Summary
ASIC’s revised Regulatory Guide 234 signals a broader regulatory shift away from disclosure as a standalone consumer protection strategy and towards consumer understanding, prominence, balance and overall impression. While much attention has focused on social media, finfluencers and past performance advertising, the more significant development is ASIC’s increasing emphasis on whether consumers are likely to form a balanced understanding of a financial product or service.
Across advertising, AI-enabled advice tools, and digital communications, ASIC consistently applies the same principle: information that materially affects a consumer’s understanding must be presented prominently and effectively. For AFSL holders, advisers and compliance professionals, the key question is no longer simply whether information was disclosed, but whether consumers are likely to understand the message being communicated.
Revising RG234
When ASIC released its revised Regulatory Guide 234, Advertising Financial Products and Services (Including Credit), on 9 June 2026, much of the industry’s immediate attention focused on the updated guidance relating to past performance advertising, social media, and finfluencers.
We pay attention to things other people ignore, so while we think those changes are important, we worry that they risk obscuring a more significant development.
We’ve written extensively about our post-disclosure regulatory regime, where consumer understanding increasingly matters as much as the provision of information, and we think that the revised guide shows that ASIC is continuing a broader regulatory shift away from disclosure as a standalone consumer protection strategy and towards a model focused on consumer understanding, prominence, balance and overall impression.
That welcome shift is evident throughout the guide and is captured in what may be its most important paragraph.
ASIC’s Core Advertising Principle
“We recognise that an advertisement will not always include in its headline claim all information about the product that is relevant to the consumer’s decision. However, the more that a qualification is required to balance the information contained in the headline claim, the more prominently placed the qualification should be. The headline claim must not itself be misleading.” RG 234.34
In our view, this single paragraph explains much of ASIC’s thinking throughout the revised guide because it reflects three operational principles that underpin ASIC’s approach to financial services advertising:
- Headlines carry more weight than disclaimers.
- Qualifications must balance claims.
- A disclaimer can’t save a misleading headline.
The remainder of the revised RG 234 can largely be understood as ASIC applying these principles to contemporary advertising practices.
ASIC’s position on headline claims is consistent with a broader regulatory approach that has developed under the Australian Consumer Law. The ACCC’s Advertising and Selling Guide warns that advertisers cannot assume a qualification or disclaimer will neutralise an otherwise misleading headline. The ACCC states that:
“The main selling point used for a product or service may make such a strong impression that no disclaimer can dispel it.”
You shouldn’t be surprised that ASIC’s approach in RG 234.34 closely mirrors this principle. Both regulators are concerned with the dominant consumer takeaway rather than the existence of qualifying information elsewhere in the communication. The practical implication is that disclosure isn’t an adequate response to a misleading headline. The headline itself must accurately convey the substance of the representation. In practical terms, consumers’ understanding of promotional material is far more important than whether technically correct information can be found somewhere within it.
Beyond these base principles, we believe that three developments demonstrate how ASIC’s approach is evolving: its treatment of past performance warnings, its approach to AI-enabled advice tools, and its increasingly explicit rejection of the notion that the limitations of advertising platforms necessitate weaker disclosure standards.
For many licensees, this may require a fundamental shift in advertising review processes. Compliance teams should assess not only technical accuracy, but also whether a reasonable consumer is likely to form a balanced understanding of the promoted product or service.”
ASIC Has Quietly Changed Its Expectations Around Past Performance Warnings
One of the most consequential changes in the revised guide appears in ASIC’s discussion of past performance disclosures. For many years, Licensees and advisers have routinely included warnings such as “Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance.” or “Future returns may vary.”
These statements have become standard inclusions in compliance sign-offs across managed funds, superannuation products, investment platforms, adviser marketing materials and model portfolios. Tried, tested and bland, these disclaimers became ubiquitous.
Unfortunately, the revised RG 234 signals that ASIC no longer views all such warnings as equally effective. For example, at RG 234.83, ASIC provides the following new construction of an effective warning:
“Past performance is not indicative of future performance.”
Historically acceptable alternatives are, at RG 234.88, identified by ASIC as examples of disclosures that are “less likely to be effective”, including “Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance.” and “Future returns may vary.”
This is a subtle but potentially significant development.
