The comparson rate (however useless it might be) and disclaimers are required by law, and they're required for the protection of consumers. Simple.
ASIC's RG234 is a simple document that ratifies legislation and makes our obligations known in simple language.
RG178.23: "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 or the amount of any repayment stated in the advertisement". Ref: s164, National Credit Code.
ASIC makes it clear that the comparison rate should be as prominent as the advertised interest rate: or must not be smaller in size or faded compared to the interest rate, and the comparison rate must be in close proximity to the displayed interest rate.
RG178/RG234.156 (and the linked legislation) states that it is not necessary to show that consumers have actually been misled. The law prohibits conduct that is *likely* to mislead. Consumers cannot be expected to study or revisit an advertisement - the most important consideration is the overall impression created by the advertisement when viewed for the first time.
Silence can be misleading or deceptive when it is reasonable for a consumer to expect disclosure of important information.
That rant relates to just the rate issue. The copy, subscription, deception funnel, and clear baiting, is all far worse, and it's all *deliberately* deceptive. Yet there are still idiots that'll buy his leads.
At this point I'm probably taking into an echo chamber. Aggs will chew out your arse for an unintentional application infraction but they'll seemingly turn a blind eye to the staggering level of genuine consumer-facing digital frauds. Their wilful negligence is unconscionable.
Consumers deserve better. Stop the finspam.
