ASIC Sues Commonwealth Bank Over an Alleged A$8.5m CommBiz Fee Overcharge

Around 42,000 business customers of Commonwealth Bank of Australia were allegedly overcharged roughly A$8.5 million in undisclosed fees — on a product whose terms, the regulator says, have been misleading for about 19 years. On 12 November 2026, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) filed civil penalty proceedings in the Federal Court against Australia’s largest bank by market capitalisation. Understanding the ASIC sues Commonwealth Bank in full requires looking at these details closely.

This piece summarises what ASIC has alleged, what CBA has already done in response, and how the case fits into the wider pattern of fee-disclosure enforcement. The event has been reported by multiple outlets, including ABC News and SmartCompany. The context around ASIC sues Commonwealth Bank is drawn from gf6.com’s four-year curated directory of banks and ATMs worldwide, via gf6.com.

The finding — what the regulator alleges — ASIC sues Commonwealth Bank

According to the regulator’s filing, the alleged overcharging ran for almost two decades on a core business banking platform. The key facts, as set out by ASIC, are below. These figures put the ASIC sues Commonwealth Bank into clearer perspective.

• On 12 November 2026, ASIC commenced civil penalty proceedings against Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) in the Federal Court.
• Approximately 42,000 CommBiz business customers were allegedly overcharged approximately A$8.5 million in undisclosed fees.
• The overcharging period cited by ASIC runs from November 2020 to 31 May 2025.
• ASIC alleges CBA charged an additional, undisclosed ‘contra leg’ fee for money movements into or out of customers’ own CommBiz accounts — on top of the fees disclosed in its terms and conditions.
• The allegedly misleading terms have been in place since CommBiz launched in 2006, meaning business customers were allegedly overcharged for around 19 years.
• CBA self-reported the matter and cooperated with ASIC’s investigation.
• CBA stopped charging the fees in June 2025, amended its CommBiz terms in August 2025, and has waived the ‘contra leg’ fees since February 2026.
• CBA has said it intends to defend aspects of how the allegations have been legally framed.
• ASIC is seeking civil penalties, declarations, and costs.

ASIC Commissioner Alan Kirkland said: “We allege Commonwealth Bank broke a basic promise to its business customers, many of them small businesses.” This context matters for anyone following the ASIC sues Commonwealth Bank.

What it means

The headline number is A$8.5 million, which is modest against CBA’s scale. The more striking data point is the duration: ASIC says the allegedly misleading disclosure wording has been in place since CommBiz launched in 2006. The civil claim period itself, however, is bounded — November 2020 to 31 May 2025 — which is the window in which ASIC quantifies the alleged A$8.5 million overcharge across roughly 42,000 customers. It is a central thread in the wider ASIC sues Commonwealth Bank.

The mechanism matters. ASIC alleges that when money moved into or out of a customer’s own CommBiz accounts, a second, undisclosed ‘contra leg’ fee was applied on top of the fees set out in the terms and conditions. In practice, that is the kind of charge that is very hard for a small business to spot on a statement without a line-by-line reconciliation against the published fee schedule. Such details shaped how the ASIC sues Commonwealth Bank unfolded.

CBA’s conduct after discovery is also part of the record: the bank self-reported, cooperated, stopped the charges in June 2025, amended the CommBiz terms in August 2025, and has waived the fee since February 2026. Those steps are typically relevant to how a court sets any civil penalty, though the bank has also signalled it will defend aspects of how ASIC has framed the case. This is widely seen in the Australian market as a continuation of ASIC’s focus on fee disclosure in business banking, but any interpretation beyond the filed allegations should be treated as commentary rather than fact. This is one of the defining aspects of the ASIC sues Commonwealth Bank.

For the broader sector, the case is a reminder that long-standing template wording in digital banking platforms can carry disclosure risk that outlives the people who drafted it. A product launched in 2006 has operated across multiple generations of compliance regimes, and the alleged gap between what the terms described and what customers were charged is now being tested in court.

Explore the full data behind this article: bank branches worldwide and ATMs worldwide in the gf6.com directory.

Methodology

This article is a rewrite, in our own words, of a public enforcement announcement. The event, dates and figures are taken from ASIC’s media release 26-279MR, published on 12 November 2026, and corroborated by independent reporting from ABC News and SmartCompany. The verbatim quote attributed to ASIC Commissioner Alan Kirkland is reproduced from the ASIC release as cited by those outlets.

The primary source is the ASIC media release: ASIC. Corroborating coverage: ABC News and SmartCompany. For directory context on branch and ATM locations covered by this story, see gf6.com’s listings of banks in Australia. gf6.com’s database is a large but incomplete curated sample of global financial infrastructure; coverage varies by country and it is not an official source.

Frequently asked questions

This article was produced with AI assistance from publicly available sources and is handled under our editorial standards and AI policy.