Australia’s corporate regulator likes to describe itself as a tough cop on the beat. Yet when it comes to finfluencers, ASIC’s recent actions suggest a different reality.
ASIC has issued warning notices to four finfluencers concerning unlicensed financial advice and misleading and deceptive conduct. That should raise alarm bells for anyone familiar with the Corporations Act. These are not technical breaches. They are fundamental prohibitions designed to protect retail investors from harm.
No prosecutions. No banning orders. No enforceable undertakings. Just warnings. This is weak and unacceptable.
Warnings Do Not Deter Misconduct
The Corporations Act is clear. You cannot provide financial product advice without a licence. You cannot mislead consumers. These are strict obligations because the harm caused when they are breached is both foreseeable and severe.
Issuing a warning notice may be administratively convenient, but it sends a troubling message to the market.
Moneysmart research shows 63% of Gen Z Australians rely on social media for financial information, and more than half trust what finfluencers say. That makes finfluencers one of the most powerful distribution channels for financial services.
When the audience is this large and trusting, regulatory leniency can not exist.
A Pattern Emerging, Not an Isolated Failure
The collapses of Dixon, Shield and First Guardian — with consumer losses in the billions of dollars exposed an ecosystem of misconduct: lead generation, conflicted advice, aggressive sales, and unregulated intermediaries.
Finfluencers are part of this same ecosystem.
They prime investors.
They normalise high risk behaviour.
They funnel money toward products.
Minister Daniel Mulino, has proposed cooling off periods, restrictions on lead generation, tighter trustee rules.
The uncomfortable truth: policy reform is being asked to compensate for weak enforcement.
Deterrence matters. Enforcement shapes behaviour. Advisers live with consequences — licence conditions, bans, civil penalties — for conduct that is often far less blatant.
When unlicensed influencers receive softer treatment, ASIC loses credibility.
It also creates moral hazard. Finfluencers can profit first, apologise later. Consumers don’t get a reset button when their savings are gone.
Consumer Protection Requires Courage: There is no substitute to test the Corporations Act before a court.
A warning notice does not restore consumer trust.
What ASIC Should Do Next
-> Bring cases against the most egregious offenders.
-> Articulate enforcement thresholds.
-> Finfluencers should face enforcement risks comparable to advisers.
The law already exists. The harm is already evident.
History teaches us: consumers don’t suffer because the rules are missing. They suffer because the rules aren’t enforced.
Stu Varidel – MFinPlan, CRPC, ABFP, AFP
Principal Financial Adviser | Chartered Retirement Specialist | Accredited Behavioural Finance Professional | Money Guru | Wealth Adviser “2025 Advice Advocate of the Year” |