Most consequences of this theory are consistent with those predicted by the plate model -- the remaining ones are gravity acceleration on the surface (g) changes and actual measurements.
The first one is hard to judge since the expanding Earth community cannot decide on one version -- some postulate that the matter is in some magical way created inside the planet and thus g increases with time (which is consistent with giraffes being smaller than dinosaurs, but is a total nonsense from a view of physics), some try to rescue physics saying that Earth just used to be much more dense -- yet this makes g actually decrease, what invalidates this "biological proof". Finally some claim that the gravitational constant increases with time to counteract this, but this is even less probable than a spontaneous mass creation.
About measurements, there were some works in which authors were summing up some current and archival measurements around some contour placed on Earth to imply that it is growing -- however this was verified using state-of-art measuring techniques and was invalidated.
There are obviously many more proofs that this idea is wrong, as listed by the Wikipedia page for 'Expanding Earth' (emphasis mine):
The theory had never developed a plausible and verifiable mechanism of action, but neither had any of its competing theories. By the late 1970s the theory of plate tectonics made all other theories obsolete following the discovery of subduction, which was found to be an important part of a mechanism of action.
Generally, the scientific community finds that there is no evidence in support of the Expanding Earth theory, and there is evidence against it:
Measurements with modern high-precision geodetic techniques show that the Earth is not currently increasing in size to within a measurement accuracy of 0.2 mm per year. The lead author of the study stated "Our study provides an independent confirmation that the solid Earth is not getting larger at present, within current measurement uncertainties". The motions of tectonic plates and subduction zones measured by a large range of geological, geodetic and geophysical techniques supports plate tectonics.[16, 17, 18]
Mass accretion on a scale required to change the Earth's radius is contradicted by the current accretion rate of the Earth, and by the Earth's average internal temperature: any accretion releases a lot of energy, which would warm the planet's interior. Expanding Earth models based on thermal expansion contradict most modern principles from rheology, and fail to provide an acceptable explanation for the proposed melting and phase transitions. The value of g (the Earth's gravitational attraction) is known and would change considerably with any such gains in the Earth's mass or volume, along with the Earths orbit around the Sun.
Paleomagnetic data has been used to calculate that the radius of the Earth 400 million years ago was 102 ± 2.8% of today's radius.[19, 20]
Examinations of data from the Paleozoic and Earth's moment of inertia suggest that there has been no significant change of earth's radius in the last 620 million years.