Schedule A Free Call

CASE INSIGHTS

Regulatory proceedings. Court decisions. Practical lessons.

Case Insights provide practical analysis of significant Australian financial services judgments, ASIC enforcement proceedings and regulatory decisions. Rather than reproducing legal summaries, we identify the governance, compliance and risk management lessons that matter for AFSL and ACL licensees, responsible managers, compliance professionals and advisers.

Case Insights are provided for general information and professional education. They do not constitute legal advice.

CASE INSIGHT

ASIC v Choosi Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1196

ASIC v Choosi Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1196 examines misleading representations about the breadth of Choosi’s life and funeral insurance comparison service. The decision highlights the need for accurate comparison claims, clear disclosure of insurer coverage, prominent qualifications and controls that assess the overall consumer impression across websites, advertising and call-centre journeys.
Read Case Insight

CASE INSIGHT

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Oztures Trading Pty Ltd [2026]

ASIC v Oztures Trading Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 509 examines Binance Australia Derivatives’ systemic misclassification of retail clients as wholesale clients or sophisticated investors. The decision highlights the need for legally valid onboarding controls, Australian-law-specific training and effective retail product protections.
Read Case Insight

CASE INSIGHT

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.
Read Case Insight

CASE INSIGHT

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Westpac Banking Corporation [2026] FCA 651

In ASIC v Westpac Banking Corporation [2026] FCA 651, the Federal Court imposed a $26 million penalty for systemic failures in Westpac’s online financial hardship processes. The decision highlights the need for end-to-end complaint capture, reliable system controls, timely hardship decisions and effective protection against premature enforcement.
Read Case Insight

CASE INSIGHT

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v FIIG Securities Limited [2026] FCA 92

In ASIC v FIIG Securities Limited [2026] FCA 92, the Federal Court imposed a $2.5 million penalty for systemic cybersecurity failures under FIIG’s AFSL obligations. The decision confirms that cybersecurity is a core licensing, resource and risk-management issue requiring effective controls, skilled personnel and board-level oversight.
Read Case Insight

CASE INSIGHT

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Telstra Super Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 527

In ASIC v Telstra Super Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 527, the Federal Court found failures in Telstra Super’s internal dispute resolution processes, including late responses and deficient delay notices. The decision clarifies the legal force of RG 271-aligned IDR procedures and the limits of complaint-handling exceptions.
Read Case Insight

CASE INSIGHT

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Mercer Superannuation (Australia) Limited [2026] FCA 832

The Federal Court’s $10.3 million penalty against Mercer Super shows that breach reporting failures are often systems failures. The judgment explains when an investigation begins, how reporting deadlines arise and why licensees need reliable, joined-up controls over incident management, regulatory reporting and data accuracy.
Read Case Insight

CASE INSIGHT

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (Retail Cases Omnibus) [2025] FCA 1593

ASIC v ANZ (Retail Cases Omnibus) [2025] FCA 1593 examines systemic failures across hardship notices, bonus interest and deceased-estate administration. The decision highlights the need for reliable customer-outcomes systems, accurate records, effective monitoring and board oversight of recurring operational compliance failures.
Read Case Insight

CASE INSIGHT

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.
Read Case Insight

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?