Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (Retail Cases Omnibus)

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (Retail Cases Omnibus) [2025] FCA 1593 is a Federal Court penalty decision covering three admitted ANZ retail banking failures. The matters concerned hardship notices, bonus-interest and rate representations, and deceased-estate handling. Justice Beach accepted the jointly proposed penalties and made declarations and orders across all three proceedings.

The decision is useful because it shows how courts look at the connection between customer-facing promises and the systems behind them. A business can create legal exposure not only by saying something inaccurate, but also by continuing to make a promise without adequate grounds, or by failing to build workable processes for time-sensitive or code-based obligations.

ASIC brought three separate proceedings against ANZ, and the Court dealt with them together in one omnibus penalty judgment. Justice Beach said the cases arose out of different circumstances, conduct and time frames, but all involved admitted contraventions and a joint position on penalties. The Court fixed total pecuniary penalties of $115 million across the three matters.

The first matter was about hardship notices. ANZ received hardship notices through frontline channels including branches, call centres, the Message Us function on the ANZ app, and external mobile lending representatives. The Court declared that between September 2019 and September 2023 ANZ failed to have adequate processes in place to record and respond to certain hardship notices received through those channels within the period specified by s 72(5) of the National Credit Code.

For the Message Us channel, the Court also declared direct contraventions of s 72(4) and then continuing contraventions under s 175A of the Credit Act until response notices were eventually given.

The second matter was about savings account promotions and product settings. ANZ promoted bonus interest on business and retail accounts and represented that customers would receive a specified bonus interest rate for a specified duration if they opened the relevant account and met the eligibility criteria. The Court also treated ANZ as having made an implied process representation that it had adequate processes in place to ensure those promoted bonus interest payments would be made.

The declarations state that ANZ lacked reasonable grounds for those representations because it knew of the bonus interest issue, failed to investigate and remedy the relevant matters once known, and had process deficiencies. The orders record that 8,301 eligible customers did not receive bonus interest.

The same proceeding also dealt with a later rate-promotion issue for retail accounts. During the rate promotion contravention period, explanatory notes on the application form represented that the promoted product provided specified base variable and bonus fixed introductory interest rates.

The Court declared that the product terms actually provided for different rates, that 26,917 retail accounts did not receive the promoted base and bonus interest, and that ANZ did not have adequate processes in place to ensure the correct rates were displayed.

The third matter concerned deceased estates. ANZ had obligations under the Banking Code of Practice that formed part of agreements for certain products offered to individual and small business customers.

The Court declared that from 15 September 2019 to 30 June 2023 ANZ failed to do all things necessary to ensure relevant financial services and credit activities were provided efficiently, honestly and fairly because it did not have any, or any adequate, documented guidance, training, systems, processes and monitoring for its bereavement team and other relevant staff in relation to the 14 day obligation and fee obligation.

The extract shows that the Court was applying several different statutory regimes across the three matters. In the hardship case, the key provisions were s 72(4) and s 72(5) of the National Credit Code, together with ss 47(1)(a) and (4) of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth), and the continuing contravention mechanism in s 175A of that Act.

In the bonus-interest and rate matter, the Court made declarations under s 12DA(1) of the ASIC Act for misleading or deceptive conduct, under s 12DB(1)(e) of the ASIC Act for false or misleading representations that financial services had benefits, and under ss 912A(1)(a) and (5A) of the Corporations Act for failing to do all things necessary to ensure financial services were provided efficiently, honestly and fairly.

In the deceased-estates matter, the Court made declarations under both the Corporations Act and the Credit Act because the conduct affected deposit accounts and loan accounts.

The reasons also explain an important point about the efficiently, honestly and fairly standard. Justice Beach said the principles developed under s 912A(1)(a) of the Corporations Act apply equally to s 47(1)(a) of the Credit Act. The extract states that this standard does not require dishonesty in the traditional or criminal sense, and it does not depend on proving a separate legal wrong. The statutory standard itself is the source of the obligation.

That matters for business readers because it means a compliance failure can be established by looking objectively at how the business operated. If the systems, controls, monitoring and escalation pathways were not adequate for the service being provided, the business may be exposed even if no one set out to mislead anyone.

In the hardship matter, the Court declared that ANZ contravened ss 47(1)(a) and (4) of the Credit Act by failing to have adequate processes in place to record and respond to certain hardship notices received through frontline channels within the period specified by s 72(5) of the Credit Code.

The Court also declared direct contraventions of s 72(4) of the Credit Code for hardship notices received through the Message Us channel, and then continuing contraventions by operation of s 175A of the Credit Act until response notices were given.

In the bonus-interest matter, the Court declared that during the bonus interest contravention period ANZ engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct contrary to s 12DA(1) of the ASIC Act and made false or misleading representations that financial services had benefits contrary to s 12DB(1)(e) of the ASIC Act each time it made the bonus interest representation. It made the same declarations in relation to the implied bonus interest process representation.

The Court declared that ANZ did not have reasonable grounds for those representations because of its knowledge of the issue, its failure to investigate and remedy the relevant matters once known, and the process deficiencies.

The Court also declared that ANZ failed to do all things necessary to ensure the financial services covered by its licence were provided efficiently, honestly and fairly, contrary to ss 912A(1)(a) and (5A) of the Corporations Act, by failing to maintain adequate processes, failing to monitor adequately, failing to investigate and rectify in a timely manner, and by making the representations in those circumstances.