ASIC doesn’t prohibit alternative wording, nor does it suggest that use of these statements will automatically result in non-compliance, but by expressly distinguishing between warnings it considers more and less effective, ASIC is nudging licensees away from form and towards substance.
Why This Matters
Historically, ASIC’s guidance focused on ensuring that appropriate qualifications accompanied performance claims.
The revised guide appears to go further because the distinction ASIC draws isn’t merely linguistic, it’s behavioural.
A statement that past performance is “not a guarantee” may still imply that historical performance remains a useful predictor of future outcomes, albeit without certainty. By contrast, a statement that past performance is “not indicative” of future performance directly challenges the predictive value of historical performance.
It seems to us that ASIC is now asking a different question.
Rather than asking whether a disclaimer technically qualifies a claim, ASIC appears increasingly interested in whether the disclaimer changes the consumer’s understanding of the claim. It’s certainly a move closely aligned with ASIC’s broader work on consumer testing, behavioural economics and disclosure effectiveness, and one consistent with advisers’ expectations under the Code and Standards.
Likely Consequences
Many advisers, licensees, Responsible Entities and superannuation trustees currently use wording that ASIC has now characterised as less effective.
As a result, they should consider reviewing:
- Fund advertising templates;
- Website disclosures;
- Factsheets;
- Investment presentations;
- Adviser marketing materials; and
- Social media content.
Most commentators will overlook this innocuous change and dismiss it as a minor drafting amendment, but this may ultimately become one of the most influential changes in the guide.
ASIC’s Warning On AI May Be One Of The Most Important New Additions
Another addition that deserves far more attention than it’s likely to receive is the statement that:
“An advertisement for digital advice or AI-enabled financial advice tools should not overstate the capabilities of the tool. Information about the risks and limitations of the tool should be given sufficient prominence as information about benefits. A similar approach should be taken with advertisements that promote digital or AI-enabled tools used by an advice provider as a part of their financial advice service.”
This paragraph is significant for several reasons.
First, it represents one of ASIC’s clearest statements to date regarding the advertising of AI-enabled financial advice tools.
Second, ASIC applies the same principle articulated in RG 234.34. Benefits and limitations must be presented with comparable prominence.
Third, the guidance extends beyond standalone digital advice platforms. ASIC expressly states that the same approach applies where AI-enabled tools form part of a broader advice process.
Don’t sleep on what is likely to become increasingly relevant as advice businesses market AI-assisted research tools, automated portfolio construction capabilities, digital engagement platforms and technology-enabled advice models.
Why This Matters
ASIC’s concern isn’t the use of AI itself, or the fulsome hype that surrounds it. ASIC’s legitimately concerned about the consumer impression created by the advertising that emphasises AI’s speed, efficiency, cost, sophistication or innovation while downplaying its limitations, assumptions or risks.
Recognising the risk that this type of advertising is likely to create an imbalanced impression, ASIC doesn’t simply require disclosure of limitations but instead insists that information about risks and limitations be given sufficient prominence as information about benefits.
That requirement reflects the same philosophical shift visible elsewhere in the guide; the issue isn’t whether information exists, but whether consumers are likely to understand it.
The revised guidance also reflects a broader regulatory emphasis on prominence. ASIC repeatedly stress that qualifications, assumptions and limitations must be sufficiently prominently presented to ensure consumers receive a balanced impression of the product or service.
The ACCC has a similar position. Its guidance notes that consumers are not required to search for material terms and conditions, and that advertisers must clearly direct consumers’ attention to significant terms and conditions. The guide further warns that a representation may be misleading where a prominent claim is accompanied only by a less prominent disclosure of important limitations.
Viewed together, the ASIC and ACCC guidance indicates an increasingly common regulatory expectation that material information must be presented with sufficient prominence to influence consumers’ understanding at the point of receipt. Information that’s technically accessible but unlikely to be accessed won’t cure a misleading impression.
The Platform Is No Longer An Excuse
Perhaps the clearest statement of ASIC’s evolving approach appears is.
