logo
ASIC sues Choosi for allegedly misleading customers about insurance comparison services

ASIC sues Choosi for allegedly misleading customers about insurance comparison services

The corporate regulator is suing insurance comparison provider Choosi for allegedly misleading customers through its insurance comparison services.
In proceedings filed to the Federal Court, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) alleges Choosi has misled Australians by claiming to compare a range of funeral and life insurers.
On its website, Choosi states: "Compare the benefits and prices of a range of products from leading insurers so you can confidently choose cover that suits your needs, budget and lifestyle."
However, ASIC claims that from the middle of July 2019, Choosi has only compared policies issued by a single insurer, except for on one occasion.
"Choosi is only comparing one insurer — Hannover Insurance — and so we're concerned that the representations to those consumers who looked at the website and heard that advertising have been misled," ASIC's deputy chair Sarah Court told The Business.
ASIC alleges that while the three funeral insurance products on Choosi's website have different branding, they are all issued by Hannover.
Similarly, despite Choosi comparing five life insurance policies with different branding, they are once again all issued by Hannover — expect for the period prior to July 2023, when Choosi included a single policy from an additional insurer.
ASIC says all policies were distributed by Greenstone Financial Services — a company associated with Choosi.
"From a consumers perspective, they've come onto a website, they're told we will compare a range of products from a number of leading insurers," says Ms Court.
Hannover is a global insurance provider with two entities in Australia — property and casualty insurance, and life and health insurance.
ASIC is alleging Hannover paid Choosi about $61 million in commissions since 2019 to solely advertise products from its company on the comparison website.
"What we're seeing here is the Choosi platform really being used by Hannover as just a platform to distribute its products, with no comparison going on with other insurers at all," says Ms Court.
She says "millions of people" would have been exposed to Choosi's messaging over the six years since this arrangement began.
"We know that this was a very widespread advertising campaign by Choosi over many years... and we know there have been thousands of policies that have been sold," says Ms Court.
ASIC alleges Choosi made the misleading representations on its website, across social media, and via television commercials and advertorials.
From July 1, 2019 until November 30, 2024, 4,225 funeral insurance policies and 9,478 life insurance policies have been sold.
Ms Court has told the ABC if the Federal Court finds Choosi has misled customers, then "it will be important for [ASIC] to seek substantial penalties".
"[It's] to send a message to Choosi, but also as importantly, to send a message to the broader industry and others that run comparison websites…
"If you want to run these kind of sites then you certainly have to be very open and transparent with consumers about what it is that you're comparing."
Ms Court says insurance comparison websites hold an important role, when they are operated and used correctly.
"We know that people are finding it difficult to afford insurance, difficult to access insurance, and so comparison websites could play a really important role in helping consumers with what is out there and helping them choose the products that are best for them."
But she warns consumers to be "wary".
"[These comparison sites] are effectively commercial businesses, they make money in certain ways.
"So with Choosi, it was from getting commissions paid to it from the one insurer whose products it was selling," she says.
While she urges consumers to do some "due diligence" by checking the policies product disclosure statements, she says the onus is on the provider to do the right thing.
"Anyone that is a commercial provider offering a comparison website, you have to be up-front with what it is you are comparing, you need to be transparent with anyone, any consumer that's coming on to use your site."

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Aldi sued for stocking ‘confusingly similar packaging' to famous snacks
Aldi sued for stocking ‘confusingly similar packaging' to famous snacks

News.com.au

time2 hours ago

  • News.com.au

Aldi sued for stocking ‘confusingly similar packaging' to famous snacks

The supermarket of choice for those on tight budgets is being slugged by a potentially devastating legal case. We've all walked past a couple of dubiously named brands that look very much like the original in Aldi's snack isle. But now those cheaper options are being put under the microscope as multinational corporations put the foot down. Snack maker Mondelez, the company behind Oreos and Ritz crackers, has launched legal action against Aldi's US arm, accusing the discount retailer of stocking 'blatant copies' of its iconic biscuit brands. The case claims Aldi's private-label products bear 'confusingly similar packaging' that could mislead shoppers and damage Mondelez's reputation. The company has requested a court order to block Aldi from selling the products in question, alongside a claim for monetary damages. Side-by-side comparisons submitted in the lawsuit show visual similarities between Aldi's chocolate sandwich cookies and Oreos, both featuring blue packaging with near-identical cookie arrangements. Similar comparisons were made between Aldi's Golden Round crackers and Ritz, both wrapped in red boxes with blue and yellow accents. Mondelez alleges it repeatedly warned Aldi about the likenesses. While the retailer reportedly adjusted or withdrew some packaging, others remain on shelves. Aldi, which operates more than 2500 stores in 39 US states and 600 in Australia, has not commented publicly on the case. Known for keeping prices low by selling mostly in-house brands, the German-founded chain has faced similar legal challenges over its private-label packaging in several countries in the past. In Australia, Aldi was found to have infringed copyright in a 2023 case involving children's snack brand Baby Bellies. The court found some of Aldi's Mamia puff products too closely resembled the benchmark design provided by the brand's licensor, Hampden Holdings. Evidence included internal correspondence acknowledging the resemblance. However, Aldi prevailed in other claims involving rice cakes and has appealed the ruling. Elsewhere, Aldi won a 2018 appeal in Australia against Moroccanoil Israel over similar packaging claims related to haircare products, while in the UK, a court sided with cider brand Thatchers in a dispute over bottle design.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store