It comes at a time when the role of lead generation in collapses such as Shield and First Guardian has ignited debate in the advice world, with the government looking to crack down on the practice.
The regulator stated that it is part of a campaign to address and hold practices that are inappropriately or unnecessarily encouraging consumers to switch their super accountable.
The new entities build on the original list of 44 published in February earlier this year, bringing the total number to 63. ASIC said this includes those involved in lead generation, those acting as referral partners, and advice licensees or corporate authorised representatives that acquired leads since 1 July 2024.
“ASIC committed to updating this list of authorised representatives, financial advisers, financial services licensees, and websites over the course of its review to promote transparency for consumers and investors, and to support confident and informed participation in the financial system,” the regulator said.
It also highlighted that the naming of entities in this list should not be taken of an indication that a contravention of the law has occurred, nor a reflection upon any person or entity.
“However, consumers should continue to exercise additional caution when engaging with any business that uses lead generation and exhibits the features listed below, including by hanging up on unsolicited calls when feeling pressured into making a decision.”
ASIC said advisers and licensees need to “carefully consider” whether they are able to adequately comply with their legal obligations if engaging with lead generation. It added that the review seeks to understand how licensees engaging with the practice, or allow it, comply with their AFS licence obligations.
“ASIC warns that lead generators that mislead consumers, utilise high pressure tactics or provide financial services without a licence will risk contravening the law. Licensed persons or entities that engage the services of lead generators acting in this way, share this risk,” the regulator said.
It added that it will be putting participants on notice and will consider taking enforcement action where they detect contraventions.
Lead generation’s role in illegal conduct in advice is controversial. While the government and groups like the SMC have largely derided the practice, bodies such as the FAAA and CALI have questioned recent government obsession with lead generation.
The FAAA’s general manager of policy, advocacy and standards Phil Anderson has stated that the lessons from recent scandals should be that individual and wilful misconduct is the issue, not a lack of regulation around practices such as lead generation.
“I have no doubt that lead generation is an area that needs to be looked at, and the proposals are worthy of consideration,” Anderson told a previous episode the ifa Show podcast.
“But we need to better understand exactly what went on before we decide what needs to change.”
The Council of Australian Life Insurers (CALI) have gone a step further, stating that this crackdown on lead generation potentially could harm a perfectly safe and cheap pathway into risk advice and life insurance for many Australians, calling for an exemption for the sector.
“Life insurance lead generation plays an important role in helping customers access information, compare products and obtain life insurance protection,” said Christine Cupitt, CALI chief executive.
“A blanket ban for life insurance risks limiting legitimate information and connections that support customers to build their financial safety net.”
How these large volume “ lead generation “ businesses co-exist & operate alongside the Anti-Hawking legislation under s992a of the Corporations Act is beyond understanding.
Receiving a lead or referral from another legitimate professional source on the basis that consent has been given by the referred party should be completely acceptable as long as all appropriate disclosures are clearly made.
Mass volumes of lead generation is just “drive thru” business based on percentage take up & a numbers game.
It is not & should not be the method by which people make decisions regarding incredibly important matters that will affect their life significantly.
I wonder if they will include planners who recieve leads from accountant or mortgage brokers. No one cares – the horse has bolted. I wish they would just go after the real dodgy people and stop wasting time on people who do work for the right reasons. Low hanging fruit and waste of resources.
Well stated, however we are dealing with politicians and special interest groups. The honest, logical and sensible proponent has little chance against these pervasive types of scurrilous, self-absorbed and aggressive creatures, sadly. The Life-Risk industry is in tatters compared to decades ago and the Wealth ‘industry’ is heading that way. I doubt there’ll be and stand-alone risk specialists at the end of 2027.