Skip to content
Coverage

Card and bank billing

Australia — ePayments Code and Australian Consumer Law

NationalAUDerived or secondary source

Australia

Rule id
billing.au-epayments
Version
1.0.0
In force from
June 2, 2022
Last read against its sources
August 5, 2026
Countries bound
Australia

In plain language

What this regime says.

In Australia the ePayments Code, which every major bank subscribes to, starts from the position that you are not liable for an unauthorised transaction at all — the bank has to prove one of a closed list of exceptions, and even then liability for a breached passcode is capped. AFCA enforces it, free of charge and bindingly on the firm.

Who is covered

Holders of accounts with subscribing institutions, for electronic transactions including cards, internet banking, PayID and BPAY. ASIC publishes the subscriber list.

What you get

The unauthorised amount reversed, with liability capped even where a passcode was breached; or, for a failed purchase, a refund under the ACL consumer guarantees and a chargeback through the issuer.

Where claims go wrong

  • Accepting a decision letter that does not identify the Code clause the bank relies on.
  • Not going to AFCA. It is free, it binds the firm, and it applies the Code as written.
  • Assuming a no-refund policy is effective. Consumer guarantees cannot be contracted out of.
The official claim route

Authority

Every citation,
with its pinpoint.

A claim that cites “EU law” gets filed. A claim that cites Article 7(1)(c) gets answered. These are the exact coordinates this entry rests on.
  1. ePayments Code (ASIC), Chapter CePayments Code administered by the Australian Securities and Investments CommissionChapter C — liability for unauthorised transactions, including the no-liability and capped-liability rules
  2. Australian Consumer Law, s.18Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Schedule 2s.18 (misleading or deceptive conduct); ss.54-62 (consumer guarantees); s.259 (remedies against suppliers)
  3. AFCA RulesAustralian Financial Complaints Authority Rules

Sources

Where a figure is indexed, converted or published by a regulator rather than fixed in the instrument, the provenance is recorded separately. Anything marked as a modelled estimate is exactly that — a model, not a statutory number.

What it imposes

Clocks, defences and the ladder.

A rule module builds these while it evaluates, because a limitation period depends on which forum is open to you. What follows is the structure this regime produces — deliberately with no dates and no figures, because those belong to your facts rather than to the law.

The clocks it starts

  • Report to your provider without delayThe Code does not set a hard cut-off, but unreasonable delay in reporting is one of the ways a holder becomes liable — for the losses that occur between when the holder became aware (or should have) and when they reported. Report the day you notice.ePayments Code (ASIC), Chapter C — Chapter C — liability for unauthorised transactions, including the no-liability and capped-liability rulesNotice period
  • AFCA complaint (2 years from the final response)AFCA generally requires a complaint within two years of the firm's final response, and in any event within six years of when you first became aware, or should reasonably have become aware, that you suffered the loss. Complain to the firm first and give it up to 30 days.AFCA RulesReferral to dispute resolution

What it entitles you to, beyond money

  • The starting point is that you owe nothingThe Code does not ask you to prove you were not at fault; it requires the subscriber to establish, on the balance of probability, that one of the liability limbs applies. If it cannot, you are not liable.Chapter C — liability for unauthorised transactions, including the no-liability and capped-liability rules
  • The Code sets investigation timeframesA subscriber must complete its investigation within the period set by the Code and tell you the reasons for its decision in writing, by reference to the relevant Code provisions. A decision letter that does not cite the Code clause it relies on is a good complaint to take to AFCA.Chapter C — liability for unauthorised transactions, including the no-liability and capped-liability rules

What the other side will say

Each of these is a refusal this regime lets a counterparty attempt, paired with the answer to it. Reading them before you write is worth more than any amount of polish on the letter itself.

"You contributed to the loss"

high likelihood

The bank says you disclosed a passcode, kept a written record of it, or were careless.

What answers it

The Code sets out an exhaustive list of ways a holder becomes liable, and the subscriber must establish on the balance of probability that one of them applies. Being tricked is not voluntary disclosure. Ask the bank to identify the clause and the evidence, and take the answer to AFCA.

ePayments Code (ASIC), Chapter C — Chapter C — liability for unauthorised transactions, including the no-liability and capped-liability rules

"The merchant's terms exclude refunds"

medium likelihood

A supplier relies on a no-refund policy or a "change of mind" exclusion.

