Nutrition and health claims made by Australian food businesses are regulated under Standard 1.2.7 of the Food Standards Code, yet 'superfood' has no regulated definition and claims found on social media and other areas of the internet are further unregulated1,2. The way consumers perceive claims and information online is also not clearly understood. This study assessed Australian consumers' perceived accuracy of superfood nutrition and health claims sourced from social media, and examined how perceived accuracy was associated with sociodemographic characteristics and internet use preferences. An online survey was administered to an Australian adults (n = 400) through PureProfile, with nationally representative demographic quotas excluding those who worked in food science, nutrition or dietetics. Participants rated 20 claims from a preceding expert-rated study on a 7-point scale (1 = incredibly inaccurate to 7 = incredibly accurate)3. A perceived accuracy score was calculated from descriptive statistics for each participant and used to allocate them to tertiles. Pearson chi-squared tests with Bonferroni-adjusted p values compared tertiles against demographic information and internet use. Tertiles were labelled 'non-believers' (n = 135, mean 3.83, range 1.15-4.40), 'maybes' (n = 132, mean 4.75, range 4.45-5.00) and 'believers' (n = 133, mean 5.61, range 5.05-7.00). Age, educational attainment, primary use of social media and self-reported likelihood of changing behaviour differed significantly across tertiles (p < 0.05), with contrasts concentrated between non-believers and believers. Believers were less often aged 18-24 years (4.5% vs 17.8%) or 65 years and over (15.0% vs 27.4%) and more often aged 35-44 years (26.3% vs 9.6%) than non-believers, and more often aged 45-54 years than maybes (23.3% vs 9.1%). Believers were more often tertiary educated (53.4% vs 35.6%), more often used social media primarily for life inspiration (30.1% vs 13.3%), and were more often 'somewhat likely' to change their behaviour based on social media content (30.8% vs 17.8%), and less often 'extremely unlikely' (15.0% vs 28.1%).This research has highlighted how consumers are generally unclear about claims of this nature, but those most likely to believe them are also most likely to act on them. This highlights the need for a clear definition of ‘superfood’ and for accessible, validated nutrition information in places the general public use regularly like social media. This research is ongoing into how the linguistic complexity and word length of a claim impacts its perceived accuracy to help determine how to best provide this information to consumers.