“The physical limitations of a particular medium are not a reason for producing an advertisement that might mislead or failing to include balanced information in an advertisement. Promoters should still consider the prominence of any qualifications, warnings or disclaimers, especially when there are physical limitations of what can be included in the advertising medium (such as tiles and banner ads). If the physical limitations of the advertising medium make it difficult to qualify a headline claim or provide balanced information, the promoter should reconsider if the advertising medium chosen is appropriate.” ASIC RG 234.175
This is probably one of the most important paragraphs in the entire guide.
Historically, industry participants argued that particular communication channels imposed practical limitations. Banner advertisements, social media posts and mobile advertising necessarily constrained the amount of information that could be presented.
RG 234.175 signals a fundamentally different regulatory philosophy, as ASIC effectively says that the platform’s limitations are the advertiser’s problem, not the consumer’s.
Just because a medium doesn’t allow a balanced presentation of benefits, risks, and limitations, ASIC doesn’t concede that disclosure standards need to be lowered.
Beyond rejecting technological rationalisations, ASIC suggests that in light of these limitations, advertisers should reconsider whether the medium is appropriate at all.
Why This Matters
This represents a significant departure from traditional disclosure-based regulation.
The conventional approach assumes that consumer protection can be achieved by providing additional information at some point in the communication process. ASIC appears increasingly sceptical of that assumption.
It further demonstrates that ASIC’s focus is shifting from: “Was information disclosed?” to “Was the consumer likely to receive a balanced understanding?”
This philosophy is foundational. It appears in RG 234.34, where ASIC states that headline claims must not themselves be misleading. It appears in RG 234.88, where ASIC questions the effectiveness of commonly used past-performance warnings. It appears in RG 234.153, where ASIC requires that the risks and limitations of AI-enabled advice tools be given prominence equal to their benefits. And it appears most clearly in RG 234.175, where ASIC effectively rejects the argument that the design of a communication channel justifies unbalanced advertising.
A Global Shift Beyond Disclosure
The revised RG 234 is part of a broader international trend in conduct regulation. Regulators are finally, and increasingly, questioning whether disclosure alone can deliver meaningful consumer protection outcomes.
The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority provides perhaps the clearest example. Under the Consumer Duty, firms are expected not merely to provide information, but to demonstrate that customers understand and can use it when making decisions. Recent FCA guidance emphasises consumer testing, behavioural evidence, prominence of risks and benefits, and the design of communications that support comprehension rather than simply satisfy disclosure requirements.
Viewed in that context, ASIC’s emphasis on headline claims, effective warnings, AI-related risk disclosures and platform suitability appears less like an isolated advertising update and more like part of a broader international shift in regulatory thinking, and one entirely consistent with Standard 5. The emerging question for firms is no longer whether information has been disclosed. Increasingly, regulators want to know whether consumers actually understood it.
The Bigger Story
Most commentary on the revised RG 234 will focus on the guide’s specific amendments, but the more interesting story is the regulatory philosophy connecting them.
Across past performance advertising, AI-enabled advice tools, social media promotions, and digital advertising, ASIC consistently emphasises the same themes: consumer understanding, prominence, balance, overall impression, and behavioural effectiveness.
The revised RG 234 closely aligns with long-standing ACCC guidance under the Australian Consumer Law. Both regulators increasingly assess communications through the lens of the impression created for the intended audience, rather than by reference to the mere existence of a qualifying disclosure.
The result is a regulatory environment in which firms are expected to design communications that consumers can realistically understand, rather than relying on technical compliance with disclosure requirements. For financial services providers, this signals that advertising and promotional review processes should be assessed not only against the literal accuracy of statements but also against the overall consumer impression they are likely to create.
These ideas are neither novel nor unexpected. Those paying attention have watched them emerge progressively through ASIC’s work on disclosure design, consumer testing, Design and Distribution Obligations, digital engagement practices and misleading conduct enforcement.
The revised RG 234 simply brings those themes together in a single document.
For AFSL holders, Responsible Managers and compliance professionals, the key lesson is that disclosure alone is becoming a less reliable compliance strategy.
A disclaimer may still be necessary, but your compliance regime should be focused on answering a different question – Does the client actually understand the message being communicated?
That question may ultimately prove more important than any specific amendment contained within the revised guide.
Three Key Takeaways
1. Disclosure isn’t enough.
ASIC is increasingly assessing communications based on consumer understanding and overall impression rather than the mere existence of technically correct disclosures.
