ASIC targets comparison sites over misleading insurance claims
- Replies 3
When it comes to making big decisions—like choosing the right insurance policy—many of us turn to comparison websites, hoping for a clear, unbiased look at our options.
After all, who wants to spend hours trawling through the fine print and sales pitches when a simple online tool promises to do the hard work for you?
But what if the comparison site you trust isn’t quite as impartial as it claims?
That’s the question at the heart of a significant legal action launched by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) against Choosi, a well-known insurance comparison provider.
ASIC alleges that Choosi has been misleading customers for years, and the fallout could have significant implications for anyone who relies on these services to make important financial decisions.
According to ASIC, Choosi has been telling customers that it compares a range of funeral and life insurance products from leading insurers, helping Aussies find the best cover for their needs, budget, and lifestyle.
Sounds great, right? But ASIC claims that, since mid-2019, Choosi has only been comparing policies from a single insurer—Hannover Insurance—except for a brief period when one other insurer’s policy was included.
To make matters more confusing, the products on Choosi’s website were branded differently, giving the impression of variety and choice.
In reality, ASIC says, Hannover issued all the funeral insurance products, and nearly all the life insurance policies and all were distributed by Greenstone Financial Services, a company linked to Choosi.
ASIC’s Deputy Chair, Sarah Court, summed it up: ‘From a consumer’s perspective, they’ve come onto a website, they’re told we will compare a range of products from a number of leading insurers. What we’re alleging is that there were not a number of leading insurers or multiple insurers being compared, there was but one insurer.’
This isn’t just a minor slip-up. ASIC alleges that Hannover paid Choosi around $61 million in commissions since 2019 to promote its products on the comparison site exclusively.
Over the past six years, millions of Australians have been exposed to Choosi’s advertising, and thousands have purchased policies under the impression they were getting a genuine comparison.
Between July 2019 and November 2024, Choosi sold over 4,200 funeral insurance policies and nearly 9,500 life insurance policies.
That’s a lot of people who may not have received the full picture when making such an important decision.
If the Federal Court finds that Choosi did mislead customers, ASIC says it will seek ‘substantial penalties’—not just to hold Choosi accountable, but to send a strong message to the entire industry.
As Ms Court put it, ‘If you want to run this kind of site, then you certainly have to be very open and transparent with consumers about what it is that you’re comparing.’
Choosi, for its part, says it’s aware of ASIC’s concerns and is reviewing the allegations.
In a statement, the company said: ‘Our customers are at the heart of what we do. We are committed to making any necessary changes that best serve our customers.’
For many over-60s, insurance is a crucial part of financial planning—whether it’s life cover to protect loved ones or funeral insurance to ease the burden on family.
Comparison websites can be a helpful tool, but only if they’re truly independent and transparent.
ASIC’s action is a timely reminder that not all comparison sites are created equal.
Many are commercial businesses that make money through commissions, and sometimes, those financial relationships can influence what you see (or don’t see) on their platforms.
When run properly, comparison websites can be a real boon—especially for those of us who’d rather spend our time enjoying retirement than deciphering insurance jargon.
But as this case shows, it pays to be a little sceptical and do your own homework.
ASIC’s Sarah Court says it best: ‘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 consumers should be wary. These sites are commercial businesses, and they make money in certain ways.’
Have you used a comparison website to buy insurance or other financial products? Did you feel you got a fair deal, or did something seem off? We’d love to hear your experiences—good or bad—in the comments below.
After all, who wants to spend hours trawling through the fine print and sales pitches when a simple online tool promises to do the hard work for you?
But what if the comparison site you trust isn’t quite as impartial as it claims?
That’s the question at the heart of a significant legal action launched by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) against Choosi, a well-known insurance comparison provider.
ASIC alleges that Choosi has been misleading customers for years, and the fallout could have significant implications for anyone who relies on these services to make important financial decisions.
Legal action launched against comparison site over alleged misleading insurance claims. Credit: hailshadow / iStock
According to ASIC, Choosi has been telling customers that it compares a range of funeral and life insurance products from leading insurers, helping Aussies find the best cover for their needs, budget, and lifestyle.
Sounds great, right? But ASIC claims that, since mid-2019, Choosi has only been comparing policies from a single insurer—Hannover Insurance—except for a brief period when one other insurer’s policy was included.
To make matters more confusing, the products on Choosi’s website were branded differently, giving the impression of variety and choice.
In reality, ASIC says, Hannover issued all the funeral insurance products, and nearly all the life insurance policies and all were distributed by Greenstone Financial Services, a company linked to Choosi.
ASIC’s Deputy Chair, Sarah Court, summed it up: ‘From a consumer’s perspective, they’ve come onto a website, they’re told we will compare a range of products from a number of leading insurers. What we’re alleging is that there were not a number of leading insurers or multiple insurers being compared, there was but one insurer.’
This isn’t just a minor slip-up. ASIC alleges that Hannover paid Choosi around $61 million in commissions since 2019 to promote its products on the comparison site exclusively.
Over the past six years, millions of Australians have been exposed to Choosi’s advertising, and thousands have purchased policies under the impression they were getting a genuine comparison.
Between July 2019 and November 2024, Choosi sold over 4,200 funeral insurance policies and nearly 9,500 life insurance policies.
If the Federal Court finds that Choosi did mislead customers, ASIC says it will seek ‘substantial penalties’—not just to hold Choosi accountable, but to send a strong message to the entire industry.
As Ms Court put it, ‘If you want to run this kind of site, then you certainly have to be very open and transparent with consumers about what it is that you’re comparing.’
Choosi, for its part, says it’s aware of ASIC’s concerns and is reviewing the allegations.
In a statement, the company said: ‘Our customers are at the heart of what we do. We are committed to making any necessary changes that best serve our customers.’
For many over-60s, insurance is a crucial part of financial planning—whether it’s life cover to protect loved ones or funeral insurance to ease the burden on family.
ASIC’s action is a timely reminder that not all comparison sites are created equal.
Many are commercial businesses that make money through commissions, and sometimes, those financial relationships can influence what you see (or don’t see) on their platforms.
When run properly, comparison websites can be a real boon—especially for those of us who’d rather spend our time enjoying retirement than deciphering insurance jargon.
But as this case shows, it pays to be a little sceptical and do your own homework.
ASIC’s Sarah Court says it best: ‘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 consumers should be wary. These sites are commercial businesses, and they make money in certain ways.’
.png){kind=icon}
