Latest news with #misleading
ABC News
3 days ago
- Business
- ABC News
ASIC sues Choosi over its insurance comparison services
ASIC is suing insurance comparison provider Choosi for allegedly misleading customers through its funeral and life insurance comparison services.
ABC News
3 days ago
- Business
- ABC News
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."
News.com.au
27-05-2025
- Sport
- News.com.au
'Mind your words son!'
NRL: Phil Gould has defended himself once more amid accusations he "misled" the public with his comments on Lachlan Galvin.
Daily Mail
12-05-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
Why Bunnings' 'we'll beat the competition by 10 per cent' promise isn't all that it seems
Bunnings has been accused of 'misleading' its customers with its infamous promise to beat any competitor's price on the same item by 10 per cent. The hardware giant is one of the Australia's most trusted brands, with more than 50,000 employees and 300 stores across the country. But it has been accused of brutal marketing practices in an expose on ABC's Four Corners show on Monday evening. The show claims its famous vow to beat a competitor's price if a customer can find a better deal elsewhere may not be as simple as it seems. Several items in store that have the promise emblazoned on them are actually home-brand products, which are not stocked in other retailers. In one example, Bunnings' Citeco 0.9m 150kg ladder is priced at $115, and in a store visited by the ABC during their investigation, a sign hanging above it stated the 10 per cent price beat 'guarantee'. However, Citeco is Bunnings' own brand and is manufactured for, and trademarked by the company. Experts have said the price promise is therefore essentially meaningless for that product. Competition lawyer and former chairman of Woolworths John Dahlsen told ABC: 'I think it's misleading. The 10 per cent beat thing is illusionary.' Customers cannot easily see which brands like Citeco are owned by Bunnings in store, which stocks more than 9000 products. The ownership of these brands is not visible on packaging, instore or online. It can only be confirmed through trademark registers or parent company, Wesfarmers' annual report. This includes Bunnings' other home brands such as Jumbuck, Craftright, Marquee, Mondella, and Happy Tails. Consumer group Choice has now called for greater transparency over the price guarantee. Spokesman Matt Steen added: 'Incorporation of some kind of labelling [identifying home brands] into their packaging and products would be really useful.' Branding expert Camey O'Keefe told the program she believed the guarantee was just a marketing gimmick to give the idea customers were always getting the best price. 'Bunnings uses a mix of owned brands and exclusive brands to differentiate our offer and give customers choice,' a Bunnings spokesperson told Daily Mail Australia. 'But we do not use them to exclude operation of our lowest prices policy or as a reason to not apply our price guarantee. 'Our lowest prices policy applies across like-for-like products and we reduce prices on our exclusive products where we identify a competitor's similar product which may be at a lower price. 'Bunnings does this to ensure its customers benefit from the best value in the market on 'like for like' items.' The national chain - which is part of the firm which owns Kmart, Priceline, Target and Officeworks - added: 'Bunnings complies with all legal and regulatory requirements. 'Our registered trademarks are publicly available information. We are always seeking to provide the best value and shopping experience for our customers. 'We are also a human organisation and recognise that from time to time we don't always get it right. 'However when we make a mistake, we work hard to put it right as soon as we are made aware.'
