Regulatory enforcement activity at its peak
Regulatory enforcement activity against superannuation trustees reached its peak in 2025, with the commencement of six new civil penalty proceedings, issuance of four sets of infringement notices, acceptance of four court enforceable undertakings and the imposition of licence conditions on five entities.
Consistently with these trends, both APRA and ASIC have signalled in their latest Corporate Plans a strong appetite to increase the intensity of their supervision and enforcement action. APRA has emphasised its preparedness to take formal enforcement action where appropriate, while ASIC has stated that its intention is to pursue high penalties and sentences through the courts, so that the cost of breaking the law has a material impact on regulated entities and individuals.2 We anticipate that enforcement action against the superannuation sector will remain elevated in the year ahead.
Enforcement activity initiated by APRA has increased over time, consistent with the regulator's recent indications it intends to pursue formal enforcement action against entities or individuals where appropriate.1 This activity peaked in 2025, when APRA brought seven enforcement actions against superannuation trustees. While the imposition of licence conditions remains APRA's regulatory tool of choice, it has also favoured the use of court enforceable undertakings in recent years.
Civil penalty proceedings continue to be a central feature of ASIC’s enforcement approach. However, in recent years—most notably, 2025—there has been a marked increase in ASIC’s use of infringement notices as an alternative enforcement pathway. This resurgence follows a relative lull in their use after Commissioner Hayne’s sustained criticism of non‑court‑based remedies during the Financial Services Royal Commission (the FSRC). Court enforceable undertakings have also returned to favour, with four court enforceable undertakings accepted from superannuation entities in 2025.
A variety of different subject matters
The range of subject matters attracting enforcement action is broadening.
Recent areas of focus include:
- member services failures, including in respect of death benefits claims and complaints handling, which have been high on ASIC's agenda since 2023;
- governance and risk management issues, including the recent wave of enforcement action following the Shield and First Guardian Master Funds collapse, which is, in large part, responsible for the peak in enforcement activity in 2025, as well as APRA's recent focus on expenditure management; and
- 'greenwashing' and 'bluewashing', involving allegations of false or misleading claims by superannuation trustees about their environmental, social and governance (ESG) credentials— which has been a consistent feature of ASIC's enforcement agenda in recent years.
Looking ahead, we expect to see a continued regulatory focus on the protection of superannuation savings, as the fallout from the Shield and First Guardian Master Funds collapse continues to be felt. There is also likely to be ongoing scrutiny of member service failures, including in light of ASIC’s review of how trustees use complaints data to identify and address systemic issues,3 and the recent court decision in which Telstra Super was found to have not complied with its internal dispute resolution procedures. Governance and risk management will also likely continue to be a key area of regulatory focus. With greenwashing falling off ASIC’s enforcement priorities for the first time since 2023, enforcement activity in this area may taper off, keeping in mind that ASIC has indicated it will be pragmatic and proportionate in its approach to supervising and enforcing the new mandatory climate-related financial disclosure requirements.4
A consistent range of alleged contraventions in court-based enforcement proceedings
Recent court‑based enforcement proceedings against the superannuation sector have commonly relied on causes of action falling within at least one of the following three categories:
False, misleading or unconscionable conduct allegations
These proceedings involve alleged breaches of:
- the false, misleading or deceptive conduct provisions (sections 12DA, 12DB and 12DF of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) (the ASIC Act); and s1041H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)); or
- the prohibition against engaging in unconscionable conduct (s12CB of the ASIC Act).
Although down from their peak in 2021, these allegations have historically been a mainstay of ASIC court enforcement proceedings.
These causes of action are relied on in proceedings involving a broad array of alleged misconduct, including in relation to fee disclosures, fees for no services, and disclosure documents, member communications and advertising (eg in relation to investment returns and insurance cover).
ASIC, in particular, has more recently been relying on these provisions in respect of alleged 'greenwashing' or 'bluewashing', though, as noted above, we expect that enforcement action in this area may taper off.5
Breaches of general obligations of financial services licensees
These proceedings involve alleged breaches by superannuation trustees of their general obligations as Australian Financial Services (AFS) Licensees under s912A of the Corporations Act, including the obligation to ensure financial services covered by their licences are provided efficiently, honestly and fairly.
ASIC's use of these causes of action has fluctuated, but broadly increased over time, peaking in the period following the FSRC in 2021 and again in 2025. This, in part, may reflect the regulator’s increasing reliance on these broad, process‑focused obligations to address perceived 'systemic' misconduct. For superannuation trustees, s912A has featured most recently in proceedings alleging member services failures in relation to the handling of complaints,6 and death benefit and insurance claims,7 as well in various proceedings arising from the Shield and First Guardian Master Funds collapse.8
Breaches of general superannuation trustee covenants
These proceedings relate to alleged breaches by superannuation trustees of their covenants under s 52 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth) (the SIS Act), including the obligation to exercise the same degree of care, skill and diligence as a prudent superannuation trustee, and to act in the best financial interests of members.
In recent years, the regulators' use of these provisions in enforcement proceedings has also fluctuated but broadly increased and mirrored (at a lower level) the trajectory of the regulators' reliance on s912A of the Corporations Act. This may reflect that these causes of action are often alleged in parallel.
Treasury is currently consulting on increasing penalties under the SIS Act, including on the basis that its materially lower penalties in comparison with the Corporations Act could incentivise regulators to pursue claims under the Corporations Act, even when the SIS Act proceedings are more applicable to the relevant conduct.9 If those changes are implemented, we may see an increased reliance on the SIS Act covenants.
As is the case in relation to s912A, these causes of action have most recently featured in proceedings alleging member services failures, and arising from the Shield and First Guardian Master Funds collapse.
The quantum of penalties in enforcement proceedings remains steady
Overall, the quantum of civil penalties awarded in enforcement proceedings remains steady. While the highest penalty to date arose from proceedings commenced following the FSRC in 2020, penalty levels have remained relatively stable since then, with the higher recent penalties being awarded in 2025 in proceedings involving member services failures.10
We may see civil penalties broadly increase in the coming years. ASIC has stated in its Corporate Plan that it is committed to 'pursuing high penalties and sentences' through the courts, so that 'the cost of breaking the law has a material impact on' regulated entities and individuals.11
An increased focus on industry funds
Historically, enforcement activity has been directed primarily at retail funds, including in the period following the FSRC. Since 2022, however, there has been a marked increase in enforcement action against profit-for-member funds, culminating in a peak in 2025, with a record 8 actions commenced against those funds. Notwithstanding this shift, retail funds remain an ongoing focus for regulators, with enforcement activity against them remaining relatively stable over the past five years. Retail funds have, in particular, been a focus of the recent wave of enforcement actions arising from the collapses of the Shield and First Guardian Master Funds.
Footnotes
-
ASIC Corporate Plan 2025-26; APRA Corporate Plan 2025-26 | APRA.
-
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Telstra Super Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 527.
-
ASIC v United Super Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1453.
-
For example, ASIC v Netwealth Investments Limited (ACN 090 569 109) (Federal Court, VID1658/2025, commenced 18 December 2025).
-
Enhancing member protections in the superannuation system, Consultation Paper, April 2026, p. 23.
-
ASIC v United Super [2025] FCA 1453; ASIC v AustralianSuper [2025] FCA 102.