ASIC lawsuit against Commonwealth Bank over CommBiz business fee overcharges, Digi Mart USA News: Commonwealth Bank allegedly overcharged millions of dollars in fees to tens of thousands of business customers, many of them small businesses, according to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), the corporate regulator.
ASIC has started civil penalty proceedings against Australia’s biggest bank, alleging customers were charged fees they were never told about. ASIC alleges that CBA’s CommBiz terms and conditions were misleading because they failed to clearly and accurately disclose all the fees business customers would be charged for direct debit and direct credit payments.
Business customers were told they would be charged a fee for a payment to or from a third-party account.
However, ASIC alleges CBA also charged an additional, undisclosed fee for the corresponding movement of money into or out of the customer’s CommBiz account. ASIC alleges that between November 2020 and May 31, 2025, about 42,000 CommBiz customers were overcharged about $8.5 million in fees.
In one 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two CommBiz accounts was charged 12 fees: 10 for the payments to its employees and two undisclosed fees for the money withdrawn from its own accounts.
“We allege Commonwealth Bank broke a basic promise to its business customers,” ASIC commissioner Alan Kirkland 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 alleges business customers were overcharged for about 19 years, with the allegedly misleading terms and conditions in place from the launch of CommBiz in 2006. ASIC further alleges CBA received customer complaints about the issue from at least 2015, while a 2016 internal audit identified overcharging of direct debit fees and required corrective action.
ASIC also alleges governance failings at CBA meant the alleged misleading statements were not identified and corrected, and that CBA allegedly failed to act efficiently, honestly and fairly.
“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,” Mr Kirkland said.
CBA temporarily ceased charging the relevant fees in June 2025 and amended the CommBiz terms in August 2025. Since February 2026, the bank has waived the “contra leg” fees for processing direct debits and direct credits.
CBA has completed a remediation program covering December 1, 2006, to the present for past and current CommBiz customers, resulting in more than $26.4 million in remediation payments to about 93,000 CommBiz customers, including about 40,000 small businesses.
The case was filed in the Federal Court on late Wednesday afternoon. The court has not yet listed the matter for a case management hearing.
It is the second legal action ASIC has taken against a big bank in as many days, with Macquarie Bank on Monday admitting to failures in the promotion of its “welcome” interest rate for new savings account customers, which could result in a $14 million penalty.
In a statement to the ASX, Commonwealth Bank said it intended to defend aspects of the litigation. “While CBA charged the fee consistently over time, the issue arose from changes made to certain Terms and Conditions intended to simplify them, which did not accurately reflect the fee charging method,” the bank said.
“CBA self-identified this matter, reported it to ASIC, and has cooperated fully with ASIC throughout its investigation. CBA has taken additional rectification steps to reduce the risk of similar incidents.”
The bank said that up to October 20, the median payment made to affected CommBiz customers was about $85, and the mean payment was about $442, inclusive of 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 allegations have been formulated,” the bank said.
“It therefore expects to defend certain aspects of the claim, or otherwise continue to engage with ASIC to efficiently resolve the proceedings.”
