I do agree with their list of shonky awards
https://apple.news/AOpa0PrmFSt-qxDkrn2HE-A
2025's Shonky Awards go to…
Commonwealth Bank – for making bank off Australia's poorest
Temu – for being an unsafe haven for dodgy sales tactics and fast fashion
Energy retailers – for pricing tactics designed to confuse
Handy Heater Turbo 800 – for being a plug-in heater that doesn't plug in
HCF health fund – for a price rise in disguise
Outstanding Achievement in the Field of …
communication and….
Dummy Spits.
Can't win the award if you made no sales.
Sold their credibility.
Customer service
Ozbargain for being "So Toxic, Full of Negative Nancy's, Whingers, Bad Mouthers and Defamers"
Pot kettle…
hi im the CEO on here
Username checks out. We told Bruce to do that too.
He didn’t get the point when I first responded to him, so he ended up in the bin
He didn’t get the point when I first responded to him,
Ahh, so he got the boot instead, eh?
Somehow I missed the whole Cashback Australia debacle.
All caught up now and wow, just wow…
Did Jacinta receive an award for making Victorians feel safe?
Is she better or worse than Dan Andrews?
Are the recipients ranked ?
Yes
two 💩 don’t make one 💩 better
How dare you assume that woman isn't capable of what man can do ? You just wait right there, she will top Dan's dark triad personality …
Did Jacinta receive an award for making Victorians feel safe?
Nominated for Order of Australia "Achievement and merit in service to Australia or humanity".
🤣🤣🤣
Not sure what's worse - the weather in Victoria or Jacinta lol
The weather is more predictable.
On the bright side, at least Jacinta's rain reign of terror will eventually end.
@jv: Yes and then they will be voted out because some hard decisions will have to be made to get us back on track and that will upset people.
I think Ticketek needs to be mentioend again.
They were shonked for charging for 'delivering' the tickets to you. Nowadays when you pay $8 to have it SMS'd to you, you don't even get the SMS anymore, you have to get it from their stupid APP.
I don't agree with the Commonwealth nomination, it seems just too easy to pick on someone with large profits.
All their products are listed online and in written form (PDS's and TMD's), these documents CLEARLY outline the features, costs and who these products would be suitable for.
How is it the Bank's fault that the customer makes a wrong choice?
If we target CommBank then virtually anyone can be accused of the same thing.
Insurance companies for accepting insurance never claimed.
ISPs and mobile carriers for accepting subscriptions for plans where the data is no where near used.
ISPs and mobile carriers for accepting subscriptions for plans where the data is no where near used.
Already done, Telstra got whacked hard a few years ago for their salespeople signing people up to plans that were completely inappropriate for their actual needs.
I think you're absolutely right if someone signs up online, they have all the information they need to make an informed decision, can't blame the company for that.
But for in-store service or sale, they should get whacked if they deliberately do not give you the right product when you ask for their advice, as you rely on them telling you the truth. Being deceptive deserves a shonky.
The problem is your talking about a very 'vulnerable' group of people often at the bottom in our society who don't have the agency or ability to understand T&C's and online product disclosures or information.
Then you combine that with poor English reading and writing skills, low or nonexistent education, drug and alcohol issues, mental health issues, poverty, reliant on government benefits and you get the picture?
These people couldn't understand what they are consenting too in the first place and to go and slug them fee's on low income accounts is kind of unconscionable!!!
If we can be outraged at mobile phone providers taking advantage of First Nation's people and signing them up for plans, they actually don't need or can't afford we can slam the CBA for doing the same/charging excess fees for vulnerable people.
It's not like they need the money now, is it? They do make massive amounts now and will continue to do so without extorting this 'vulnerable' cohort.
I'm deathly allergic to peanuts, if I bought a Pad Thai ready meal from Coles self-checkout and had a severe reaction, is Coles to blame for it at all?
