Harvey Norman shares fell this morning after the Federal Court ordered the national retailer to pay $35 million and its long-time finance partner Latitude Finance Australia $20 million over a misleading nationwide advertising campaign, a combined $55 million penalty that is the largest ASIC has ever secured for misleading conduct relating to financial products and services.

The judge in the case slammed the comments of the retailers Chairman Gerry Harvey.

Harvey Norman shares fell 2.1% to $4.72 in morning trade, while Latitude added 0.4% to $1.175 only for Harvey Norman shares to recover 0.4%.

Handing down orders, Justice O’Bryan found both companies were equally responsible for advertising a 60-month interest free, no deposit payment method without disclosing that consumers had to take out a Latitude GO Mastercard, a credit card carrying monthly account service fees and, until March 2021, establishment fees.

The campaign ran from January 2020 to August 2021 across television, radio and newspapers, with the ads published and broadcast thousands of times and likely seen by millions of Australians.

Harvey Norman Singled Out Over Lack Of Contrition

In a stinging assessment, Justice O’Bryan contrasted the conduct of the two companies after the event. Latitude had overhauled its compliance systems and apologised to customers. Harvey Norman, he found, had shown no contrition and made no changes to prevent future contraventions, with the judge singling out public comments made by executive chairman Gerry Harvey.

The difference in response was reflected in the penalties, with Harvey Norman’s $35 million fine nearly double Latitude’s $20 million.

The judge said that while the benefit the companies derived from the campaign was likely only around $5 million, the conduct was serious and extensive, exposed the compliance procedures of both parties as wholly inadequate, and distorted the consumer market. Penalties, he said, needed to deliver strong deterrence and ensure consequences beyond a mere cost of doing business.

Both fines came in under the $50 million and $35 million ASIC had been seeking. A further five-year injunction sought by the regulator was dismissed, with Justice O’Bryan warning the court would not hesitate to order large penalties if the companies offended again.

On top of the fines, both companies must publish an adverse publicity notice on their websites advertising the court’s findings for 90 days.

“Integrity In Consumer Finance Marketing”

ASIC Chair Sarah Court said the penalties and corrective advertising orders were a significant outcome for consumers and a strong warning to the market about truthful and transparent advertising.

“This case is about integrity in consumer finance marketing,” she said, adding that consumers were entitled to know the offer involved more than simply paying off a purchase in 60 instalments, and that the advertising encouraged them into an ongoing credit arrangement carrying additional costs and obligations.

ASIC had alleged that consumers who signed up for a GO Mastercard between March and August 2021 and paid off a Harvey Norman purchase over the full 60 months were liable for at least $537 in fees on top of the purchase price.

A Long-Running Fight

The penalty is the culmination of a legal battle that began in October 2022, when ASIC sued the ASX-listed pair over the campaign.

At the 2024 liability trial, the court heard the campaign, comprising five TV ads, five newspaper ads and three radio ads, was signed off at the highest levels, with ASIC counsel Naomi Sharp SC telling the court Harvey Norman chief executive Katie Page and chief financial officer Chris Mentis approved the blitz, alongside Latitude retail Australia general manager Brad Symmons.

The court heard several TV and radio ads sped up as an announcer read the terms and conditions disclaimer, while Harvey Norman was paid a fee for every consumer signed up to a Latitude card. Shoppers poured into stores to snap up TVs and electronics tied to the sales campaign, while Latitude’s customer book swelled.

Both companies fought the case, with Latitude’s Richard McHugh SC arguing an ordinary listener would understand that terms and conditions applied, and Harvey Norman’s Peter Brereton SC insisting the campaign did not seek to mislead. The court ruled against them in 2024, and the Full Federal Court dismissed their appeals in September 2025. A late apology issued through the companies’ barrister was dismissed by ASIC as performative.

Form On The Board

It is not the first time Harvey Norman has been pulled up over its advertising. The retailer was fined $1.25 million in 2011 over misleading offers in a 3D Finals Fever catalogue, and multiple franchisees have been fined by the ACCC over deceptive sales tactics over the years.

The outcome also caps a string of ASIC actions over retail credit products. The regulator secured a $15 million fine against ANZ over its credit card products, while American Express faced penalty proceedings over the sale of its cards at David Jones.