For the separate rate-promotion issue, the Court declared misleading or deceptive conduct and false or misleading representations under the ASIC Act because the explanatory notes on the application form represented that the promoted product provided specified rates, but the product terms provided for different rates and ANZ did not have adequate processes in place to ensure the correct rates were displayed.

In the deceased-estates matter, the Court declared that from 15 September 2019 to 30 June 2023 ANZ contravened ss 912A(1)(a) and (5A) of the Corporations Act and ss 47(1)(a) and (4) of the Credit Act by failing to do all things necessary to ensure relevant financial services and credit activities were provided efficiently, honestly and fairly.

The failures identified were concrete operational failures: no adequate documented guidance, no adequate training, no adequate systems or processes to identify notifications, requests or fees subject to the obligations, and no adequate systems or processes to monitor those matters and report breaches in BCCC compliance statement reporting.

The Court accepted the parties’ proposed penalties and imposed them as follows.

In the hardship matter, ANZ was ordered to pay $15 million for the contravention of ss 47(1)(a) and (4) of the Credit Act relating to inadequate hardship processes, and $25 million for the contraventions of s 72(4) of the Credit Code referred to in the declarations about direct and continuing failures to give response notices.

In the bonus-interest and rate matter, ANZ was ordered to pay $30 million for contraventions of s 12DB(1)(e) of the ASIC Act. The orders break that amount into $25 million for the conduct detailed in the bonus-interest declarations and $5 million for the conduct detailed in the rate-promotion declaration. ANZ was also ordered to pay $10 million for the contravention of ss 912A(1)(a) and (5A) of the Corporations Act.

In the deceased-estates matter, ANZ was ordered to pay $35 million for the contraventions of the Corporations Act and the Credit Act identified in the declaration.

That produced a total pecuniary penalty of $115 million across the three proceedings. In each matter, the Court also made adverse publicity orders requiring ANZ to publish a court-ordered notice on visible areas of its website home page and newsroom for at least 90 days, and on its secure online banking login page for at least 90 days so that current customers would see the link the next five times they visited the page. ANZ was also ordered to pay ASIC’s costs in each proceeding.

Although this case arose in banking, the practical reading is much wider. Many businesses separate legal review from operations. Marketing signs off the offer, legal signs off the terms, and operations are expected to make it work later. This decision shows the danger in that approach.

If the business does not have adequate processes to identify eligible customers, apply the promised benefit, display the correct rate, respond within the required period, or reverse fees when required, the problem may become more than a service issue.

The bonus-interest declarations are especially useful for non-bank businesses because they show how a representation can become risky when the business lacks reasonable grounds. The Court focused on ANZ’s knowledge of the issue, its failure to investigate and remedy the matter once known, and the process deficiencies that meant eligible customers missed out.

That logic can apply to many commercial settings: subscription discounts, loyalty credits, introductory pricing, rebates, free trial conversions, service credits, delivery guarantees and refund promises.

The hardship and deceased-estates matters also show that customer-service workflows can be legal workflows. If a law, code or contract imposes a timeframe or a fee-related obligation, the business needs intake channels, triage rules, documented guidance, staff training, monitoring and reporting. A process that works only when the right person notices the issue is not much protection.

For smaller businesses, the practical response is to map each customer promise to the system or team that delivers it. Then test whether the promise still holds true in edge cases, manual workarounds and known problem areas. If there is a recurring issue, stop assuming it is just an operational bug. Ask whether you still have reasonable grounds to keep making the same statement to customers.

If you want to use this case as a practical audit prompt, start with the documents and channels where promises are made. That includes website copy, application forms, onboarding emails, FAQs, customer scripts, promotional landing pages, account settings, product terms and internal guidance. Then compare those materials with what your systems actually do.

Next, look at the conduct behind the documents. How does a customer request enter the business? Who records it? What triggers the next step? Is there a deadline? Is there a report showing overdue items, missed benefits or incorrect fees? If a customer qualifies for a benefit, is it applied automatically, manually, or not at all unless someone notices? If a known issue exists, who owns the fix and who decides whether the representation can stay live?

The Court’s declarations in this case repeatedly refer to process adequacy, monitoring, investigation, remediation, guidance and training. Those are practical control points for any business. They are also the places where a legal review often needs to connect with product, operations and customer support.

The judgment is dated 19 December 2025. The hearing took place on 2 and 3 December 2025. The omnibus reasons dealt with three ANZ retail matters and referred separately to another ANZ case concerning treasury bonds, which was addressed in different reasons. The orders in this page relate only to the three retail matters covered by [2025] FCA 1593.

The extract shows the relevant conduct periods used in the declarations. For hardship processes, the broader process failure ran between September 2019 and September 2023, while the Message Us response-notice contraventions ran between May 2022 and September 2024. For bonus interest, the contravention period was 15 September 2019 to 31 January 2024. For the separate rate-promotion issue, the contravention period was 27 August 2024 to 17 March 2025.

For deceased-estates handling, the relevant period was 15 September 2019 to 30 June 2023.

This explainer is based on the published Federal Court judgment and orders for Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (Retail Cases Omnibus) [2025] FCA 1593. The extract is detailed enough to confirm the parties, the three matters, the admitted conduct, the statutory provisions applied, the declarations made and the penalties imposed.

The published reasons available here are truncated, so this page does not attempt to go beyond what is clearly supported by the visible text. Readers looking for a deeper account of the Court’s full reasoning should consult the complete judgment record.