If I'm severely impaired from drugs or alcohol, or can't understand much English, or have mental health issues, or low education etc, does that make Coles any more responsible for my actions? Of course not, as long as it's clearly labelled in the allergen section.
But if I told a staff member that I'm allergic to peanuts and asked for their help finding a ready meal that I can eat, and they handed me a Pad Thai, then they are to blame.
A company just can't be responsible for advice they didn't give you.
These people couldn't understand what they are consenting too in the first place
You legally can't consent to something if you don't have the capacity to understand what you're consenting to. If they are impaired enough to be considered incompetent then any contract or agreement would be voided.
I think any company should get raked over the coals for knowingly signing incompetent people up to services, especially without a guardian or support person present. But they can't exactly make that determination if they don't interact with you at all, can they?
poor English reading and writing skills
I know at Telstra we had a directory of stores with each language they can help you in, and a special phone number for multilingual support, as well as a special line for First Nation people for culturally aware service: https://www.telstra.com.au/contact-us/multilingual-services
I'd assume most large companies have similar setups, if not they can also use this for translating at least: https://www.tisnational.gov.au/en/Non-English-speakers/Inter…
It's not like they need the money now, is it? They do make massive amounts now and will continue to do so without extorting this 'vulnerable' cohort.
No company wants to make less money, they have a fiscal obligation to their shareholders to make as much as possible. They should be allowed to make a fair profit, especially considering vulnerable customers require more time and resources to help.
Taking excessive profit from any customer deserves a shonky, but expecting a company to serve vulnerable people for free just means they won't bother doing so at all.
@ItsMeAgro: Targeting how exactly? I don't think that should be allowed, but I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to
@Jolakot: You're talking about a bank who made $10.25 billion profit in the 2025 fiscal year!!!
Yes, they are not a charity, but they have obligations and moral and ethical responsibilities not to do such scummy stuff to "vulnerable" people. They don't need to charge 'vulnerable' people with fees for $5 a month for account access or charge any other fee's they sting them with.
It's the 'pub test' that tells you it's wrong because it is wrong, moral or ethical responsibilities aside they lose their social license when they charge money from people, they know full well are on centerlink benefits/pensions because they accept the fortnightly deposits. It would take them very little time to come up with script/whatever code needs modifying & push a pull request to exclude "vulnerable" on government pensions from fees!
It's not as bad as charging dead people fees, but it's up there. I'm far from a woke lefty (whatever they call lefties these days) but it's bad practice and bad juju to charge poor/vulnerable people fees when they make $10 billion a year.
@GardenGnome: Yes, and I'm sure the shareholders expect them to make $11 billion in profit next fiscal year.
They already do exactly what you're suggesting, anyone with a pension is exempt from account fees. And anyone under 30 years old. People with a healthcare card or any payment can get a fee-free account as well: https://www.commbank.com.au/banking/streamline-basic.html
From what I understand, the controversy is them not automatically moving people on payments to that fee-free account type unless they ask. Or just extend the fee waiver they give to pensioners to everyone on a payment like other banks did.
It would take them very little time to come up with script/whatever code needs modifying & push a pull request to exclude "vulnerable" on government pensions from fees!
I've worked as a principal software engineer for a bank, this is significantly harder than you'd expect, they're not storing the account files in a .txt document in OneDrive, there is no boolean flag in a central database for "vulnerable". It would genuinely cost several million dollars to do this, working with anything involving sensitive PII takes forever with endless reviews.
I mean I agree with you that it's pretty crappy of them, bad optics and the fee is BS anyway because it's only charged if you deposit less than $2k each month, they could easily waive it for everyone if they wanted to.
But I just don't see the intentional deception stuff comes in, what Telstra did was far worse
I don't agree with the Commonwealth nomination, it seems just too easy to pick on someone with large profits.
