RACQ has rejected the corporate regulator's allegation that its insurance renewal notices misled customers, defending the disputed pricing comparisons in Federal Court filings that sit awkwardly alongside the public apology the insurer issued less than eight months ago. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission's (ASIC's) allegations concern a range of RACQ general insurance products including home and motor.
In defence documents obtained by ABC News, the customer-owned Queensland insurer denied the renewal notices were misleading and downplayed any suggestion the disputed price comparisons had manipulated policyholder behaviour, according to the broadcaster's reporting. RACQ told the ABC that while the case concerns what was listed on renewal documents, the actual price charged to customers "at all times was correct."
When the case broke in September 2025, RACQ told members it was "disappointed this has happened and apologise to our members as this is not in keeping with our high standards or the experience we strive to offer." The mutual had self-reported the matter to ASIC after a media enquiry and acknowledged that, where members had made changes to their policies at renewal or during the year, those changes "were not reflected in their comparison price." It moved quickly to update its system and renewal templates.
Now, in the relative quiet of court filings, that contrition has given way to a fully argued defence — one that many brokers, compliance teams and product managers across the industry will be watching closely.
ASIC launched Federal Court proceedings in September 2025, alleging RACQ sent more than 570,000 renewal documents over five years containing "false or misleading" representations about a "last period premium" amount. The regulator's case, focuses on at least 434,548 renewal certificates issued between September 2019 and December 2024 in which the comparison figure did not reflect what customers had actually paid.
The mechanism is straightforward and, for brokers, instructive. The "last period premium" displayed at renewal was the amount originally offered at the previous year's renewal — not the amount the customer ultimately paid after discounts, mid-term endorsements or other adjustments. In one case cited by ASIC, a customer received a renewal showing a 1.5% increase from $6,930.55 to $7,033.57, when the real price rise — measured against the $5,000-odd they had actually paid — was closer to 40%.
ASIC Deputy Chair Sarah Court framed it bluntly: "During a cost-of-living crisis, we believe RACQ misled thousands of customers by including false comparison pricing in their renewal documents." The regulator is seeking declarations, civil penalties and publicity orders.
In its filed defence, RACQ argues that the "ordinary and reasonable policyholder" would have understood the context of the comparison figure, having known the initial quote, any subsequent adjustments, and the reasons they had sought changes, the ABC reported.
ASIC's reply, also reported by the broadcaster, dismantles that position: renewal notices did not clarify that the comparison amount had been subject to adjustments, and customers could not reasonably be expected to remember earlier paperwork or cross-reference it against the latest renewal figure.
RACQ has also tried to blunt the regulator's argument that customers were denied a fair basis to shop around. According to ABC reporting on the defence, the mutual contends renewal rates were not materially different between affected and unaffected customers, and that while around 70% of the 434,548 disputed certificates carried an inflated comparison figure, in most cases the gap between the displayed figure and the actual amount paid was less than $200.
For brokers, the case is more than a Queensland mutual's regulatory problem. It is a live test of how renewal notice mechanics will be judged under the misleading conduct provisions — and a clear signal that ASIC views distorted comparison pricing as conduct worthy of penalty action, not just remediation. Wordings, system logic and the chain between original quote and renewal disclosure are now firmly inside the regulator's frame.
The ABC reported that RACQ said it was "required to respond to ASIC's statement of claim as part of the legal process."
