By Bianca Lopez, Senior Associate

The Full Federal Court has this month unanimously dismissed appeals brought by Harvey Norman Holdings (Harvey Norman) and Latitude Finance Australia (Latitude).

The original Federal Court decision in 2024 held that Harvey Norman’s national “no deposit, no interest” advertising campaign was misleading and false, as it did not adequately disclose the true scope and costs of the Latitude payment method. Harvey Norman and Latitude appealed the ruling but the Federal Court has dismissed the appeal, confirming the conduct was misleading.

The case is a stark reminder to all advertisers, but particularly for financial or credit offers. In the current economic climate, with cost of living pressures and higher borrowing costs, there is clearly less tolerance on glossing over the details for these offers, particularly those that can cost consumers. Over time these credit offers have become more complex, but the offers have continued to present a ‘too good to be true’ story with vague fine print. The regulators and the court have affirmed that the bar needs to be lifted for messaging in this area. Consumers must be informed of any onerous conditions that may apply to offers and hiding them away in fine print is not enough.

First up, a bit of background detail

ASIC’s action against Harvey Norman and Latitude called into question Harvey Norman’s marketing campaign for a 60-month interest free and no deposit payment method, run across TV, radio and in newspapers between January 2020 and August 2021 (Campaign). An example of marketing collateral from the Campaign is below:

Image: Third-party catalogue advertisement for the Campaign, obtained from ASIC’s media release published 4 September 2025.

There were two main branches of ASIC’s case: (1) the payment method and (2) the fees and charges. Overall, ASIC’s issue with the Campaign is that the advertising and marketing assets did not clearly disclose to consumers that they would be required to take out a Latitude GO Mastercard in order to purchase the goods as part of the “no deposit, no interest” promotion. Further, the advertising left out details of the substantial fees associated with the Mastercard, including an establishment fee and monthly account service fees. The main issue raised by ASIC is that the advertising presented the payment method in a way that led consumers to believe they were signing up to an interest-free payment plan, when instead they were entering into a continued credit contract linked to a credit card with Latitude that carried associated fees.

ASIC alleged that by promoting the Campaign Harvey Norman and Latitude had breached the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) (ASIC Act) by:

i. engaging in conduct that was misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive;

ii. engaging in conduct that was liable to mislead the public as to the nature and/or characteristics of the services; and

iii. making false or misleading representations that services are of a particular standard, quality, value or grade, with respect to the price of services and concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy.

ASIC sought a range of remedies against both Harvey Norman and Latitude, including declaratory orders, injunctions, pecuniary penalties and adverse publicity orders.

Details of the Federal Court’s decision

The Federal Court ruled in favour of ASIC, finding that Harvey Norman and Latitude engaged in misleading conduct by failing to draw consumers to the fine print terms and costs of the Campaign and by promoting a payment method that was not actually available. The Federal Court further noted that consumers were likely to interpret the messaging in the Campaign assets as a true interest-free payment plan option, with repayments to involve simple, equal instalments, which was not the case.

The decision emphasised that the layout and font size of the disclaimers were not sufficient to counter the primary message in the Campaign. That is, while the Campaign assets did mention details about applying for a Latitude GO Mastercard and the associated fees, the positioning and size of these disclaimers were ineffective against the overall main messaging on the assets.

Importantly, the Federal Court held both parties liable – Harvey Norman was responsible for the publication and broadcasting of the Campaign and that Latitude was involved in developing and approving the content of the advertisements for the Campaign. This is important to note for advertisers as it demonstrates that responsibility for campaign materials can fall on other parties involved – and not just the brand.

Then came Harvey Norman’s and Latitude’s appeal

Harvey Norman and Latitude appealed the court ruling.

The Full Federal Court’s response to the appeal was a unanimous dismissal, agreeing that the promotional material for the Campaign was misleading. It was very interesting to see that the Full Federal Court expressly rejected Harvey Norman and Latitude’s submissions that the ordinary and reasonable consumer ‘would know it was too good to be true’ and noted that there was no reason for consumers to second guess the simple terms of the offer. Instead, the Full Federal Court stated that the promotional messaging was not clear as to any applicable conditions, and the ordinary and reasonable consumer would assume that the offer was accurately stated, particularly given Australia’s strong consumer protection laws.

While we await the decision on the pecuniary penalties that Harvey Norman and Latitude may receive, as well as whether ASIC’s request for adverse publicity orders and an injunction will be granted, the case reinforces the importance of clear advertising and upfront disclosure of material conditions.

Don’t let this be you

The main takeaway here is that transparency in marketing is key. Advertisers of products or services, particularly with credit or financial implications, must ensure that material conditions are prominently shown on the assets. Advertisements should be designed from the perspective of the ordinary consumer, and advertisers cannot rely on consumers to “know” how the offer works, or that a product has important elements attached – such as credit products, lock in contracts, financial consequences or additional fees.

It is clear that increased regulatory attention will continue in this area. Consumers are under greater financial pressures and sensitive to higher costs, these sorts of financial products have become more complex, and fees and interest rates have increased over time. Regulators and the courts have shown with this decision, that leaving the details in the fine print is a dangerous game.

The Courts have highlighted the legal, financial and reputational risks that come with misleading advertising. They have also provided clear direction that the advertising of products and services involving financial or credit arrangements carry stringent transparency standards, especially when contracts or costs apply that may influence a consumer’s decision to take up the offer.

These obligations are not only the responsibility of the brand. As we have seen here, other parties involved can be held responsible for the publication of misleading advertising – including agencies, associated credit providers etc. It is vital that proposed marketing is viewed from the perspective of an ordinary consumer and that care is taken to minimise risks of misleading impressions in the advertising.

Contact us

With ASIC’s ongoing interest in the marketing of financial products, it is important now more than ever to ensure that your campaigns and advertising materials are clear and prominently feature all relevant key information.

We have a dedicated team of experts ready to assist with reviewing your promotional activity. If you would like further information or advice on your promotional concepts or reviewing promotional materials, please contact one of our experts below.