You clearly didn't read the reasons why they got the award again
Go and read it and come back. See if you still have this perspective
Regardless, our banks are richest in the world. They're making billions while families eat ramen packets to afford their bills
From the actual article:
"Earlier this year, CommBank was one of the major banks ASIC caught charging low-income customers excessive fees, when they were eligible for low or no-fee accounts," de Silva said.
"In CommBank's case, 2.2 million customers were collectively charged $270 million in unfair fees."
De Silva also said Commonwealth Bank initially refused to issue refunds, before deciding to consider them on a case-by-case basis.
He said this award, the bank's fourth, marked it as "the most awarded Australian company in Shonkys history".
So in essence they stole 270 million bucks from vulnerable people, got caught, and still only gave some of it back.
They made $10.25 billion profit in the 2025 fiscal year. They could waive the fees for vulnerable people and still make $10 billion profit.
'Vulnerable' customers could learn the read and choose the right products for them.
The funny thing is that after reading the actual article and coverage of what ASIC said, I actually think it makes CBA sound not all that "bad".
$270m in "unfair fees" across 2.2m customers is just over $100 per customer. I suspect that what happened was that CBA were charging $4 (see https://www.commbank.com.au/banking/everyday-accounts.html, and https://www.commbank.com.au/banking/everyday-account-smart-a…) monthly account fees to customers who met the "other criteria" for having these fees waived. This makes sense, $100 per customer is around 2 years' worth of account fees.
On the one hand, yes, CBA is one of the most profitable banks in the world and are almost surely acting in ways that are borderline unethical (if not outright circumventing regulations), however, I can't help but feel that we're just running around in circles trying to weed out this sort of questionable behaviour. I would have thought there's two obvious solutions (from a policy / regulation perspective):
Let it be - there are plenty of banks (including NAB, Macquarie, and others) who charge zero monthly account fees for anyone, irregardless of any conditions. It's not like this information is difficult to find, or that there's not a NAB branch around every corner.
Just clamp down on the whole thing - just ban monthly account fees. If NAB and Macquarie can do it and be profitable, then everyone else ought to as well. Then we just cut out all of this nonsense completely.
Regardless, our banks are richest in the world. They're making billions while families eat ramen packets to afford their bills
Agree with you on the bank commentary, but hey, I love instant ramen. Even if I was a billionaire, I'd still eat instant ramen.
I don't agree with the Commonwealth nomination, it seems just too easy to pick on someone with large profits.
Choice aren't just chosing recipients at random. They're reflecting ASIC's findings from earlier this year. Do you trust ASIC's judgment or do you know better?
Ticketek is up there in the yearly total trash shit corporations' awards. The fact they charge you so many undisclosed fee's (for what?) together with allowing bots (they are even worse than Nike if that's possible) to buy almost all of the big event tickets and then resell them for 500% on GT, FM, eBay (Oasis, Swift). If you're going to offer a retail service, make sure its traffic is not generated mainly by bots and don't charge stupid fees for using a service that should be free.
If CBA is so bad, why are they so popular? Wouldn't everyone just go to the competitors who are so much better?
I've been with CBA since Dollarmites in about 1990, never had a problem with them. If you get charged fees you probably paid for things you couldnt afford, or didn't read the T&C you agreed to.
I put in one complaint about random interest charges on a credit card that I hadn't held a balance on, and that was all sorted and reversed in about 3 days.
Anyway, if banks are ever a problem, maybe the commonwealth could make a government bank for people to use, we could call it.. oh well, nevermind then.
You might not know but…
The Commonwealth Bank's Dollarmites school banking program was accused of having a monopoly because it dominated the school banking market, which critics argued was a form of marketing manipulation rather than genuine financial literacy.
The program's critics pointed out that it gave the bank a "virtual monopoly" over children by gaining a large number of first bank accounts, which often led to customers staying with the bank for life.
And you and me are a prime example of this. You have to admit, that's pretty "shonky"
The Commonwealth Bank's Dollarmites school banking program was accused of having a monopoly because it dominated the school banking market, which critics argued was a form of marketing manipulation rather than genuine financial literacy.
