RACQ's renewal notices overstated last year's premium; ASIC sued over 434,548 of them

RACQ, a customer-owned Queensland mutual with almost 1.7 million members, sent renewal notices for home, boat, pet and other insurance comparing the upcoming premium with a 'last period premium'. According to ASIC's Federal Court suit, filed in 2025, at least 434,548 certificates issued between September 2019 and December 2024 showed a last-period figure that was not what the customer had paid, because it could exclude discounts agreed after the first quote.

An ABC report cited a Gold Coast customer whose notice showed $6,930.55 last period and $7,033.57 this period, an apparent 1.5% rise, when he had paid $5,024.18 after negotiating a discount, making the real rise 39.9%. ASIC says customers had complained since 2019 that the comparison was 'very misleading'. When the case broke, RACQ apologised and said the practice 'was not in keeping with our high standards', and changed its notices to show actual pricing changes.

In defence documents obtained by the ABC and reported in April 2026, RACQ denies the notices were misleading and says an ordinary and reasonable policyholder would understand the context. It also says renewal rates did not differ materially between affected and unaffected customers and that the price charged 'at all times was correct'. About 70% of the notices had a higher comparison figure, and in most the gap was under $200, RACQ said.

The 'last period premium' field could omit discounts agreed after the initial quote, so it did not equal what the customer actually paid.

Customers complained from 2019 that the comparison misled them, yet the format continued until December 2024, per ASIC.

An inflated baseline can make a large rise look small and may dissuade people from shopping around, as ASIC alleges.

A comparison number that omits agreed discounts can make a big rise look small. Checking that a headline price matches the customer's real bill is a basic design test for a renewal notice.

RACQ stopped the practice and apologised in 2025, then in 2026 court filings denied that the notices were misleading. ASIC's reply rejected the argument that customers would remember earlier paperwork. The Federal Court case was still pending when the ABC reported on 30 April 2026, so no liability finding or penalty is reported. These are ASIC's allegations, contested by RACQ.