Whilst the financial services sector seems to have embraced the innovation economy, a recent case shows just how important it is for Australian Financial Services Licence, (AFS) holders to take care when advertising their products.
A recent case brought by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, (ASIC) is a reminder that when advertising investment schemes precise language needs to be used.
‘ASIC Approved’
Recently Huntley Management Limited, (Huntley), an AFS holder and responsible entity of managed investment schemes, came under fire from ASIC.
Huntley’s had stated on their website and later in a newspaper, that they acted “as responsible entity, custodian, trustee and/or manager for over 40 managed investment projects approved by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’. ASIC brought a civil penalties claim in the Federal Court of Australia for the use of the words, “approved by ASIC”. ASIC claimed it was a breach of s12DB (1)(e) of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act. This section states that a person must not:
“make a false or misleading representation that services have sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, uses or benefits”.
Huntley faced a fine of up to $3 Million, however pleaded guilty and settled with ASIC by agreeing to pay a fine of $20,000. The lesson here is that even apparently minor misstatements can have significant consequences.
ASIC is the body tasked with registration of managed investment schemes and the issuance of Australian Financial Securities Licences. However, it has made it clear that this in no way means that they approve the contents of the scheme or any financial product that has been issued by a licence holder; and to claim otherwise may be misleading and deceptive.
ASIC provides to the financial services industry the Regulatory Guide 234 Advertising Financial Products and Services (including credit): Good Practice Guidance as a guideline for financial suppliers to meet the requirements and their obligations under the act.
Links and further references
Legislation
Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth)
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)
Cases
Further information about misleading and deceptive conduct
If you need advice on misleading and deceptive conduct or avoiding liability for misstatements, please contact me for a confidential and obligation free and discussion:
Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS.
Legal Practice Director
T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred)
M: +61 419 726 535
E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au
Disclaimer
This article contains general commentary only. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances.
Related insights about misleading and deceptive conduct
-
Overview of the Unfair Trading Practices Bill 2026
On 1 April 2026, the Australian Government introduced the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 (Cth) (Bill) to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) and Australian Consumer Law (ACL).[1] If passed, the reform will take effect on 1 July 2027. The Bill’s amendments aim to protect consumers from manipulative…
-
Does your start-up meet the ESIC tax-offset criteria?
Federal government introduced the Tax Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives for Innovation) Act 2016 (Cth) to provide tax incentives for investors in an eligible early stage innovation company (ESIC), including 20% up-front non-refundable tax offset and capital gains tax (CGT) exemption for all types of investors meeting criteria.
-
White-Anting: An employer’s lawful termination guide
Employees who use White Anting tactics to deliberately undermine management or disrupt workplace harmony may be summarily dismissed, provided the relevant legal conditions are met and a proper process is followed. Following our 28 April 2026 article “White Anting: serious misconduct?“, this article provides practical “how to” steps for employers to lawfully dismiss employees who…
-
White Anting: serious misconduct?
White Anting is an Australian term meaning to sabotage, undermine, or destroy an organisation, project, or person from within. White Anting in the workplace often involves the quiet, insidious undermining of a colleague or superior through gossip, withholding information, exclusion, or spreading doubt. White Anting has been recognised by psychologists as a psychosocial hazard and…
-
ACCC publishes guidance on cash acceptance industry codes
From 1 January 2026, new cash acceptance obligations have commenced under industry codes applying to supermarkets and fuel retailers, overseen by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). In March 2026, the ACCC published guidance on these newly enforced regulations, reminding retailers to consider their obligations before penalties apply on 1 July 2026.
-
Valuing ESS Interests
A company, whether listed or unlisted, can grant its employees an interest in its equity (ESS Interest), including through an employee share scheme (ESS) or employee share option plan (ESOP). There are restrictions contained in both the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) and Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) (ITAA) that determine the price…
-
ESS vs ESOP – what’s the difference?
Employee share schemes (ESS) and employee share option plans (ESOP) are commonly used by corporations to incentivise employees and align performance with company growth by providing them with an interest in the company. While the terms are often used interchangeably, they have distinct legal and structural differences under Australian law. This article explains the key…
-
Disputed ESOP – Selak v National Tiles Co Pty Ltd
In the case of Selak v National Tiles, the Vic Supreme Court considered whether a company breached an option agreement governed by the terms of an Employee Share Option Plan (ESOP) by requiring an option holder to execute an undisclosed shareholders’ agreement as a condition of exercising vested options.
-
Bill to allow victims of AI deepfakes to sue for emotional damages
On 24 November 2025, Senator David Pocock introduced a private Senator’s bill, the Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) Bill 2025 (Cth) (Bill) to amend the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth) (Online Safety Act) and the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act).
