The Federal Court has found that comparison service Choosi Pty Ltd misled consumers by representing that it compared funeral and life insurance products from a range of insurers when, for most of the relevant period, it compared policies from one.
The judgment, announced today by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), turns on how a reasonable consumer would read a claim to compare products from a range of insurers - language brokers also use to describe their own panels.
Justice Anderson found that Choosi's website and advertising materials falsely gave consumers the impression that its comparison service surveyed a broader range of insurers than it actually did. The reasoning is where the consequence sits for brokers and authorised representatives. Justice Anderson held that a reasonable consumer would understand a reference to a range of insurers as conveying that the service surveys a meaningful selection of the market, rather than two insurers, and that the value of such a service derives substantially from the breadth of the market being surveyed.
In other words, the representation is measured against what a consumer reasonably infers about market coverage, not against whether the words used were literally true.
For funeral insurance, from 1 July 2019, Choosi compared only policies issued by Hannover Life Re of Australasia Ltd. For life insurance, between 1 July 2019 and 30 June 2023, it compared Hannover policies plus a single policy issued by Swiss Re Life and Health Australia. From 1 July 2023, every life policy it compared was issued by Hannover. All were distributed by Greenstone Financial Services Pty Ltd, a company associated with Choosi.
ASIC alleged that 4,225 Hannover funeral insurance policies and 9,478 Hannover life insurance policies were sold through the comparison service between 1 July 2019 and 30 November 2024. When the regulator commenced proceedings in June 2025, it alleged Choosi had received $61 million in commissions over the period.
ASIC chair Sarah Court (pictured) said consumers seeking to compare products to find the best price were misled about the choices available to them. "Businesses cannot create the impression that they offer consumers genuine choice from a range of products when that choice does not exist," Court said.
Choosi operated as a direct-to-consumer comparison platform, not a broker, and the finding concerns misleading conduct rather than any breach of an advice obligation. But the standard Justice Anderson applied is not confined to that business model.
Brokers routinely describe access to a panel, a market, or a range of insurers in capability statements, websites, tender responses and renewal correspondence. The judgment indicates that a court will assess such a description by what a reasonable client takes it to mean about market coverage, and that emphasis on saving a client time and effort strengthens rather than weakens that inference – because it implies the client is receiving the benefit of a meaningful comparison.
Where a panel is narrow, or where quotes are concentrated with one insurer or sourced through a related entity, the language used to describe the process is now a documented exposure.
The matter returns to the Federal Court on a date yet to be fixed for submissions on penalty and other relief sought by ASIC. When proceedings began, ASIC put the maximum penalty for the alleged conduct at $16.5 million.
