EOFY Sale · Save up to $750 off your legals · Ends 30 June

Claim offer
Selected cases

Federal Court of Australia · [2026] FCA 665

ASIC v Walker Stores

A Federal Court consumer-credit penalty case about Snaffle instalment contracts, rate caps, interest calculations and adverse publicity.

Federal Court of Australia18 May 2026

Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Check the linked official source before you rely on a specific section, and get advice for your situation.

Get legal help

Start here

Quick read

  • Businesses offering goods on instalments or consumer credit need to model the true credit cost, not just the sales price.
  • A Federal Court consumer-credit penalty case about Snaffle instalment contracts, rate caps, interest calculations and adverse publicity.

Use this to check

  • Consumer credit rules can apply even where the business sees itself mainly as selling goods online.
  • Interest calculations need to track the unpaid amount owing, not just the total contract amount.
  • Marked-up goods prices can be relevant to rate cap and credit-cost analysis.

Decision snapshot

  1. 1

    What happened

    • Walker Stores had operated an online business trading as Snaffle, supplying consumer goods such as appliances, furniture and phones through credit contracts repaid over 12, 24 or 36 months.
    • Between September 2021 and February 2025 it entered into 38,562 credit contracts.
    • ASIC alleged that the contracts involved marked-up goods prices, annual cost rate cap contraventions, disclosure failures and an interest calculation method that charged interest on the total contract amount rather than the unpaid amount owing at a given time.
    • The Court considered representative contracts as well as Walker Stores' wider lending book.
  2. 2

    What the court had to decide

    • The Federal Court considered ASIC's claims that Walker Stores breached the National Credit Code by entering credit contracts that exceeded annual cost rate limits, failed to give required disclosures, and charged interest by applying the relevant rate to the total contract amount rather than the unpaid balance.
  3. 3

    What the court decided

    • The Court made declarations and ordered Walker Stores to pay $1.5 million for rate cap contraventions and $32 million for interest calculation contraventions.
    • It also ordered adverse publicity notices to be published on the Snaffle and Aspire42 websites for at least 365 days, with costs and liberty to apply.

Practical impact

Practical read

  • Businesses offering goods on instalments or consumer credit need to model the true credit cost, not just the sales price.
  • Large penalties can follow if interest, markups or repayment methods breach the National Credit Code.

Useful next steps

  • Consumer credit rules can apply even where the business sees itself mainly as selling goods online.
  • Interest calculations need to track the unpaid amount owing, not just the total contract amount.
  • Marked-up goods prices can be relevant to rate cap and credit-cost analysis.
  • Regulators may seek penalties, adverse publicity and compliance consequences after widespread credit contraventions.
  • Check whether instalment, rental or deferred-payment sales are regulated credit contracts.

Practical read

This is a serious consumer-credit case, and it is highly relevant to ecommerce, rental, buy-now-pay-later-adjacent and instalment-sales businesses. The product being sold may be a fridge, washing machine, phone or couch, but if the customer is paying over time under a regulated credit contract, the business is in credit-law territory.

The Court made declarations about the rate cap and interest calculation contraventions and imposed very substantial penalties. The judgment shows why credit compliance cannot be handled by marketing, sales or finance in isolation. The way the goods price is built up, the annual cost rate, the disclosure documents, the repayment calculation and the website journey all need to be checked together.

For small businesses, the safer approach is to assume that instalment or deferred-payment products need careful legal review before launch. Do not rely on a spreadsheet that only checks revenue. Model the customer cost, compare it with statutory caps, test the disclosure wording, and make sure the repayment engine charges interest only in the way the law allows.

Checks to run

Key points

  • Check whether instalment, rental or deferred-payment sales are regulated credit contracts.
  • Model annual cost rate limits before setting markups, fees or repayment amounts.
  • Test the interest engine against the unpaid balance over the life of the contract.
  • Keep disclosure documents, checkout screens and contract terms consistent.
  • Get legal help before launching consumer goods finance or changing repayment calculations.

Key takeaways

  • Consumer credit rules can apply even where the business sees itself mainly as selling goods online.
  • Interest calculations need to track the unpaid amount owing, not just the total contract amount.
  • Marked-up goods prices can be relevant to rate cap and credit-cost analysis.
  • Regulators may seek penalties, adverse publicity and compliance consequences after widespread credit contraventions.

Related topics

Finance, Payments & SecurityConsumer Law & TradingDigital & Ecommerce

How Sprintlaw can help

Regulatory ComplianceContract Review