The banks and insurance advertising that got people complaining in 2025

Monday, 29 December 2025

The Advertising Standards Authority hears complaints about adverts.

In adverts, companies put their best foot forward, but a rash of complaints in 2025 about banks and insurers indicates some members of the public believe advertised claims do not always match up with reality.

The Advertising Standards Authority hears public complaints about adverts, though it is not a government agency, but an organisation created by the media and advertising industries to self-regulate.

When a member of the public complains, the authority’s complaints board will take a look at the offending advert, and decide whether they are misleading or breach “generally prevailing community standards”.

The complaints board accepts a certain amount of hyperbole in advertising, but among some fairly spurious claims (such as AMP being accused of encouraging DIY acupuncture, or insurer Tower being accused of suggesting “all issues/problems are caused by women”), some complaints raised issues the complainants believed merited wider public scrutiny.

AA Insurance and insurance retreat

A big issue facing homeowners is “insurance retreat” with some insurers refusing to cover homes they consider too risky for events like flooding.

In November, someone complained that AA Insurance was misleading the public in a television advert.

“They are promoting feeling safe with AA home and contents insurance,” the complainer said, but: “Their advertisements do not let the public know that they pick and choose what areas in NZ they will or will not insure.”

They said: “I have a new build … brick and tile on an elevated section with low risk of flooding, and our area did not get hit by the Christchurch quakes.”

After viewing an AA Insurance advert, the person joined AA and insured their car with AA Insurance.

“I also attempted to insure my home and contents and to my amazement it wouldn’t let me,” they said. “It told me that AA did not insure in my area. I phoned them asking for an explanation, and they told me our area was too risky, and they had to spread the risk, or only insure a selected few,” the complainant said. “In other words there is a quota in certain areas to minimise them paying out if a disaster hit.”

“I can insure with State, Tower, AMI, no problems but AA no chance. I tried to push the issue and explain I was not in a high risk zone, but they wouldn’t budge,” the complainant said.

The authority’s complaints board considered the issue raised did not reach the threshold to breach the relevant Advertising Standards Authority Codes, and it would not be taking any further action.

There was a similar complaint from someone responding to an advert from FMG for car insurance, only to be told: “FMG is not accepting any new customers in my region.”

FMG stopped using the advert, which under authority rules, ended the complaint.

BNZ responsible for payment surcharges it complains of

The bank’s television adverts for its Payap infuriated one person enough to prompt them to complain to the authority in November.

Payap is a way people can make payments using their phones, and in its advert, the bank showed a customer paying for items in a shop with a card. To the customer’s surprise, the checkout operator scans some grapes, then eats one and bites on a muffin after scanning that.

The operator then scans a bottle of milk and unscrews the top and says “Surcharges, what can you do?”

He sips the milk and says “oops too much”. He leans over the bottle as the advertisement cuts to the reaction of the customer’s face. The voiceover says, “Swerve the surcharge now, with Payap. The payments app for everyone, no matter which New Zealand bank you’re with.”

The member of the public complained that the advert was misleading as it inferred small retailers were imposing surcharges on customers.

But, the complainant said, that was blaming the wrong people.

It was actually banks like BNZ charging transaction fees to retailers that led to surcharges being added by retailers to some card payments, they said.

The bank argued it did not set surcharges, but admitted retailers paid fees to “acquiring” banks.

The complaints board did not uphold a complaint saying the advertisement used a light-hearted visual metaphor to simplify the complex system of surcharges involved in contactless and credit card payments.

Several other people complained the advert was “gross”.

Loans die with you

November also saw a complaint about a Greenstone Financial Services advert on Facebook for life insurance.

The main body of the OneChoice Facebook advertisement said: “If you pass away your loan doesn’t. Financially protect your loved ones from carrying the burden, in case the worst happens to you, with OneChoice Life Insurance.”

The complainant said the advert was misleading because it suggested that family or next of kin are liable for outstanding estate debt, which is not true except in “rare and exceptional circumstances” such as children of the parent co-sign on to a loan.

“The advertisement preys on a common misconception that debt is carried to surviving family members who will have to carry the burden,” they said.

The complaints board agreed with the complainant, though Greenstone argued that loans held in joint names automatically transferred to the surviving partner, and that a deceased person’s debts must be paid from estate assets. Life insurance helped avoid asset sales, Greenstone said.

Westpac is about profit maximising, not supporting SMEs

A complaint was made in November by someone who felt Westpac was misleading people by claiming it helped small businesses achieve their goals.

An Instant Finance advert prompted a complaint that it was setting up the expectation people could borrow to achieve 'unaffordable' lifestyles.

“This is false as all the major banks are looking to maximise their profits as per targets set for them,” the complainant said. “They are bound by tight terms of business and do not have any leeway to help small business other than to offer certain products to make the most money for their Australian owners. Therefore it’s false advertising and should not be allowed.”

The authority’s complaints board said the issue raised did not reach the threshold to breach the relevant Advertising Standards Authority Codes.

Instant Finance and ‘unaffordable’ lifestyles

Someone complained about an Instant Finance on demand streaming advert that showed two men who dreamt of owning a classic car, motorbike, boat and jet ski, but only had an old row boat inside.

The voiceover for the advert said: “What if Instant Finance could really help him get into the lifestyle of his dreams. Let us sort it. From passionate pursuits to a whole lifestyle. Travel to tech, cars to kitchens, or anything you like. We lend to make things possible.”

The complainant felt Instant Finance was marketing the expectation “you can borrow your way into an unaffordable lifestyle”.

Instant Finance said the advert was emphasising the use of storytelling and hyperbole to illustrate potential benefits without making literal promises.

The majority of complaints board members felt the advert passed code standards.