TAL Direct slapped with $10k fine

2 December 2015
| By Malavika |
image
image
expand image

TAL Direct, trading as InsuranceLine, has paid a $10,200 penalty after the corporate regulator slapped an infringement notice for false and misleading advertisements promoting its income protection product.

The advertisement showed a scenario where a woman was inflicted with a bite while in Bali, which would lead to an infection and force her to take leave from work for five weeks.

It then said her and her husband's Income Protection Plus that she took out last year would provide them with income while she was recovering.

The advertisement also included various fine print statements at the bottom of the screen, including: "waiting periods, payout periods, limitations and exclusions apply".

ASIC said the fine print in the advertisement did not clarify any misleading impression created from viewing the advertisement, due to lack of clarity, detail, and prominence.

ASIC believed the advertisements could be false or misleading as they gave the impression that a person off work for five weeks due to ill-health would be eligible to:

  • A benefit from the product for the entire five weeks when, in fact, there would be a waiting period of at least 14 days, and up to 28, 60 or 90 days for a person's claim, depending on the policy. The person would not be entitled to any benefit during this time; and
  • Receive at least part of any benefits to which they were entitled into their bank account during the time they took off work. But the product's product disclosure statement said the claimants would be paid a month in debts, and only after it was confirmed they had been continuously off work for the duration of the waiting period.

ASIC deputy chairman, Peter Kell, said consumers could not access the portrayed benefits due to the way the product was designed.

"Promoted benefits of a product must be consistent with what the product will in practice provide," Kell said.

InsuranceLine stopped broadcasting the advertisement after ASIC notified it of its concerns.

The penalty payment is not an admission of a breach of the ASIC Act consumer protection provisions, ASIC said.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

 

Recommended for you

 

MARKET INSIGHTS

sub-bg sidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

Squeaky'21

My view is that after 2026 there will be quite a bit less than 10,000 'advisers' (investment advisers) and less than 100...

6 days 23 hours ago
Jason Warlond

Dugald makes a great point that not everyone's definition of green is the same and gives a good example. Funds have bee...

1 week ago
Jasmin Jakupovic

How did they get the AFSL in the first place? Given the green light by ASIC. This is terrible example of ASIC's incompet...

1 week ago

AustralianSuper and Australian Retirement Trust have posted the financial results for the 2022–23 financial year for their combined 5.3 million members....

9 months 1 week ago

A $34 billion fund has come out on top with a 13.3 per cent return in the last 12 months, beating out mega funds like Australian Retirement Trust and Aware Super. ...

9 months ago

The verdict in the class action case against AMP Financial Planning has been delivered in the Federal Court by Justice Moshinsky....

9 months 1 week ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND