1. Executive Summary
In Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Choosi Pty Ltd, in the matter of Choosi Pty Ltd (liability) [2026] FCA 1196, Anderson J held that Choosi Pty Ltd contravened ss 12DB(1)(a), 12DB(1)(e) and 12DF(1) of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) by representing that its life and funeral insurance comparison service compared policies from a “range of insurers”, when in fact the relevant policies were issued by only one or, for part of the period, two insurers. The Federal Court has independently published the judgment with a judgment date of 8 September 2026.
The liability findings cover the Choosi website and each television advertisement, advertorial and Facebook advertisement relied on by ASIC during the period 1 July 2019 to 2 June 2025. The Court did not determine penalties. The parties were ordered to confer on declarations and proposed orders for a future penalty hearing.
The decision is significant for financial services businesses using comparison, aggregation or marketplace models. Its central compliance message is that the Court will assess the commercial impression and consumer proposition of the service, not merely the literal accuracy of individual words, disclosures or product tables. A comparison service promoted as saving customers the work of shopping around may itself imply meaningful breadth of market coverage.
Choosi’s reliance on multiple brands, PDS disclosures, disclaimers, partner referrals and subsequent telephone interactions did not cure the problem. The Court found that consumers could already have been drawn into the “marketing web” on the basis of an erroneous understanding of the service before any later clarification occurred.
2. Citation & Context
Case: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Choosi Pty Ltd, in the matter of Choosi Pty Ltd (liability) [2026] FCA 1196
Court: Federal Court of Australia
Judge: Anderson J
Date: 8 September 2026
File: VID 695 of 2025
Hearing: 4–5 May 2026
Relevant conduct period: 1 July 2019–2 June 2025
Stage: Liability only; relief and penalties reserved for later determination.
Official Federal Court judgment
Choosi held an AFSL and provided a financial service assisting consumers to compare, choose and apply for life and funeral insurance. Funeral insurance policies compared by Choosi were all issued by Hannover. For life insurance, Choosi compared Hannover policies plus one Swiss Re policy until 30 June 2023; from 1 July 2023, the relevant life policies were also confined to Hannover.
The marketing scale was substantial: television advertisements were broadcast more than 300,000 times, with a cumulative audience exceeding one billion; advertorials were broadcast at least 397 times with a cumulative audience exceeding 38 million.
3. Procedural Posture
ASIC commenced the proceeding alleging false or misleading representations and conduct liable to mislead the public. The Court had previously ordered that liability be determined separately and before relief.
The evidence included agreed facts, historical versions of Choosi’s website and advertising, telephone scripts, ASIC investigation material and affidavits from Choosi/Greenstone personnel. The Court noted that evidence concerning commission quantum was potentially relevant to penalty but was not material to determining liability.
Choosi principally argued that:
- the pleaded comparison representation was not conveyed;
- “brands”, “providers” and “insurers” were distinct concepts;
- two insurers could constitute a “range”;
- disclosures and PDS material qualified the advertising;
- the telephone process formed part of the complete service; and
- referrals to Life Insurance Direct and other partner insurers broadened the comparison proposition.
Those arguments were rejected in the material respects necessary for ASIC’s primary case.
4. Facts, Issues & Outcome
ASIC’s primary allegation was that Choosi represented that it compared life and funeral insurance policies from a range of insurers. ASIC pleaded a narrower alternative that Choosi compared policies from “multiple insurers”, but Anderson J did not need to determine that alternative because the primary representation was established across all impugned media.
A central issue was the meaning of “range”. Choosi submitted that a range could linguistically consist of two items. The Court rejected that abstract approach. Context was critical: Choosi was promoting a comparison service whose value proposition was to save consumers the work of researching insurers themselves.
The Court stated:
“The comparative value of such a service derives … from the breadth of the market being surveyed.” — at [205].
Anderson J concluded that an ordinary and reasonable consumer would understand the representation to mean comparison across a sufficiently broad selection of insurers to constitute a meaningful market comparison. Two insurers were insufficient in that context. At [208], the Court held that consumers would not understand a “range” as a comparison service involving policies issued by only two insurers.
The website, television advertisements, advertorials and Facebook material all conveyed that impression. Accordingly, because the actual comparison was confined to one insurer for funeral insurance and one or two insurers for life insurance, the representations were false or misleading.
5. Contraventions
| Act | Section | Duty/prohibition | Conduct | Count | Finding | Pinpoint | URL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ASIC Act 2001 (Cth) | 12DB(1)(a) | No false or misleading representation that services are of a particular standard, quality, value or grade | Comparison service represented as comparing policies from a range of insurers | Not quantified | Contravened | [345], [350] | Federal Register |
| ASIC Act 2001 (Cth) | 12DB(1)(e) | No false or misleading representation concerning performance characteristics, uses or benefits | Breadth of comparison represented a capability/benefit the service did not possess | Not quantified | Contravened | [346], [350] | Federal Register |
| ASIC Act 2001 (Cth) | 12DF(1) | No conduct liable to mislead the public about the nature, characteristics or suitability of financial services | Public-facing website and advertising conveyed materially broader market comparison | Not quantified | Contravened | [347]–[350] | Federal Register |
The current Federal Register compilation confirms the relevant wording of s 12DB(1)(a) and (e), and s 12DF(1).
6. Definitions & Legal Clarifications
“Range” is contextual, not numerical in the abstract
The judgment does not establish a universal rule that “range” always means three or more items. The finding was contextual. In a comparison-service setting, “range” conveyed sufficient market breadth to provide a meaningful comparison.
That distinction matters operationally. Compliance review should not ask merely, “Is this word technically defensible?” It should ask what proposition an ordinary consumer will take from the total commercial presentation.
