When institutions hold power over the financial lives of the vulnerable, the question of who bears the burden of access becomes a moral one. Australia's competition regulator has answered that question by ordering Commonwealth Bank to actively seek out 1.5 million low-income customers and move them into fee-free accounts — rejecting the bank's preference to wait for struggling people to find help themselves. The ruling, binding across 20 banks for five years, marks a quiet but significant reordering of responsibility: the institution must come to the person, not the other way around.
CBA to move 1.5M customers to fee-free accounts after ACCC ruling
Over 150,000 low-income Australians were charged $6 million in unnecessary fees over 12 months despite being eligible for lower-cost accounts.
They should actively identify customers who may benefit
Mark
Why did CBA fight so hard against moving customers automatically? What was the bank's actual concern?
Mimi
The opt-in model keeps the friction on the customer's side. If someone has to actively choose a cheaper account, most won't bother—even if they qualify. CBA was protecting fee revenue from people who couldn't afford to lose it.
Mark
But the bank agreed to offer fee-free accounts. So what exactly was the disagreement?
Mimi
The disagreement was about who does the work. CBA wanted to say "these accounts exist, come find them." The ACCC said "you find the customers who need them and move them." One is passive. One requires the bank to care enough to act.
Mark
And the $1 monthly fee CBA proposed—that seems like a compromise.
Mimi
It's not a compromise if you're already struggling. A dollar a month adds up when you're living paycheck to paycheck. It's the difference between a safety net and a net with holes.
Mark
So 150,000 people were paying fees they didn't need to pay. How does that even happen?
Mimi
They didn't know better accounts existed, or they didn't know they qualified. Banks don't advertise cheaper options to their own customers. Why would they? The system worked perfectly—for the bank.
Mark
What changes now, practically speaking?
Mimi
CBA has to identify who qualifies and move them unless they say no. The customer doesn't have to do anything. That's the whole point. The burden shifts from the vulnerable person to the institution with the resources and the data.
The Pulse
- Over 150,000 low-income Australians paid $6 million in fees they never should have owed — charged for accounts they were eligible to leave but never told to.
- CBA resisted the shift, proposing opt-in models and even a new $1-per-month fee for low-income accounts, both of which the ACCC flatly rejected.
- The regulator's final determination strips away passive compliance — banks can no longer simply make cheaper accounts available and wait; they must proactively identify and migrate eligible customers.
- The ruling covers all 20 Australian Banking Association members and locks in new consumer protection standards for five years, with CBA facing particular scrutiny given its disproportionately vulnerable customer base.
- CBA has committed to implementation, but its year-long resistance signals the change was compelled, not chosen — a distinction that will shape how the bank's culture is judged going forward.
When institutions hold power over the financial lives of the vulnerable, the question of who bears the burden of access becomes a moral one. Australia's competition regulator has answered that question by ordering Commonwealth Bank to actively seek out 1.5 million low-income customers and move them into fee-free accounts — rejecting the bank's preference to wait for struggling people to find help themselves. The ruling, binding across 20 banks for five years, marks a quiet but significant reordering of responsibility: the institution must come to the person, not the other way around.
Commonwealth Bank will move 1.5 million customers into fee-free accounts after Australia's competition regulator issued a final ruling that ends a year-long dispute over how banks must serve people in financial hardship.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission rejected CBA's preferred approach — an opt-in model that would have required struggling customers to seek out cheaper accounts themselves. The bank had also proposed a new account type carrying a $1 monthly fee for low-income customers. The ACCC dismissed both ideas, instead requiring all 20 banks under the Australian Banking Association to actively identify eligible customers and move them into basic accounts unless those customers explicitly decline.
The accounts CBA must now offer carry no monthly fees, include free direct debits and debit card access, and prohibit interest charges on informal overdrafts. Any interest already collected must be refunded. The determination holds for five years.
The ruling is grounded in documented harm. ASIC found more than 150,000 low-income Australians had been paying for higher-fee accounts despite qualifying for cheaper ones — collectively losing $6 million in unnecessary fees over just twelve months. The broader picture is starker still: ASIC alleged CBA charged $270 million in disputed fees to 2.2 million customers over five years, with the bank agreeing to roughly $68 million in goodwill repayments.
ACCC deputy chair Mick Keogh framed the decision as a philosophical shift: passive availability had failed, and vulnerable customers had not reliably found the help that existed on paper. ASIC chair Sarah Court noted that CBA's unusually high proportion of vulnerable customers makes the quality of its engagement not just a regulatory matter, but a moral one. The ruling now makes that engagement compulsory.
Commonwealth Bank will move 1.5 million customers into fee-free accounts, ending a year-long dispute with Australia's competition regulator over how banks should serve low-income Australians facing financial hardship.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission issued a final determination this week that fundamentally shifts the burden of access. Rather than requiring struggling customers to seek out cheaper accounts themselves—the opt-in model CBA had pushed for—banks must now actively hunt for eligible customers and move them into basic accounts unless those customers explicitly refuse. CBA had resisted this approach in 2025, arguing instead for an opt-in system and proposing a new account type that would charge low-income customers a dollar per month. The ACCC rejected both ideas.
The basic accounts CBA will offer carry no monthly keeping fees and include free direct debits, debit card access, and unlimited domestic transactions. Banks are also prohibited from charging interest on informal overdrafts on these accounts, and must refund any interest already collected. The ruling applies to all 20 banks operating under the Australian Banking Association and remains in force for five years.
The decision rests on evidence of real harm. An investigation by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission found that more than 150,000 low-income Australians held higher-fee accounts despite qualifying for cheaper alternatives. Over twelve months, these customers paid $6 million in unnecessary fees. The picture is larger still: ASIC alleged that CBA alone charged $270 million in disputed fees to 2.2 million customers over five years—money the bank agreed to partially refund through roughly $68 million in goodwill payments.
Mick Keogh, the ACCC's deputy chair, framed the ruling as a shift in philosophy. "We want banks to do more than simply make these accounts available," he said. "They should actively identify customers who may benefit and make sure they are aware of their options." The language matters. Passive availability had failed. Vulnerable customers, it turned out, did not reliably find the help available to them.
CBA's statement acknowledged the determination and committed to implementation, though the bank's initial resistance suggests the move was not voluntary. Sarah Court, chair of ASIC, noted that CBA faces particular pressure given its customer base. "They do have a much higher proportion of particularly vulnerable customers," she said, "and so, how they engage with and treat those customers really matters." The ruling now makes that engagement mandatory rather than optional.
Notable Quotes
We want banks to do more than simply make these accounts available. They should actively identify customers who may benefit and make sure they are aware of their options.— Mick Keogh, ACCC deputy chair
They do have a much higher proportion of particularly vulnerable customers—and so, how they engage with and treat those customers really matters.— Sarah Court, ASIC chair
Want the full story?
Read the original at Nine.com.au ↗
General News