"We're so disappointed that having taken the Nurofen case, with all of the publicity around it, that we find this sort of behaviour still continuing," Sims said.
Sims said if the ACCC won the case, the watchdog would be seeking an even higher penalty than against Nurofen. "If we're successful, we'd be looking at trying to get an even stronger deterrence message out there" he said.
"[The behaviour] continued on after the Nurofen judgment so I think the message needs to be given even more strongly."
Sims said the ACCC was also concerned that the products were targeted at older consumers. "We're always concerned with conduct that affects consumers who could be seen as slightly more vulnerable," he said.
"What was happening here is that they were saying you've got a product that is specifically formulated for treating osteoarthritis, particularly in the knees and fingers, and indeed saying that also it's more effective than Emulgel.
"Our concerns were not only that consumers were paying more for Osteo Gel, but they could actually buy both products and have them in their medical cabinet, thinking they treat different things."
GSK acquired the Voltaren brand from Novartis in 2016 but the products have been sold since 2010. In March this year, GSK amended the Osteo Gel packaging to include the statement, "Same effective formula as Voltaren Emulgel", but the ACCC alleges the amended packaging is also likely to be misleading.
GSK and Novartis have been contacted for comment.