As someone who is not a CBA customer, and generally, no fan of the big banks, I do think both can be true simultaneously.
Like many others, I had a good experience with the Dollarmites program - it taught both me and my parents how to save. Growing up with parents who were sometimes irresponsible with money, the Dollarmites program was good in that it encouraged them to set aside $10 or $20 so that I could put it in my account as opposed to spending it on something frivolous.
I remember switching to ANZ later on because they were in a more convenient location, so when I was around 16, I withdrew all of the money in my Dollarmites account and put it into my ANZ account. Along with some income I earned through work whilst I was at school, it was enough for me to buy myself an old Toyota when I got to uni, which I drove for many years.
At some point, there's individual agency to choose which bank to go with. It's not like it's particularly difficult to switch. I suspect the main reason why people don't switch is because all banks are the same for most people anyway.
Without the Dollarmites program, I don't think I would have had all that money saved up. FWIW, I do think there are some ways which we could have solved this whilst still keeping a similar program - e.g. allowing parents / kids to choose a bank instead of just CBA, or to open tender to allow a bank to partner with the program but in turn offer incentives such as higher interest rates for the kids.
All of your points are valid, and I don't disagree at all. A friend recently brought up this topic in a random conversation and I had no idea that Commonwealth had the monopoly in schools.
So I found it interesting and as an adult could see the tactics they were employing. But that isn't to say it didn't provide some good in the form of a beginner's financial literacy (something I find lacking in our schools and society as a whole).
The reason I stayed: my Dollarmites account transitioned to a youth account, and then into my adult account I have today. I actually can recite my account number and oddly I am attached to it as its been my account nearly all my life. As silly as this sounds.
My partner feels the same for her account so we actually had to get a third account to get a joint account as we both refuse to part with our institutions.
So did it do some good in our schools? Yes, I remember my little cheque book and depositing my 50c every week or so, it was an enjoyable experience and educational. But was the marketing strategy Commbank was employing effective? Absolutely and thats why ASIC disbanded it in 2021
So being top dog because of creatively coming up with a good savings program for children is somehow "bad"? Seems like being too good in Australia for something is always "bad", no wonder the economy is falling.
agree. other banks could have jumped in too. i wonder why they didnt. instead, we banned the one doing some good services
Dollarmites - essentially a scam that shafted a generation of kids
Scott Pape the barefoot investor campaigned again CBA and the sheer financial damage that did to so many young people later on in life as adults
Many people are too dumb to realise they got scammed and still think it was a good program
Financial literacy is low in this country but 25 years ago it was far lower then it is today.
The internet as helped financially literacy a lot but unfortunately for many in the >40 aged bracket they simply cant/wont change or are too stupid to even know they are getting shafted
Not up to date, but what was so scammy about it? I mean I have had CommBank since then and honestly my account has been free the whole time, customer service has always been excellent, the credit cards have been competitive, the app is fantastic.
Sure if you get loans with them, maybe an issue, but I don’t put that on Commbank, as nobody is making them sign with them. It’s more the education system to blame there.
Stastically speaking most people stick to 1 maybe 2 banks in their entire life (although the younger generations are far less loyal).
The Dollarmites program was prime predatory action it targeted kids using the ruse of teaching them about 'banking' to charge them higher fees, higher interest rates on loans and giving them lower interest on savings later in life - i worked fantastically Combank is the biggest bank in Australia and the most profitable bank in the world.
I read somewhere >50% of ALL home loans are actually given out by Combank
Why it was a 'scam' like modern day media it only told you 'part of the truth' or 'part of banking' it signed kids up to a product what on the surface seemed great but in reality it was aimmed at ripping them off later in life (and in most cases it worked)
The worst part was the education system let it happen
@Checkmate3023: The schools were getting nice little commissions out of it, that's why..
