The corporate regulator has launched civil penalty proceedings against the Commonwealth Bank, accusing the nation’s biggest bank of overcharging tens of thousands of business customers millions of dollars in fees that were not properly disclosed.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) alleges that CBA's terms and conditions for its CommBiz online banking platform failed to clearly and accurately disclose all fees for direct debit and direct credit payments. The lawsuit, announced on Thursday, claims about 42,000 businesses were collectively overcharged about $8.5 million between November 2020 and May 2025. CBA said the fee in question was 25 cents plus GST.
ASIC alleges the misleading terms have been in place since CommBiz was launched in 2006 and that CBA did not rectify the issue despite receiving complaints in 2015 and identifying the overcharging during an internal audit in 2016. While customers were told they would be charged a fee for payments to or from a third-party account, ASIC claims CBA “also charged an additional, undisclosed fee for the corresponding movement of money into or out of the customer’s CommBiz account”.
“For example, a small business paying the fortnightly wages of 10 employees from two CommBiz accounts was charged 12 fees: 10 for the payments to its employees and another two undisclosed fees for the money being withdrawn from its own accounts,” ASIC said in a statement.
ASIC commissioner Alan Kirkland said the alleged conduct represented a failure of basic banking over many years. “What makes this particularly concerning is how long the alleged conduct went on, despite customer complaints to Commonwealth Bank pointing to a problem years earlier,” he said. “Small businesses are busy enough. They should not have to scrutinise every transaction to make sure that their bank is charging them the right fees.”
ASIC also alleges governance failures at CBA due to its inability to detect and correct the issue, and that the bank “allegedly failed to act efficiently, honestly and fairly”.
CBA said it self-identified and reported the matter to ASIC and had already begun remediation. As of 20 October, the median remediation payment was about $85, while the mean payment was about $442, including interest. “While CBA accepts that it did not get things right for CommBiz customers and apologises to all customers impacted by this matter, CBA does not accept the way that some of the allegations have been formulated. It therefore expects to defend certain aspects of the claim, or otherwise continue to engage with ASIC to efficiently resolve the proceedings,” the bank said in a statement to the ASX.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- Small businesses may have been unknowingly overcharged for years, adding financial strain.
- The case raises broader questions about transparency in bank fee disclosures.
- The outcome could set a precedent for bank accountability and customer compensation.
Background
CommBiz is CBA's online banking platform for business customers. ASIC alleges that since its launch in 2006, the terms were misleading about a dual fee structure for direct debit and credit transactions. Despite complaints in 2015 and an internal audit in 2016 identifying the overcharging, CBA did not correct the issue until after ASIC's investigation, according to the regulator.
Key Perspectives
ASIC: alleges CBA broke a basic promise to business customers, charging undisclosed fees over many years despite being aware of the problem. Commissioner Kirkland called the conduct a failure of basic banking.
Commonwealth Bank: says it self-identified the issue, reported it to ASIC, and is remediating affected customers. It apologised but does not accept the way some allegations are formulated and will defend certain aspects of the claim.
What to Watch
- The court's decision on whether CBA's terms were misleading and the penalties imposed.
- The final amount of remediation paid to affected businesses.
- Any broader regulatory action against other banks with similar fee structures.
Checked
12 claims in this story checked against 1 source: 11 supported.
Show each claim
- SupportedASIC has commenced civil penalty proceedings against CBA.Brisbane Times - Latest News: “The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has commenced civil penalty proceedings against the nation’s biggest bank”
- SupportedASIC alleges about 42,000 businesses were collectively overcharged about $8.5 million between November 2020 and May 2025.Brisbane Times - Latest News: “The lawsuit, announced on Thursday, alleges that about 42,000 businesses banking with CBA were collectively overcharged about $8.5 million in fees between November 2020 and May 2025.”
- SupportedASIC alleges CommBiz’s terms failed to clearly and accurately disclose all fees for direct debit and direct credit payments.Brisbane Times - Latest News: “alleging that CBA’s terms and conditions for its CommBiz online banking platform were misleading because they failed to clearly and accurately disclose all the fees that customers would be charged for direct debit and direct credit payments.”
- SupportedASIC alleges the misleading terms dated to CommBiz’s 2006 launch, despite complaints in 2015 and an internal audit identifying overcharging in 2016.Brisbane Times - Latest News: “ASIC claims the misleading terms have been in place since CommBiz was launched in 2006, and that CBA did nothing to rectify the issue despite receiving complaints in 2015 and identifying the overcharging during an internal audit in 2016.”
- SupportedASIC alleges CBA charged an additional undisclosed fee for money moving into or out of customers’ CommBiz accounts.Brisbane Times - Latest News: “ASIC alleges CBA “also charged an additional, undisclosed fee for the corresponding movement of money into or out of the customer’s CommBiz account”.”
- SupportedASIC gave the example of a business paying 10 employees from two CommBiz accounts and being charged 12 fees.Brisbane Times - Latest News: ““For example, a small business paying the fortnightly wages of 10 employees from two CommBiz accounts was charged 12 fees: 10 for the payments to its employees and another two undisclosed fees for the money being withdrawn from its own accounts,” ASIC said in a media statement.”
- Partly supportedKirkland said the alleged conduct represented a failure of basic banking over many years.Brisbane Times - Latest News: ““We allege Commonwealth Bank broke a basic promise to its business customers, many of them small businesses, that the fees it told them they would pay were the fees they would actually be charged,” he said.”
- SupportedKirkland said small businesses should not have to scrutinise every transaction to check their bank is charging the right fees.Brisbane Times - Latest News: ““Small businesses are busy enough. They should not have to scrutinise every transaction to make sure that their bank is charging them the right fees,” Kirkland said.”
- SupportedASIC alleges governance failures because CBA could not detect and correct the issue, and that it allegedly failed to act efficiently, honestly and fairly.Brisbane Times - Latest News: “ASIC is also alleging governance failures at CBA due to its inability to detect and correct the issue, and that CBA “allegedly failed to act efficiently, honestly and fairly”.”
- SupportedCBA said the fee in question was 25 cents plus GST.Brisbane Times - Latest News: “CBA said the relevant fee at the centre of the allegations was 25 cents, plus GST.”
- SupportedAs of 20 October, the median remediation payment was about $85 and the mean was about $442, including interest.Brisbane Times - Latest News: “As of 20 October, the median remediation payment made was about $85, while the mean payment was about $442, including interest, it said.”
- SupportedCBA apologised to affected customers and said it expected to defend certain aspects of the claim or continue engaging with ASIC to resolve the proceedings.Brisbane Times - Latest News: ““While CBA accepts that it did not get things right for CommBiz customers and apologises to all customers impacted by this matter, CBA does not accept the way that some of the allegations have been formulated. It therefore expects to defend certain aspects of the claim, or otherwise continue to engage with ASIC to efficiently resolve the proceedings,” it said.”