Our efforts to name and shame are usually directed at leadgen companies, and we generally don't like calling out individual brokers. We understand that it's bad representation introducing compliance issues into your business. In this case, however, it presents an opportunity to make a few points.
Not unlike Joust's blatantly illegal use of invalid rates, this gentleman is advertising a rate that is clearly out of date. Legislation is clear: if you don't make changes in a week you're engaged with baiting/false advertising.
This gentleman is using the term '"Up to $4000 Cashback", which is valid as it isn't a quantitative stratement, although as somebody in the education sector, you should seek to qualify your claims.
A few points re the rate - always a difficult value to include in advertising.
RG 234.51
"If a qualification is required, it must be published at the same time as the original message. Subsequent qualifying disclosures will not be effective as the misleading impression will already have been created."
A low rate needs to be qualified.
RG 234.67
"An advertised comparison rate must be identified as a comparison rate and the comparison rate must not be less prominent in an advertisement than any interest rate (s164, National Credit Code). One example provided: a comparison rate is smaller in size or faded in colour when compared to the interest rate."
This is the bread and butter of finance advertising. There are never any excuses.
RG 234.69
"A comparison rate in an advertisement must be in accompanied by a warning about the accuracy of the comparison rate and that the comparison rate is accurate only for the example given in the advertisement" (s163, National Credit Code; reg 99, National Credit Regulations).
Sadly, inclusion of the rate relegates this ad into the category of baiting/false advertising.
Thankfully, he doesn't link to a quiz, despite the claim in the ad copy (he still claims qualification).
