The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) filed proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia on September 18, 2026, against Clark Family Pty Ltd, a Tallebudgera-based company that ran up to 70 websites offering consumers free insurance and loan assessments.
For six years, those sites told consumers they would receive genuine rate comparisons from multiple providers and recommendations suited to their individual needs.
According to ASIC’s concise statement, filed in the Federal Court’s Queensland Registry, neither was true.
Consumer details were collected and auctioned. The highest-bidding broker received the lead, got the consumer’s details, and made contact. Clark Family stepped back entirely – never auditing whether brokers offered multiple product options, or whether recommendations matched individual circumstances.
ASIC chair Sarah Court put it plainly: “We allege Clark Family promoted its websites as providing comparisons and tailored options when, in reality, consumer enquiries were simply sold to the highest bidder. Where businesses represent that they compare products or identify options that suit a consumer’s needs, those claims must accurately reflect the service being provided.”
ASIC is seeking declarations, pecuniary penalties, an adverse publicity order, and injunctive relief.
Read next: ASIC confirms investigation into collapsed Sphere Insurance Group
Australian insurance brokers manage $35.6 billion in intermediated gross written premiums – nearly half of all general insurance written in the country – according to the National Insurance Brokers Association’s (NIBA) Data to Direction report, published in June 2026. Many source new client enquiries through digital referral and comparison platforms.
The Clark Family case raises a direct question for every broker purchasing leads from a platform making similar representations: what had that consumer been told before the call came through?
According to the concise statement, Clark Family’s consumers were promised a comparison. They received a call from a broker who had won an auction – selected on price, not suitability. That mismatch sits at the very start of the client relationship.
ASIC has been unambiguous about where responsibility lands. Its February 2026 review of lead generation activities stated that “licensed persons or entities that engage the services of lead generators acting in this way share this risk.”
Under section 912A(1)(a) of the Corporations Act 2001, AFS licensees must ensure financial services are delivered efficiently, honestly, and fairly. That obligation does not diminish because lead generation has been outsourced to a third party.
The legal exposure is significant enough that Treasury released a consultation paper in April 2026, which law firm Allens described as proposing reforms that would “enhance accountability of licensees for the conduct of lead generators” – including options to require AFS licensees to take reasonable steps to ensure any leads or referrals they obtain are sourced in compliance with relevant regulatory and legal requirements.
Clark Family is one of several enforcement actions targeting distribution conduct across insurance and financial services. In June 2025, ASIC sued comparison provider Choosi Pty Ltd, alleging it told consumers it compared funeral and life insurance from multiple insurers when, in practice, it was comparing policies from a single insurer in all but one instance. The Federal Court found against Choosi on September 8, 2026 – ASIC v Choosi Pty Ltd (liability) [2026] FCA 1196 – with Justice Anderson finding it “falsely gave consumers the impression that its Comparison Service compared policies from a broader range of insurers than it in fact did.” Both the Choosi and Clark Family matters involve alleged contraventions of sections 12DB and 12DF of the ASIC Act.
ASIC is also pursuing RACQ over renewal documents that allegedly contained misleading comparison pricing, sent to more than 570,000 customers.
By June 2026, ASIC had named 63 entities on its lead generation watchlist – up from 44 in February – as part of a formal review of how licensees are engaging lead generation services.
Both major regulators are now focused on this area. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) commenced a review of unsolicited selling and lead generation in June 2025. Its July 2026 report recommended that digital lead generation be explicitly brought within rules governing unsolicited sales. The federal government has since passed the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Act 2026, with those provisions commencing on July 1, 2027.
Read next: ASIC finds PI reporting failures across financial advice licensees
Trust underpins the broker relationship. NIBA’s Complexity to Clarity research, published in February 2026, found that 84% of Australian businesses trust their broker to act in their best interests.
That trust is harder to establish when a consumer arrives already misled about what the process was supposed to deliver.
The steps brokers should take are not complicated. Confirm what any lead generation platform tells consumers before referral. Check that those representations are accurate. Satisfy yourself that the platform’s practices are consistent with your obligations as an AFS licensee.
ASIC’s position is on the record: those who engage lead generators operating outside the law share the regulatory risk. Clark Family, Choosi, and the ACCC’s findings together signal that scrutiny covers every link in the distribution chain – not just the one closest to the consumer.
