Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 24 MAY 2023

AFS licensees beware of finfluencers

McMahon Clarke
Explore more from McMahon Clarke

Discusses recent decision where a finfluencer was found to have contravened Australian financial services law.

AustraliaConsumer Protection
Karsen Haseler
Karsen Haseler
Author LinkedIn connections

In the latest news about ASIC's ongoing campaign to manage the regulatory difficulties created by social media influencers who discuss financial products and services online, often referred to as 'finfluencers', and companies that engage them for promotional reasons, the Federal Court has finally delivered its orders against Tyson Scholz after finding he had contravened Australian financial services laws.

BACKGROUND

Between March 2020 and November 2021, Scholz operated a financial services business online that provided training on trading securities listed on the ASX and ran various private online forums with the express purpose of discussing share trading. Scholz charged subscription fees to join his training courses, seminars, and online forums, with multiple subscription tiers available which entitled subscribers to different levels of trading information. Scholz would provide detailed advice and recommendations about trading ASX-listed shares.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

When “Down Down” Wasn’t Really Down - Federal Court Rules Against Coles

In its judgement delivered on 14 May 2026, the Federal Court has found that Coles engaged in misleading conduct in relation to its long-running “Down Down” promotion, accepting the ACCC’s case that many advertised discounts were not genuine. The Court held that 13 of the 14 sample “Down Down” tickets examined in the hearing conveyed false or misleading price discount representations because the stated “was” price had not applied for a reasonable period before the promotion.
AustraliaConsumer Protection
Bartier Perry Solicitors
Bartier Perry Solicitors
Article

The Scope Of A School’s Duty Of Care Revisited

An 11-year-old student suffered a back injury during a long jump trial at a school athletics carnival, leading to a significant Court of Appeal decision that clarifies schools' duty of care obligations. The case examines whether basic safety measures like adequate sand depth and regular pit maintenance constitute reasonable precautions that schools must take to protect students during sporting activities.
AustraliaConsumer Protection
Carroll & O'Dea
Carroll & O'Dea