ASIC RG 234 (updated Jun 2026)
For marketing teams at Australian lenders, insurers and investment firms working out what ASIC expects in financial product ads. This page covers what you need to know and ways to avoid running into issues.
What we've seen reported
ASIC RG 234, Regulatory Guide 234 Advertising financial products and services (including credit), was reissued on June 9, 2026. It sets out when ASIC considers financial and credit ads may mislead, and absorbs the former RG 53.1,2
Last updated October 2026 · General information only, not legal advice. Sources.
What the rules cover
These are the kinds of wording ASIC's RG 234 describes as more likely to mislead in financial product and credit ads, according to its text.2
| Phrase or term | In practice |
|---|---|
| "Free", "no fees", "fee free" | Used where fees or costs still apply, such as account-keeping or excess transaction fees. |
| "Up to X%", "from X%" | A rate or discount shown as typical when it is only available in limited cases. |
| "Pre-approved", "no credit check required" | Credit wording implying suitability without an individual assessment. |
| "Stress-free", "low-risk", "secure" | Wording that overstates safety or understates the risks of the product. |
| Past performance figures | Shown without the standardized five-year per annum figure, or more than three months old. |
| "Hypothetical", "simulated", "modelled" returns | Non-actual performance, more likely to mislead when built with hindsight. |
| An interest rate with no comparison rate | Credit ads stating an interest rate are described as needing a comparison rate too. |
| "Independent", "unbiased" | Terms restricted by law where commissions or other benefits may influence advice. |
Where it goes wrong
One approved claim ends up in many channels, markets and languages. Along the way it gets shortened, translated and reworded, and some versions end up using the very phrases you are trying to avoid.
"Home loans from 5.89% p.a. (comparison rate 6.12% p.a.)"
How Arbitr helps
Manually review everything? Or do what modern teams do and use AI to check that what you publish matches what you approved.
FAQ
Further than the campaign brief. RG 234 says it applies to advertising in any medium, including social media, podcasts, in-app messages and AI chat tools,2 and we usually find rates, fee claims and performance figures in:
Approve the warning as part of the ad, then check it in every language version. RG 234 says that where the main body of an ad is in a language other than English, warnings, disclaimers and qualifications should be in the same language,2 and translated ads are where English fine print most often gets left behind.
One record per ad: the approved wording, the rates and figures behind it, the date the data runs to, who approved it and where it ran. RG 234 suggests promoters keep a record of their advertising, including warnings,2 and notes that performance data more than three months old is not treated as up to date.
How it applies to a specific claim is a question for your legal adviser. Where that claim appears across your markets and languages is a question Arbitr answers.
Plenty, if you advertise beyond Australia. US investment advisers work under the SEC Marketing Rule, and rules for other markets are on our financial promotions hub. For checking ads against your own reading of each rule, before and after they go live, see our marketing compliance page.
According to its text, the guide applies regardless of the technology used, including artificial intelligence. It notes that hallucinated or biased AI output may increase the risk of misleading advertising.2
They are separate documents. RG 234 covers advertising of financial and credit products generally, and points readers to INFO 271 for further examples of greenwashing, which it describes as misrepresenting how sustainable or ethical a product is.2
Yes. Each language version is checked against the approved original and your rules for that market. Where you want a person to look, it goes to your own reviewers or to one of Arbitr's experts.