@bamzero: What? Schools were given commissions? They never revealed this info.
I had a Dollarmites account….
CBA are bad from a lot of angles. Their exchange rates for foreign currency, Their truly awful reward programs on credit cards, generally poor service and not giving a damn. Having said that I use them and am very happy with them (though I know when not to use them). They are fast and efficient for my building loan as I have a relationship manager who is lightning fast to process any request to the point the builder has been shocked on the speed and turnaround of anything I want changed with the bank. 5 days for loan approval, 5 days for contract and build start letter (yes I know they do this to keep me as a profitable customer, but other banks and building societies never have been so good regardless of me being a profitable customer).
What? This is the opposite of true. They buy all of the things they test and don't accept any money from brands except to use their logo when they recommend something. And if you like at their pattern of recommendations, there's no brand loyalty. Samsung will get recommended in one category and absolutely slammed in another.
Do you know?
I've been to their offices and met most of the team. Let me tell you that neither their offices nor the individuals working there suggest opulent wealth. They're diligent, committed people who want to do things right.
Your baseless accusation is pathetic.
Is that a new tinfoil hat?
Got any source for this accusation?
HCF = High Cost Fund?
Handy Heater Turbo 800
This thing seems a strange choice. There's so many products from AliExpress/eBay that could be chosen, it's just odd to pick this 1 particular model
It's not even sold locally
Perhaps it was heavily advertised on YouTube or social media as “invented by a Sydney engineering student that tech CEOs hate” or something?
Energy retailers – for pricing tactics designed to confuse
This has been the case for years! Nothing new- always, ALWAYS, do your research (even the comparison websites aren't that accurate I found)
Here's an idea… how about we (Ozbargain) host our own Shonkys Award "Winners" every year based on stores and their respective "Deals" (eg. Cashback Australia)
Thoughts?
legal implications will scare Scott off his chair hahaha
Here's an easy kick-off…
Everyone who buys petrol from Reddy Express should check they're being charged the correct amount. It's simple maths, and I think we'll find they intentionally round up, even when the mathematical total is under half a cent.
With millions of transactions a month, you can see the implication.
Are you implying there's a bug in their system that's causing errors?
In my experience, yes.
I think i saw this movie 🤔
It’s a pity there isn’t a competitor to choice. They are pretty good at wagging the finger at everyone else but personally I found their membership a complete waste of money. The comparison lists use very loose metrics and don’t exactly compare like for like to the point of really having to question how #1 gets to that place in the list (I suspect paid sponsorship). For example, I remember reading through the “top bbq of 2023” list and they were comparing a traditional 4 burner, a Weber q, a travel stove (I.e camping) and an electric bbq. The rational for scoring one above another was very flawed, I.e travel stove gets points for portability…
Yeh it's getting very hard to find actual useful info on stuff these days that isn't biased by commissions..
Then you have the big publishers buying up previously reputable websites to further push their SEO crap, and now AI using that crap to summarise and provide it like it's fact at the top of any search results..
Shonky award to OP for using apple news link to the page :D
(better would be the actual Choice page)
Microsoft deserves a Shonky award for their Office 365 Renewals essentially forcing users into a higher tier plan and making the old tier so hidden that it's only a option when you try to cancel. ACCC is suing MS over it. MS sent out a email over night with a link to switch back and offering refunds but the link doesn't work at all for many users and for Family Plan users it's missing the right "Family Classic" option instead only presenting a "Personal Classic". MS sent out a "Corrected" link which now works but it heavily promotes the more expensive tier. Dodgy AF.
Awww I've been with HCF for years and they've been great. What a shame.
No mention of ultra violette for saying choice's testing was wrong and they stand by their poor quality, expensive sunscreen, even when choice warned them before posting their article? Interesting
belongsinforums isMany of you are probably wondering why Ultra Violette or any number of sunscreen brands aren't represented in this year's awards…
Thanks. That wasn't in ops post