Brands are not necessarily distinct insurers
Choosi displayed multiple brands, but the Court rejected the proposition that consumers would necessarily distinguish those brands from underlying issuers. In the context of the comparison proposition, references to brands and providers were capable of conveying that different insurers were being compared.
This has obvious significance for white-label and multi-brand distribution structures.
Referral is not comparison
The Court rejected reliance on the partner referral pathway as expanding what Choosi itself compared.
At [337]:
“A reasonable consumer would not understand a representation that Choosi compares policies” as extending to merely directing the consumer elsewhere.
The fact that 6,124 referrals occurred did not establish that Choosi itself compared the referred partner policies. Choosi’s own response to an ASIC statutory notice had identified only Hannover and Swiss Re policies as those it compared.
7. Key Legal Principles
A. Overall impression controls
The Court emphasised the “general thrust” or first impression of advertising rather than a forensic parsing of its individual components. This is particularly important for mass-market advertising where consumers may pay only limited attention.
For compliance teams, technically correct sentences do not necessarily neutralise a misleading overall architecture.
B. Disclaimers must actually dispel the dominant message
Disclosures identifying Hannover or Swiss Re did not cure the advertisements. In television material, disclaimers were small, appeared over moving imagery and competed with spoken and visual content. The Court considered it reasonable for consumers not to absorb them.
The same issue arose on Facebook: the moving content attracted attention and the disclaimer disappeared when the final “Compare now” call to action appeared.
C. Deep-link disclosure is not a safe cure
Choosi relied on PDSs and TMDs identifying issuers. Anderson J rejected the proposition that a consumer should be expected to review every underlying disclosure document to discover that multiple displayed policies shared the same issuer.
The Court observed:
“the entire point of the Comparison Service is to save the consumer the time from undertaking such tasks themselves.” — at [264].
D. Later interactions may come too late
The telephone calls occurred after exposure to the website or advertising. The Court held that the initial representation could already have influenced the consumer to make contact.
At [326], the Court found that the marketing material could “draw the consumer into the marketing web”.
Further, the telephone scripts did not clearly disclose that Choosi’s comparison was confined to Hannover or, during the earlier life-insurance period, Hannover and Swiss Re.
8. Orders, Penalties & Remedies
| Order / remedy | Legal basis | Amount / scope | Paragraphs | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liability findings | ASIC Act ss 12DB(1)(a), (e), 12DF(1) | Website and each impugned TV advertisement, advertorial and Facebook advertisement | [350] | Determined |
| Declarations | To reflect liability reasons | Form to be agreed or determined | [350]–[351] | Pending finalisation |
| Pecuniary penalties | To be determined later | No amount determined | Orders of 8 September 2026 | Pending |
| Future penalty hearing | Procedural orders | Timetable to be proposed by parties | Order 1 | Pending |
The parties were required to provide proposed declarations and penalty-hearing timetable orders by 22 September 2026.
No conclusion should presently be drawn about ultimate penalty quantum, remediation orders, costs or other final relief.
9. Relevance for Licensees, Distributors & Responsible Managers
The judgment creates several immediate governance implications.
Comparison-service operators should maintain a documented mapping between brands, issuers, distributors and products and ensure customer-facing descriptions accurately reflect the level at which comparison occurs. A service displaying five brands but only one issuer carries materially different market breadth from a service comparing five independent insurers.
Responsible managers and compliance teams should also treat the scope of comparison as a core product claim, rather than ordinary marketing puffery. Expressions such as “we do the hard work”, “save time”, “compare providers”, “range”, “market”, “options” and “choose the right policy” may collectively imply breadth even where no single sentence expressly claims whole-of-market comparison.
Most importantly, disclosure design should be assessed against the customer journey at the point the representation operates, not on the theory that a later PDS, phone call or referral will correct it.
10. Risk Management & Compliance Recommendations
| Audience | Control Type | Legal rationale | Risk indicator | Practical control |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marketing | Preventative | Overall impression determines representation | “Range”, “many”, “market”, “leading providers” claims | Require substantiation of underlying issuer breadth before publication |
| Compliance | Detective | Brands may imply separate providers | Numerous brands share one issuer | Maintain issuer/brand comparison matrix and quarterly review |
| Digital/Product | Preventative | Fine print may not cure dominant message | Key disclosure below fold or behind links | Place scope-of-comparison disclosure adjacent to primary claim |
| Call centre | Corrective | Later calls may not cure earlier misleading conduct | Scripts disclose brands but not issuers | Explicitly state comparison universe before presenting results |
| Legal | Governance | Entire customer journey must be assessed | Different teams approve web, social and call scripts separately | Conduct end-to-end “consumer impression” legal review |
| Board/Risk Committee | Governance | Systemic advertising can create extensive exposure | High-volume campaigns using repeated proposition | Dashboard of comparison-scope claims, approvals, testing and exceptions |
11. Regulatory Significance
The judgment supports a strong proposition concerning comparison services, but it would be unsafe to infer a broader ASIC enforcement trend from this decision alone.
The useful regulatory lesson is narrower: financial services advertising will be assessed by reference to the consumer value proposition actually communicated, including implications arising from the business model and marketing context.
12. Recommended Next Steps
For any business operating comparison, aggregation or white-label distribution models, priority actions are to review all current references to “range”, “market”, “providers”, “brands” and “comparison”; map those claims to actual underlying issuers; assess whether disclaimers are prominent enough to alter the dominant impression; align website, social, television and call-centre representations; and escalate any material mismatch for legal review and remediation.
For historic campaigns, consider retaining evidence of the comparison universe, campaign approvals, scripts, impressions/audience data and sales outcomes. Those records may become material to penalty, consumer remediation or regulatory-response analysis.