Federal Court of Australia · [2026] FCA 989

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Latitude Finance Australia (No 4)

After liability had been decided in [2024] FCA 1205, the Federal Court ordered penalties totalling $55 million against Harvey Norman and...

Federal Court of Australia28 July 2026

Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Use the linked official source for section-level detail, and get advice for your situation.

Get legal help

Start here

Quick read

A headline offer can mislead through omission even if the omitted terms appear elsewhere.
After liability had been decided in [2024] FCA 1205, the Federal Court ordered penalties totalling $55 million against Harvey Norman and Latitude over advertising that...

Use this to check

Disclose the real payment product, not just the promotional feature
Put mandatory fees and continuing account obligations beside the headline offer
Review the complete campaign across every channel before publication

Decision snapshot

What happened
- From January 2020 to August 2021, Harvey Norman and Latitude promoted offers including 'no deposit' and '60 months interest free' across television, radio and newspapers.
- A customer who used the offer had to enter a continuing credit contract with Latitude linked to a GO Mastercard.
- The account attracted a $25 establishment fee and monthly account service fees, but the advertisements did not disclose those essential conditions.
What the court had to decide
- Did the advertisements create a misleading impression about the interest-free payment arrangement by leaving out the continuing credit contract, linked credit card and fees?
- What penalties and corrective orders were appropriate after liability had been established?
What the court decided
- Following the earlier liability ruling in [2024] FCA 1205, the Court ordered Harvey Norman to pay $35 million and Latitude to pay $20 million on 28 July 2026.
- It also made adverse publicity orders and an equal-share costs order.
- The judgment records that both defendants were equally responsible and had wholly inadequate legal compliance procedures, while also noting different levels of contrition and evidence of improvements.

Practical impact

Practical read

A headline offer can mislead through omission even if the omitted terms appear elsewhere.
When a payment promotion depends on a new credit account, card or recurring fee, that information needs to sit with the headline claim in a form customers can readily understand.

Useful next steps

Disclose the real payment product, not just the promotional feature
Put mandatory fees and continuing account obligations beside the headline offer
Review the complete campaign across every channel before publication
Give marketing teams a compliance process that can stop or correct risky copy
Write down every condition a customer must accept to obtain the advertised benefit

The offer customers saw

Harvey Norman advertised Latitude payment plans using prominent claims such as 'no deposit' and '60 months interest free'. The campaign ran from 1 January 2020 to 11 August 2021.

The reach was substantial. The judgment records advertisements in 168 newspapers and on 143 radio stations, together with television advertising on at least 900,000 occasions across 367 stations.

What the advertisements left out

The advertisements omitted three key features of the arrangement: the continuing credit contract, the linked credit card and the fees attached to the account.

The account involved a $25 establishment fee and monthly account service fees. Those charges mattered to the overall cost and nature of the offer, even though the financed purchase could remain interest free if the conditions were met.

Prominent message	Material information omitted
No deposit	The customer had to enter a continuing credit contract.
60 months interest free	The arrangement was linked to a GO Mastercard account.
A simple payment option	A $25 establishment fee and monthly account fees applied.

After the liability ruling, penalties totalled $55 million

Liability had been decided in [2024] FCA 1205. On 28 July 2026, the Court ordered Harvey Norman to pay $35 million and Latitude to pay $20 million. Both businesses were also subject to adverse publicity orders and an equal-share costs order.

The penalties reflected a campaign conducted at very large scale. Both businesses were equally responsible and had wholly inadequate legal compliance procedures. Their different responses, including their level of contrition and evidence of improvements, were relevant to the separate penalty amounts.

What to change in an advertising workflow

Start with the impression a customer receives from the advertisement, then compare it with the contract and payment journey. The review should cover every channel because a disclosure that works on a product page may disappear in radio, television or a small-format ad.

Key points

Write down every condition a customer must accept to obtain the advertised benefit
Identify establishment, monthly and recurring fees before approving the headline
Check that spoken, printed and digital versions communicate the same essential facts
Keep the approval record, supporting product terms and final creative together
Recheck a live campaign when the finance product or fee structure changes

Common questions

Was the offer misleading because interest was charged?

No. The central problem was what the advertisements left out. The ads did not disclose that taking up the offer required a continuing credit contract linked to a GO Mastercard and involved a $25 establishment fee before 16 March 2021 plus monthly account service fees.

Why were both businesses penalised?

Latitude supplied the finance product and Harvey Norman promoted it through a large national campaign. The earlier liability judgment found ASIC Act contraventions by both companies in connection with the advertisements.

Does this matter outside retail finance?

Yes. The same advertising lesson can apply to subscriptions, instalment plans, free trials, marketplace fees and other offers where a simple headline depends on less obvious financial or contractual conditions.

How Sprintlaw can help

Consumer Law

Update history

Case28 July 2026

Harvey Norman and Latitude ordered to pay $55 million over interest-free ads

After liability had been decided in [2024] FCA 1205, the Federal Court ordered Harvey Norman to pay $35 million and Latitude to pay $20 million over a national campaign that omitted the continuing credit contract, linked GO Mastercard and account fees.