A Federal Court judge ruled on September 8, 2026, that Choosi, one of Australia's best-known insurance comparison brands, misled customers for years about how many insurers it actually compared.
Justice Anderson found that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) had proved its case: Choosi's website, television ads, advertorials and Facebook ads all conveyed that its comparison service checked policies from a range of insurers. In fact, every funeral insurance policy Choosi compared - nine policies across three brands, including Australian Seniors and Guardian - came from a single insurer, Hannover Life Re of Australasia. Life insurance followed a similar pattern. Between July 2019 and June 2023, Choosi compared policies from two insurers, Hannover and Swiss Re. After that, and until the case's relevant period ended in June 2025, only Hannover.
Choosi's TV ads ran more than 300,000 times, with a cumulative audience above one billion; its advertorials ran at least 397 times, reaching more than 38 million people. ASIC says Choosi earned over $61 million in commissions on more than 13,000 Hannover policies - 4,225 funeral and 9,478 life - sold between July 2019 and November 2024. Choosi disputes that figure and says its related company's actual take was closer to $17.4 million.
The case largely turned on one word. Choosi's website told customers it "works with a wide range of insurance brands," and its life insurance page promised to help them "compare a range of products from trusted Australian brands." Choosi argued "range" could describe as few as two insurers. Anderson disagreed, ruling that a reasonable consumer would understand "range" to mean more than two - meaning the claim was false even during the two-insurer period.
Choosi also argued its disclaimers and phone scripts corrected any false impression, since a policy could only be purchased over the phone. The judge rejected that argument too. Customers formed their mistaken belief from the website and ads before ever calling - drawn, in the judgment's words, into "the marketing web" - and Choosi's phone scripts never disclosed that every available policy came from one insurer.
Choosi's referral-service defense failed too. Choosi pointed to a service that sent customers seeking other insurers to a third-party partner, Life Insurance Direct Australia, generating 6,124 referrals against roughly 11,900 policies sold directly through Hannover and Swiss Re. Choosi argued this meant it effectively helped customers compare more insurers than the two it dealt with directly. The judge disagreed, finding that handing a customer to a different business is not the same as Choosi doing the comparison itself.
The court found Choosi breached sections 12DB(1)(a), 12DB(1)(e) and 12DF(1) of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, the provisions barring false or misleading representations about a service's quality and characteristics. The trial addressed liability only; penalties will be determined at a later hearing once the parties submit agreed draft declarations.
Comparison sites and referral partnerships now have a clear reference point: "range" means more than two insurers, and burying the true position in a footer or a fast-moving TV caption does not undo an earlier, broader claim.
