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
-
The illegal phoenixing regime
The Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Illegal Phoenixing) Act 2020 (Cth) (Amending Act) came into force on 18 February 2020 and was designed to prevent illegal phoenixing activity. The Amending Act introduced reforms such as creditor-defeating disposition provisions to combat phoenixing activity. Additional provisions amending the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) were aimed to encourage accountability by…
-
What exactly is a change of control clause?
In commercial contracts, a change of control clause is one that allows one of the parties to an agreement to terminate or modify its terms if a third party acquires a controlling stake in the other. A change of control clause grants a party certain rights, such a right to accelerate an obligation to pay…
-
Unfair contract terms – automatic renewal clauses explained
9 November 2023 was a crucial date for Australian businesses because from that date significant penalties can now be imposed on businesses found to have unfair contract terms (UCT) in their contracts. The Federal Government had introduced significant changes to laws relating to UCT on 10 November 2022.
-
Changes to unfair contract terms
The Treasury Laws Amendment (More Competition, Better Prices) Act 2022 (Cth) (Amending Act) received royal assent on 9 November 2022, introducing significant amendments to the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). These amendments target the Unfair Contract Terms (UCT) provisions of the ACL, strengthening the rights of consumers while imposing stricter requirements on businesses using Standard Form…
-
ACCC consultation environmental and sustainability guidance
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission releases Draft Guidance to help businesses make environmental and sustainability claims without misleading consumers. Seeking input from stakeholders to ensure guidance is effective and up-to-date with consumer law.
-
Greenwashing on Facebook – ASIC fines Future Super
Learn more about Greenwashing in Australia and the alleged incidents, with Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) responsible for regulating misconduct. ASIC issued an infringement notice to Future Super for making misleading Greenwashing claims on Facebook. Understand the legislative framework and how to avoid making false claims.
-
Australian legislation tackles loot boxes in video games
The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Loot Boxes) Bill 2022 (Bill) has been tabled in the House of Representatives on the 28 November 2022. The private member’s Bill acts in response to growing support for the regulation of features and elements within video games which appear to simulate gambling.
-
Consumer law updates business owners should know
The Treasury Laws Amendment (More Competition, Better Prices) Act 2022 (Cth) (Act) amends various pieces of legislation to provide stronger competition and consumer protections. In particular, the Act bolsters the penalties applicable for offences relating to unfair practices and unfair contract terms under as contained within the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) and…
-
Is a proposed settlement fair and reasonable in the Federal Court?
Class action lawsuits commonly resolve in a settlement between the members of a class and the respondents to a claim. However, there are strict requirements to proposed settlements, including that they are ‘fair and reasonable’, which will be subject to judicial oversight.
