Highlights

• ASIC has filed civil proceedings against the Commonwealth Bank in the Federal Court, alleging misleading or deceptive conduct and breach of financial services licensee obligations related to CommBiz fee disclosure.

• The issue relates to changes to terms and conditions for CommBiz direct Credit and debit fees that did not accurately reflect the actual fee charging method, though the fee itself was consistently applied.

• CBA self-identified the matter, reported it to ASIC, cooperated fully with the investigation, and has completed remediation of all affected CommBiz customers.

• The bank accepts it did not get things right for affected customers but indicates it will defend certain aspects of how the allegations have been legally framed.

Commonwealth Bank of Australia (ASX:CBA), Australia's largest bank by Market Capitalisation and listed on the ASX under the ticker CBA, acknowledged on 12 November 2026 that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission had commenced civil proceedings against it in the Federal Court of Australia. The proceedings allege contraventions of a misleading or deceptive conduct provision under the ASIC Act 2001 and a breach of general obligations applicable to financial services licensees under the Corporations Act 2001. The matter relates specifically to the way in which one component of a fee charged to customers using CommBiz, the bank's online Business banking platform, was disclosed in that platform's terms and conditions documentation. The nature of the allegation centres not on the charging of the fee itself — which the bank states was applied consistently and correctly over time — but rather on the accuracy of the written description of how the fee was structured following changes made to the terms and conditions.

Background to the ASIC Proceedings

The substance of the issue concerns what CBA describes as the contra leg of a fee applied to direct credits and direct debits processed through CommBiz. While the fee itself amounted to 25 cents plus goods and services tax per transaction and was charged consistently, changes made to certain terms and conditions intended to simplify them for business customers did not accurately reflect the fee charging method used in practice. The bank emphasised that the fee was not incorrectly applied to customers in terms of quantum but rather that the written description became misaligned with the actual charging methodology following the terms and conditions update. CBA self-identified this matter and reported it to ASIC without being prompted by external complaint or regulator inquiry, and cooperated fully throughout the subsequent investigation. Remediation of all impacted CommBiz customers — those charged the relevant fee component since December 2006 — has been completed, with payments already provided during the FY2026 financial year.

CBA's Response and Remediation Steps

In its response to the proceedings, the bank stated that while it accepts it did not get things right for affected CommBiz customers and apologises to all those impacted, it does not accept the way certain allegations have been legally formulated, and therefore expects to defend some aspects of the claim or otherwise engage with ASIC to resolve the proceedings efficiently. This distinction — between accepting the existence of an operational issue and contesting the precise legal characterisation of that issue — is not uncommon in regulatory enforcement matters where the regulator and the regulated entity may disagree on the legal theory underpinning the action even while both acknowledge that an error occurred. CBA noted, as stated in Note 7.1 of its most recent annual report, that there are a range of ongoing matters where regulators or other bodies are reviewing or investigating whether a group member has breached legal, regulatory, or other obligations.

Regulatory and Legal Context for Investors

For investors and observers of the Australian banking sector, the CommBiz fee disclosure matter is notable for several contextual factors. CBA's proactive self-identification and voluntary reporting of the issue before any external regulatory trigger, combined with the completion of customer remediation prior to formal proceedings, reflects an approach to Regulatory Risk management that prioritises early engagement and resolution. The allegation involves a relatively contained and defined customer population and a specific fee disclosure issue, rather than a systemic product mis-selling or widespread consumer harm scenario. The bank has taken additional remediation steps to reduce the risk of similar incidents arising in future. While the proceedings are ongoing and the final resolution remains uncertain, the company's response to date illustrates the operational and reputational management considerations that large financial institutions navigate when regulatory matters arise in the course of running complex, large-scale service platforms. For participants in the broader financial services sector, the CommBiz matter also serves as a reminder of the ongoing importance of maintaining accurate and current disclosures in terms and conditions documentation, particularly for platforms that serve large business customer bases and that may undergo multiple rounds of simplification or restructuring over time. The gap between the actual fee charging methodology and the written description in the terms and conditions, while apparently arising from a genuine attempt to simplify documentation rather than to obscure information, nonetheless created a disclosure inconsistency that the regulator determined was actionable. As financial institutions continue to invest in digital banking platforms and regularly update associated documentation for clarity and usability, the importance of ensuring that every update accurately reflects the product's actual operation — including all fee components and charging methodologies — is highlighted by this matter as a significant ongoing compliance obligation.

Key Insights

For investors and observers of the Australian banking sector, the CommBiz fee disclosure matter is notable for several contextual factors. CBA's proactive self-identification and voluntary reporting of the issue before any external regulatory trigger, combined with the completion of customer remediation prior to formal proceedings, reflects an approach to regulatory risk management that prioritises early engagement and resolution. The allegation involves a relatively contained and defined customer population and a specific fee disclosure issue, rather than a systemic product mis-selling or widespread consumer harm scenario. The bank has taken additional remediation steps to reduce the risk of similar incidents arising in future. While the proceedings are ongoing and the final resolution remains uncertain, the company's response to date illustrates the operational and reputational management considerations that large financial institutions navigate when regulatory matters arise in the course of running complex, large-scale service platforms. For participants in the broader financial services sector, the CommBiz matter also serves as a reminder of the ongoing importance of maintaining accurate and current disclosures in terms and conditions documentation, particularly for platforms that serve large business customer bases and that may undergo multiple rounds of simplification or restructuring over time. The gap between the actual fee charging methodology and the written description in the terms and conditions, while apparently arising from a genuine attempt to simplify documentation rather than to obscure information, nonetheless created a disclosure inconsistency that the regulator determined was actionable. As financial institutions continue to invest in digital banking platforms and regularly update associated documentation for clarity and usability, the importance of ensuring that every update accurately reflects the product's actual operation — including all fee components and charging methodologies — is highlighted by this matter as a significant ongoing compliance obligation.