a television—and in some cases who were unconscious—were nonetheless charged for Foxtel subscriptions, newspaper delivery, and internet access, according to the statement of claim reported by The Guardian.

The lawsuit relies on a legal principle called "unconscionable conduct" under Australian Consumer Law. The argument centers on an unequal power dynamic: residents depend on the provider for shelter, care, and often basic support, leaving them with little realistic choice but to accept the terms offered. Unconscionable conduct does not require proof of deliberate wrongdoing; it requires showing that a party with greater power exploited another party's vulnerability in a way a reasonable observer would find unacceptable.

The $100 million figure, reported by Nine/60 Minutes, represents the total fees collected across all residents over the six-year period. The exact number of residents in the class and how damages would be calculated have not been disclosed. Arcare has not yet filed a response to the court.

The aged care sector in Australia has been under sustained scrutiny since the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety released its final report in 2021, which called for significant reforms to funding, staffing, and resident protections. The "Additional Services" framework—which lets providers charge fees beyond the basic daily rate for extras like entertainment or outings—has long been identified as problematic, with critics warning it creates financial incentives that may not align with resident wellbeing. This case will test whether one provider's use of that framework crossed into conduct courts will not permit.

Arcare operates as a for-profit business, a distinction that carries weight in this context. For-profit aged care providers face closer examination than not-for-profit ones on how they use profits—whether they reinvest in care quality or distribute earnings to shareholders. A court finding of unconscionable conduct, or even a large settlement, would carry serious consequences for Arcare's reputation and regulatory standing, and would likely push government attention toward how Additional Services fees are structured, communicated, and monitored across the sector.

No trial date has been set. Because Arcare has not yet filed its defence, the allegations remain untested. The immediate legal step is class certification—a threshold determination by a Federal Court judge on whether the case qualifies to proceed as a class action. This is the first substantive hurdle Scattini's legal team must clear before the merits of the claim are examined.