In the past three months, ASIC has rewritten its advertising guide, won against Choosi in the Federal Court and sued Clark Family over 70 comparison websites.
The message is clear: the headline decides whether your ad is misleading, and fine print won’t save it.
If you’re an insurer, MGA or broker, this applies to you. Choosi’s mistake was a sentence many brokers use every day: “we compare a range of insurers.”
The fix is not better copywriting. You need a process that keeps your marketing in line with how your business actually works.
The five things you need to know
1. The headline is what counts
ASIC’s revised RG 234 asks one question: what does a customer take away the first time they see your ad?
If that impression is wrong, the ad is misleading, whatever the fine print says.
2. Disclaimers and links don’t fix a misleading claim
A disclaimer can’t contradict the headline and must be just as prominent. A link or QR code to “more information” doesn’t correct anything.
Clark Family added disclaimers to its websites in 2026, and ASIC’s case still covers those versions.
3. Your intent doesn’t matter
ASIC doesn’t have to prove you meant to mislead, that anyone was actually misled, or that anyone lost money.
It’s enough that the ad is likely to create a false impression. Leaving out a key limitation counts too.
4. Brokers are exposed, not just comparison sites
The court in Choosi said a reasonable consumer reads “a range of insurers” as a meaningful selection of the market, not one or two.
If your website describes your panel that way but most placements go to one or two insurers, that is a risk now.
5. The real problem is drift
Choosi, Clark Family and RACQ were not caught out by one bad ad. They were caught because their claims stopped matching how the business actually worked.
Panels change, pricing changes and products change, but the website stays the same.
One rule covers all of it: every claim needs a source, every “up to” needs a basis, and every qualification needs equal prominence.
What should you do now?
This is the process we shared at our recent RG 234 webinar with Clyde & Co. It’s deliberately simple.
Set up once
Write one page of approved claims for each product, with the PDS clause next to each claim.
Name one reviewer. Nothing goes live without their approval, including the director’s LinkedIn posts.
Check every piece of content before it goes live
It takes five minutes.
Does the customer’s overall impression match what the product actually does?
Is every number sourced and current?
Is the qualification as visible as the claim?
If it doesn’t fit the format, drop the claim.
And is this the right audience for the channel?
Sign off properly
Approve the final version, not a draft.
Keep a record of the version, date, approver and channel.
The person who wrote the content can’t approve it.
Review every quarter
List everything that’s live, including your website, social media, EDMs and brochures.
Fix or remove anything out of date.
Read your complaints too. Anyone saying “I thought I was covered for…” may be pointing to a marketing problem.
Introducing Curium’s Marketing Checks
This process works for one website. It doesn’t work for 70, or for a broker network with hundreds of pages, posts and brochures that change every week. So we built a tool for it.
Marketing Checks reviews every piece of marketing content in four separate layers, so you can see exactly where an issue comes from:
Australian regulatory requirements. It checks against the laws that apply to financial services advertising, including the misleading and deceptive conduct provisions in the ASIC Act, the Corporations Act and the Australian Consumer Law.
RG 234. It checks against ASIC’s advertising guidance, covering the overall impression, balance, disclaimer prominence, comparisons and absolute claims like “fully covered”.
Your company guidelines. It checks against your own rules, such as approved claims, brand standards, restricted phrases and sign-off requirements.
Your product documents. It checks every claim about cover, limits, excesses and benefits against the actual PDS or policy wording. If your ad says “all your contents covered” and your PDS has a $2,000 jewellery sub-limit, you’ll know before the ad goes live.
Each layer is reported separately. You can see straight away whether a claim breaks the law, goes against ASIC’s guidance, breaches your own rules or doesn’t match the product.
Most marketing review only checks the wording. Marketing Checks also checks the ad against the product it’s selling, which is where drift shows up.
What happened in the Choosi case?
Choosi ran a comparison service for funeral and life insurance. Its website, TV ads and social media said customers could compare policies “from a range of insurers” and make an informed choice.
For most of the period, customers could not.
From July 2019, Choosi’s funeral policies came from a single insurer, Hannover Life Re. ASIC alleged that 4,225 funeral policies and 9,478 life policies were sold through the service between July 2019 and November 2024.
In September 2026, Justice Anderson found that Choosi “falsely gave consumers the impression that its Comparison Service compared policies from a broader range of insurers than it in fact did.”
The court said the value of a comparison service comes from how much of the market it covers. Say “range”, and customers will reasonably expect a range.
Choosi has taken its website down to make “important improvements”. Penalty will be decided at a later hearing.
What does ASIC allege against Clark Family?
On 18 September 2026, ASIC sued Clark Family Pty Ltd.
The company ran Financial Services Online and up to 70 websites for insurance and loans, with names including farm-insurance-australia.com.au and truckloans.com.au.
The sites promised to “compare insurance quotes from a big selection of leading Australian insurers” and offer “tailored policies to suit your needs”.
ASIC alleges that no comparison ever happened.
Customers entered their details, and Clark Family sold those details by electronic auction to the broker who bid the most. Brokers were matched on the price paid for the lead, not on what the customer needed.
Clark Family didn’t check whether brokers compared anything or offered suitable options.
ASIC says this breached sections 12DB(1)(e) and 12DF(1) of the ASIC Act. It also alleges that consumers may have bought products when a cheaper or more suitable option was available.
The detail most people will miss is the disclaimers.