2. Prominence matters as much as accuracy.
Risks, limitations and qualifications must be sufficiently prominent to balance headline claims, particularly in relation to performance advertising and AI-enabled advice tools.
3. Platform constraints are not a defence.
If a communication channel cannot accommodate balanced and non-misleading information, ASIC expects firms to reconsider whether that channel is appropriate for the message being conveyed.
Further reading
If you enjoyed this, please read
Frequently Asked Questions
No. ASIC has not prohibited the use of the phrase “Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance”, nor has it prescribed a single mandatory warning. However, the revised RG 234 distinguishes between disclosures that are more likely to be effective and those that are less likely to influence consumer understanding.
ASIC identifies the statement “Past performance is not indicative of future performance” as an example of a more effective warning, while noting that phrases such as “Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance” and “Future returns may vary” may be less effective. The significance of this distinction is not merely semantic. ASIC appears to be focusing on whether a warning changes the consumer’s perception of a performance claim rather than simply qualifying it technically.
For licensees, advisers, Responsible Entities and trustees, this may warrant a review of existing performance disclosures to determine whether they remain consistent with ASIC’s evolving expectations regarding consumer understanding and disclosure effectiveness.
In many cases, yes. Although the revised guide does not introduce a wholesale prohibition on existing advertising practices, it does signal a meaningful shift in ASIC’s expectations regarding prominence, balance and consumer understanding.
AFSL holders should consider reviewing websites, adviser profiles, social media content, fund factsheets, investment presentations, brochures, digital advertising campaigns and other promotional material. Particular attention should be paid to headline claims, performance representations and any statements regarding technology, artificial intelligence or automated advice capabilities.
Importantly, the review should not be limited to checking whether disclosures exist. ASIC’s guidance suggests that firms should assess whether a reasonable consumer would likely form a balanced understanding of the product, service or claim being promoted. Where prominent benefits are accompanied by less prominent qualifications, warnings or limitations, remediation may be necessary even if the underlying disclosures are technically accurate.
ASIC is not discouraging the use of artificial intelligence in financial services. Rather, its concern is the way AI-enabled tools are described and promoted to consumers.
The revised RG 234 warns against advertising that overstates the capabilities of AI-enabled advice tools while minimising or obscuring their limitations. ASIC specifically states that information about risks and limitations should be given sufficient prominence as information about benefits. This expectation applies not only to standalone digital advice platforms but also to AI-enabled tools used within broader advice processes.
The practical implication is that firms should avoid promotional material that focuses exclusively on speed, efficiency, sophistication or innovation without adequately explaining assumptions, limitations, human oversight arrangements or circumstances where the technology may not perform as expected.
As AI adoption accelerates across financial services, this guidance is likely to become increasingly important for advisers, licensees and technology providers.
Generally, no. One of the clearest themes running through the revised RG 234 is that a disclaimer cannot rescue a headline that is misleading in its own right.
ASIC explicitly states that while qualifications may sometimes be necessary, the headline claim itself must not be misleading. The more a qualification is required to balance a headline claim, the more prominent that qualification must be. This reflects a long-standing principle also recognised by the ACCC under the Australian Consumer Law.
The reason is straightforward. Consumers often take away the dominant message conveyed by a communication rather than carefully analysing every qualification or footnote. If the headline creates a misleading impression, a disclaimer may be insufficient to alter that impression, regardless of its technical accuracy.
For firms reviewing promotional material, the critical question is whether the headline remains fair, balanced and accurate even before a consumer reads the supporting disclosure.
The revised guide suggests that firms should move beyond a traditional disclosure-focused review process and adopt a broader consumer-outcomes perspective.
Historically, many advertising reviews focused on whether required disclosures, warnings and qualifications were present. While those considerations remain important, ASIC now appears increasingly interested in whether consumers are likely to understand the message being communicated and whether the overall impression is balanced.
A useful starting point is to ask three questions:
– Is the headline claim itself accurate and balanced?
– Are risks, limitations and qualifications presented with sufficient prominence?
– Would a reasonable consumer likely leave with a balanced understanding of the product or service?
If the answer to any of these questions is unclear, firms should reconsider the design, wording or presentation of the communication. Under the emerging regulatory approach, consumer understanding may ultimately become a more important compliance measure than disclosure alone.
.
