Background
Between 1 July 2019 and 2 June 2025, Choosi marketed a service for comparing, choosing and applying for life and funeral insurance. Its website, television advertisements, advertorials and Facebook advertisements suggested that the service compared policies from a range of insurers.
In fact, Choosi compared funeral insurance policies issued by only one insurer, Hannover. For life insurance, it compared Hannover policies and one Swiss Re policy until 30 June 2023, and thereafter compared policies issued only by Hannover. ASIC alleged that Choosi’s marketing therefore misrepresented the breadth of its comparison service in contravention of ss 12DB(1)(a), 12DB(1)(e) and 12DF(1) of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth).
The proceeding was confined to liability. Choosi denied that the challenged materials conveyed the alleged representation and argued, among other things, that disclosures elsewhere, customer phone calls and referrals to another comparison provider supplied the necessary context.
The Court’s Holding
Anderson J held that Choosi’s website and every television advertisement, advertorial and Facebook advertisement relied upon by ASIC conveyed that Choosi compared life or funeral insurance policies from a range of insurers. Read as ordinary consumers would understand them, the materials promised a broader comparison than Choosi actually performed.
The Court found that one or two insurers did not constitute a “range of insurers.” References to different brands did not cure the problem because multiple brands could offer policies issued by the same insurer. Nor did Choosi’s referral pathway expand the represented comparison: directing consumers to another business did not mean that Choosi itself compared that business’s policies.
The representations were false or misleading and created an actual probability of misleading the public. Choosi therefore contravened ss 12DB(1)(a), 12DB(1)(e) and 12DF(1) in relation to all challenged materials during the relevant period. The Court directed the parties to propose declarations and a timetable for a later penalties hearing.
Key Takeaways
- An insurance comparison service cannot advertise that it compares policies from a “range of insurers” when its comparison is limited to policies from only one or two insurers.
- Displaying several insurance brands does not establish a broad insurer comparison where those brands’ policies share the same issuer.
- Disclaimers, later phone conversations and referrals elsewhere will not necessarily correct the dominant message conveyed by widely distributed advertising.
Why It Matters
The decision emphasizes that courts assess comparison-service advertising by its overall impression on ordinary members of the target audience. Claims suggesting broad market coverage must reflect the insurers or products the service actually compares, not merely the number of brands displayed or external providers to which customers may be referred.
The judgment determines liability only. The form of declarations, penalties and other relief remain to be decided in the proceeding’s next stage.