From mid-2026, many of the sites carried text such as:
“Comparison results are from participating brokers within our referral network and may not represent all providers in the market.”
ASIC’s case still includes those versions. A disclaimer attached to an allegedly misleading headline did not remove those versions from ASIC’s case.
These are allegations. The court has not made any findings against Clark Family.
What changed in RG 234 in 2026?
On 9 June 2026, ASIC revised RG 234, its guide to advertising financial products and services.
It was the first update since 2012.
As Mikaela Eldridge of Clyde & Co explained at our webinar, the core rules haven’t changed. What has changed is how clearly ASIC now states them.
Overall impression comes first
What a customer takes away the first time they see the ad is the test.
Disclaimers must match the claim
They can’t contradict the headline and must be just as prominent.
A click-through link or QR code doesn’t correct a misleading impression.
Out-of-date ads must come down
If an ad is no longer accurate, withdraw it.
Comparisons must be like-for-like
If you compare different products, make the differences clear.
Ads must match the Target Market Determination
What you say, how you say it and where you advertise all need to be consistent with the product’s Target Market Determination, or TMD.
Plan for the real audience
Think about who will actually see an ad, not just who you’re aiming at.
A wholesale product in a broad Facebook campaign is a problem.
No format is an excuse
Reels, banners and paid search listings must still give a balanced message.
If the warning can’t be understood in real time, the claim shouldn’t run.
AI is in scope
Don’t overstate what AI tools can do.
AI-written copy that invents facts or introduces bias raises your risk of misleading advertising.
How do courts decide if an ad is misleading?
As Yvonne Lam of Clyde & Co set out at our webinar, the test is simpler, and stricter, than most people expect.
Intent doesn’t matter. What matters is the impression the ad creates.
No one has to be misled. It’s enough that the ad is likely to mislead.
No loss is needed. The law applies even if nobody suffered damage.
Silence can mislead. Leaving out a key limitation can breach the law.
The test is objective. It asks how a reasonable consumer would read the ad, not how you meant it.
The relevant laws are section 1041H of the Corporations Act, sections 12DA, 12DB and 12DF of the ASIC Act, and section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law.
What should insurers, MGAs and brokers stop saying?
These are the phrases we see most often. Each one either needs a qualification or should go:
- “We compare the whole market” when you place through a limited panel
- “Independent advice” when you’re paid commissions or have panel arrangements
- “Fully covered” or “complete protection” when every policy has exclusions
- “Covers everything” when contents sub-limits, driver restrictions or unselected business pack sections apply
- “Save up to 30%” when that’s based on one client’s result
- “From $X a month” when that price only applies to a narrow, low-risk profile
- “Paid in 48 hours” when that’s an exceptional result presented as normal
- “We make sure you get paid” when the insurer, not the broker, decides claims
- Price comparisons that aren’t like-for-like, with different sums insured, excesses or cover
- Any bold claim that needs an asterisk to be true
Frequently asked questions
Can a disclaimer fix a misleading ad?
Usually not. Under RG 234, a disclaimer must be as prominent as the claim it qualifies and must not contradict it.
A link or QR code to more information doesn’t correct a misleading headline.
What did the court decide in the Choosi case?
The Federal Court found that Choosi misled consumers by claiming to compare funeral and life insurance from a range of insurers when, for most of the period, it compared policies from one.
Penalty will be decided later.
What is ASIC v Clark Family about?
ASIC alleges that Clark Family’s websites promised insurance and loan comparisons and tailored options, but actually sold customer details by auction to the highest-bidding broker.
The case was filed on 18 September 2026 and has not been decided.
Does RG 234 apply to insurance brokers?
Yes. RG 234 applies to anyone who promotes financial products or services, including insurers, brokers, MGAs and authorised representatives.
It also applies to publishers and platforms that carry the ads.
What does “a range of insurers” mean legally?
In Choosi, the court said a reasonable consumer understands it as a meaningful selection of the market, not one or two insurers.
Do I need to intend to mislead to break the law?
No. Intent doesn’t matter.
The question is whether the ad is likely to create a false impression.
What changed in RG 234 in 2026?
ASIC revised RG 234 on 9 June 2026, the first update since 2012.
It makes the overall first impression the main test and adds guidance on disclaimers, out-of-date ads, TMD consistency, social media, finfluencers and AI.
How often should we review our live marketing?
At least quarterly, and whenever your product, pricing, panel or TMD changes.
How can I check my marketing against RG 234 and my PDS?
You can do it manually with an approved-claims list and a sign-off process.
Or you can use Curium’s Marketing Checks to review content against Australian regulatory requirements, RG 234, your company guidelines and your product documents.
Continue your learning with Curium Academy
We’ve also prepared an online learning module in Curium Academy, available through LearnWorlds, covering RG 234 and the key advertising compliance principles discussed in this article.
Complete the learning material to earn 1 CIP point and receive a certificate upon completion. Start the course
This article draws on Curium Academy’s RG 234 session with Yvonne Lam and Mikaela Eldridge of Clyde & Co.
General information only. This article does not constitute legal advice.
Sources
- ASIC v Clark Family – Concise Statement
- ASIC – Federal Court finds Choosi misled consumers about its insurance comparison services
- Insurance Business Australia – Choosi judgment
- Stockhead – Comparison websites under fire from ASIC
Author:
Tetiana George, CEO of Curium, Co-Chair of Insurtech Australia and member of ASIC Digital Finance Advisory Committee. LinkedIn Profile.