Media Super Limited has paid a $10,200 penalty to comply with the ASIC infringement notice, according to an announcement from the corporate regulator.
Media Super published the ads as a factsheet in September 2012, ASIC stated. The factsheet, titled ‘Self-managed super? You be the judge’, compared the costs and benefits of self-managed super funds with the Media Super fund.
It appeared on Media Super’s website and was sent to all fund members, according to ASIC.
“ASIC was concerned that the factsheet inaccurately represented the costs and benefits of the Media Super funds compared to self-managed super funds,” ASIC stated.
ASIC commissioner Greg Tanzer said ASIC is “serious about making sure investors can be confident and informed and that means cracking down on misleading or inaccurate advertising.”
Mr Tanzer also said Media Super had acted quickly to remove the statements from its website once approached by ASIC, and had fully cooperated in responding to ASIC’s concerns.
The payment of an infringement notice is not an admission of a contravention of the ASIC legislation’s consumer protection provisions, ASIC stated in its announcement. ASIC can issue an infringement notice where it has reasonable grounds to believe a person has contravened certain consumer protection laws.
They deserved a much greater disincentive than a paltry fine… to say it was an innocent mistake is stupid and naive. They got off too lightly.
It is ASIC’s role to regulate, however penalties should only be used if an infringement was a serious attempt to mislead.
To Media Super credit they did comply immediately and removed the offending material and I think on this occasion a warning would have been reasonable.
We are all human and anyone can make a mistake and providing they have learnt a lesson, then we should move on and give them a fair go.
Typical. The industry funds constantly get away with misstatements, half trusts and have done for years under the protection of unions and labour politicians.
When will the truth come out about the payments unions receive from industry funds. These funds have been used to bolster coffers that are declining with declining membership, and industry funds are just another way of enforced union membership without consciously joining up.
I think you’ll find that media super had to issue a revised fact sheet on their website and to all members. I received one.
How is $10k significant or likely to act as a deterrent to an industry fund? That would struggle to chastise an individual. ASIC should, no doubt, rest asssured that with such detrimental and “significant” consequences as displayed in this example that no operators will be game to accidently over step the boundaries in future.
It worries me that there are people out there that would write such rubbish about SMSFs and industry super. Are the Media Super people professional, ethical and moral (truthful)? A bigger fine and a retraction in the newspapers and a letter to all the fund’s members would be far more appropriate. Also some reason as to how the fund came up with its conclusions would be appropriate.
They should have to write to all their members (inc from the 2012 mailout)advising the fine, etc.
Agree with all comments so far.
Is $10k a reasonable penalty given the serious nature of the offence.
individual errors from an Adviser/Financial Planner would and has been much harder.
dealt with very lightly.Hope it deters from further transgressions.
Only natural persons should be able to be fined. For corporate entities the only penalty should be substantial time banished from managing a corporate entity for the most seniuor person rep[onsible.
Seriously? A $10,200 fine for something that was “sent to all members” would be less than the printing and mail costs. Do Media Super now have to send something to all those members about the fact they were “potentially misleading” them? Is this the maximum fine that could be levied?
No wonder ASIC is considered toothless by the industry it regulates.
Let off lightly should have a got a EU from ASIC.