Product Governance

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v National Australia Bank [2025] FCA 947

ASIC v National Australia Bank [2025] FCA 947 examines systemic failures to provide timely hardship responses to financially vulnerable customers. The decision highlights the need for reliable workflow controls, daily monitoring of continuing contraventions and effective remediation where statutory notices are missed.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Firstmac Limited (Penalty Hearing) [2025] FCA 12

ASIC v Firstmac Ltd (Penalty Hearing) [2025] FCA 12 is a significant design and distribution obligations decision concerning inadequate target market controls. The judgment confirms that product issuers and distributors must operationalise target market determinations through effective screening, staff training, documented procedures and ongoing monitoring.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Mercer Superannuation (Australia) Limited [2024] FCA 850

ASIC v Mercer Superannuation (Australia) Ltd [2024] FCA 850 is a major Australian greenwashing decision concerning misleading ESG exclusion claims. The case confirms that superannuation trustees and fund managers must ensure sustainability statements reflect actual portfolio holdings, including indirect and pooled exposures.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v AustralianSuper Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 102

ASIC v AustralianSuper Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 102 sets an important enforcement benchmark for superannuation trustees. The decision confirms that best-interests duties require effective operational systems, accountable ownership and timely remediation where duplicate accounts cause avoidable fees, insurance premiums and lost investment earnings.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v LGSS Pty Ltd (No 3) [2025] FCA 205

ASIC v LGSS Pty Ltd (No 3) [2025] FCA 205 sets an important greenwashing enforcement benchmark for superannuation trustees and investment managers. The decision confirms that ESG claims must reflect actual portfolio holdings, including indirect exposures, and that misleading sustainability statements can attract substantial penalties without proof of direct financial loss.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Auto & General Insurance Company Limited [2025] FCAFC 76

ASIC v Auto & General Insurance Company Ltd [2025] FCAFC 76 clarifies how unfair contract terms are assessed in insurance contracts. The Full Court emphasised proper construction, transparency, legitimate interests and the importance of drafting clear, proportionate customer notification obligations.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v BPS Financial Pty Ltd (Penalty) [2026] FCA 18

ASIC v BPS Financial Pty Ltd (Penalty) [2026] FCA 18 has broader implications for crypto, fintech and digital payment businesses. The decision reinforces functional product regulation, strict licensing expectations, personal responsibility for marketing claims and the need to substantiate statements about liquidity, merchant growth and regulatory approval.

OnePath Custodians Pty Limited v Australian Securities and Investments Commission v OnePath Custodians Pty Limited [2023] FCA 1485


In ASIC v OnePath Custodians Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1485, the Federal Court imposed a $5 million penalty after superannuation members were misled about adviser service fees, cancellation rights and service entitlements. The decision highlights the need for accurate member communications, integrated fee controls and prompt remediation.

Step 1 of 8 - Your Role

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Assess your ASIC exposure

Answer a few targeted questions to identify where your compliance may not stand up under ASIC review.

Takes less than 2 minutes. No preparation required.

What best describes your role?