, , ,

Update on Franchise Non-compliance Enforcement Activity: Cash Converters, Mobile Travel Agents and RAMS franchise systems

, , ,

ACCC Disclosure Penalties

The ACCC has recently taken enforcement action against two franchisors – Cash Converters Pty Ltd (Cash Converters) and Mobile Travel Agents Pty Ltd (MTA) – for non-compliance with the Franchising Code of Conduct (Code).

Cash Converters and MTA were issued infringement notices and paid penalties of $16,500 each for failing to meet mandatory disclosure obligations.

Breach of Disclosure Requirements

Under section 92 of the Code, franchisors are required to provide certain information on the Franchise Disclosure Register. This includes critical details such as:

  • the franchise’s name and the name under which it carries on business in Australia;

  • the franchise’s ABN;

  • the address of the franchise’s registered office and principal place of business in Australia;

  • the franchise’s telephone number and email address;

  • the franchise’s ANZSIC division and subdivision; and

  • any other information required by the Secretary.

Franchisors are also required to annually update or confirm the information that is included in the Register before the 14 November each year. The ACCC alleged that both Cash Converters and MTA failed to fulfill their obligation to update or confirm their franchisor information, thereby breaching the Code.

Purpose of the Franchise Disclosure Register

The Franchise Disclosure Register serves as a central source of franchisor information for prospective franchisees, current franchisees, and professional advisers. It is designed to promote transparency and support well-informed business decisions within the franchising sector.

ACCC Deputy Chair Mick Keogh emphasised that "the requirement for franchisors to maintain accurate and up-to-date public profiles on the Register ensures prospective franchisees and other stakeholders have clear and accurate information to help them make informed business decisions”.

The Register can be accessed here.

Practical Guidance for Franchisors

In March 2025, the Federal Government allocated $7.1 million in additional funding over two years to the ACCC; aimed at strengthening enforcement of the Code. Accordingly, to mitigate the risk of penalties and ensure ongoing compliance, franchisors should consider:

  • Implementing internal controls and reminders for annual register updates;

  • Assigning responsibility to designated staff or compliance officers;

  • Seeking legal advice to audit current practices against Code requirements; and

  • Maintaining detailed records of all disclosure and compliance activities.

Franchisors should note that the ACCC can issue infringement notices when it has reasonable grounds to believe a business has contravened industry code provisions. However, paying the penalty does not constitute an admission of guilt or a finding of contravention.

If you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Alicia Hill on 03 9611 0180.

ASIC v RAMS Update

ASIC has commenced civil penalty proceedings in the Federal Court against RAMS Financial Group Pty Ltd (RAMS), alleging systemic misconduct in its home loan operations. A recent development involves a class action brought by former RAMS franchisees seeking to intervene in the ASIC proceedings.

Background

For a detailed overview of the proceeding see our earlier article, here.

By way of a summary, RAMS – formerly a wholly owned subsidiary of Westpac Banking Corporation (Westpac) – was a franchisor of independent franchisees who wrote RAMS-branded home loans. On 4 June 2025, ASIC initiated proceedings against RAMS, alleging multiple contraventions of its obligations as an Australian Credit Licensee between June 2019 and April 2023. Specifically, ASIC alleges that RAMS:

  • Engaged in dealings with unlicensed credit providers;

  • Failed to implement adequate conflict of interest safeguards;

  • Breached applicable credit legislation;

  • Failed to properly supervise and monitor its credit representatives, including neglecting to establish and enforce appropriate policies to prevent, detect, or investigate misconduct; and

  • Did not take reasonable steps to ensure its credit activities were conducted efficiently, honestly, and fairly.

Class Action Seeks to Intervene

In parallel with ASIC’s enforcement proceedings, RAMS is also facing a class action brought by a group of its former franchisees, commenced on 24 May 2024. The class action alleges that RAMS breached its contractual and statutory duties of good faith by terminating franchise agreements without proper cause.

At a case management hearing in the ASIC proceeding before Justice Shariff on 27 June 2025, Counsel for the lead applicant in the class action – Top Ryde Financial Services (Top Ryde) – informed the Court that his client intends to intervene in the ASIC proceedings. Alternatively, Top Ryde seeks leave to appear as amicus curiae, or to have the ASIC proceedings temporarily stayed pending resolution of the class action.

Counsel for Top Ryde raised several procedural and substantive concerns; stating that there are factual issues currently in dispute in the class action that overlap with facts described as agreed in the ASIC proceeding. Further, the statement of agreed facts tendered in the ASIC case allegedly rely on internal Westpac findings, rather than ASIC's own investigation, raising questions as to whether such statements can validly support declarations of contravention.

Opposition by ASIC and RAMS

Both ASIC and RAMS have opposed Top Ryde’s application to intervene. Counsel for ASIC emphasised that the regulator’s proceedings focus solely on the conduct of RAMS; not its franchisees. He asserted that the relevant question is how RAMS responded to internal findings of misconduct. Accordingly, the conduct of the franchisees in irrelevant.

Counsel for RAMS argued that Top Ryde’s application is based on a misapprehension that the Court will make misconduct findings against franchisees, which is not the case.

Justice Shariff indicated that he will list the intervention application for a half-day hearing, after which he will determine whether to appoint a contradictor to assist the Court.

Implications

Practitioners should watch closely for the Court’s ruling on intervention, which may set an important precedent on the interplay between regulatory proceedings and private class actions, particularly where the same factual matrix underpins both.

The next hearing is scheduled for 21 October 2025.

If you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact:

Alicia Hill
Principal
T: +61 3 9611 0180 | M: +61 484 313 865
E: ahill@sladen.com.au

Jake Cole
Senior Associate
T: +61 3 9611 0112 | M +61 413 557 157
E: jcole@sladen.com.au

Alicia Hill