What answers it

Consumer guarantees under the Australian Consumer Law cannot be excluded, restricted or modified by contract, and stating otherwise is itself a contravention. A term purporting to exclude them is void.

Australian Consumer Law, s.18 — s.18 (misleading or deceptive conduct); ss.54-62 (consumer guarantees); s.259 (remedies against suppliers)

Where to take it next

  1. Written complaint to your bank or card issuerSay that you are relying on Chapter C of the ePayments Code, ask which liability limb the bank says applies, and ask for its decision in writing with the Code clause identified. Ask for a chargeback in parallel.Claim directtypically 30 days
  2. Australian Financial Complaints AuthorityBinding on themFree to consumers and binding on the firm if you accept the determination. AFCA applies the ePayments Code, industry practice and what is fair in all the circumstances, and it is markedly less impressed than banks are by "the OTP was used".Ombudsmantypically 120 daysofficial page
  3. ASIC and the ACCCASIC administers the ePayments Code and takes reports about subscribers who do not follow it; the ACCC and state fair-trading offices handle misleading conduct and consumer-guarantee failures by merchants. Neither awards you money, but both feed enforcement.Regulatortypically 90 daysofficial page
  4. State civil and administrative tribunalVCAT in Victoria, NCAT in New South Wales, QCAT in Queensland and their equivalents hear consumer claims cheaply and without lawyers. Use this against a merchant; use AFCA against a financial firm.Small claimstypically 150 days

Documents

What this regime can produce.

Every one of these is a document you send yourself, in your own name. Duesday never writes to anybody on your behalf and is never anyone’s agent.

The same claim type elsewhere

Card scheme chargeback rules (Visa, Mastercard, American Express, Discover)SCHEMESupranational — party states varyVisa Core Rules and Visa Product and Service RulesConfidence: mediumPSD2 — unauthorised transactions and direct-debit refunds (Directive (EU) 2015/2366)EUSupranational — 30 countriesDirective (EU) 2015/2366 (PSD2)Confidence: highNorway — Financial Contracts Act 2020 and FinansklagenemndaNONational — NorwayLov om finansavtaler (finansavtaleloven), LOV-2020-12-18-146Confidence: mediumRussia — Federal Law 161-FZ on the National Payment System and the financial ombudsmanRUNational — RussiaФедеральный закон от 27.06.2011 № 161-ФЗ «О национальной платежной системе», ст. 9Confidence: mediumSwitzerland — Financial Services Act ombudsman affiliation and the Swiss Banking OmbudsmanCHNational — SwitzerlandFinancial Services Act (FinSA / FIDLEG), SR 950.1Confidence: mediumTürkiye — Bank Cards and Credit Cards Law No. 5464 and the Consumer Arbitration CommitteesTRNational — TürkiyeBanka Kartları ve Kredi Kartları Kanunu No. 5464Confidence: mediumConsumer Credit Act 1974 s.75 (and s.75A) — creditor joint and several liabilityGBNational — United KingdomConsumer Credit Act 1974, s.75Confidence: highCanada — payment card codes of conduct, provincial consumer protection and OBSICANational — CanadaCode of Conduct for the Payment Card Industry in CanadaConfidence: medium

Other rights in the same countries

Australia — Australia Post compensation and Express Post guaranteeAUNational — AustraliaAustralian Postal Corporation Act 1989 and Australia Post’s Terms and ConditionsConfidence: lowAustralia — Australian Consumer Law consumer guaranteesAUNational — AustraliaAustralian Consumer Law, s 60 (guarantee as to due care and skill)Confidence: highAustralia — Australian Consumer Law unfair contract terms and misleading conductAUNational — AustraliaAustralian Consumer Law, ss.23-28 (unfair contract terms)Confidence: mediumAustralia — Medicare, bulk billing, the MBS and informed financial consentAUNational — AustraliaHealth Insurance Act 1973 (Cth), s. 20AConfidence: mediumAustralia — Part IVA representative proceedingsAUNational — AustraliaFederal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), Part IVAConfidence: mediumAustralia — single price rule, ACL s.48AUNational — AustraliaAustralian Consumer Law, s.48 (Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Sch. 2)Confidence: mediumAustralia — State operator passenger charters (NSW TrainLink, V/Line, Queensland Rail) and the Australian Consumer LawAUNational — AustraliaAustralian Consumer Law (Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Schedule 2) and the state operators' customer chartersConfidence: lowAustralia — unclaimed money held by ASIC, and lost superannuation held by the ATOAUNational — AustraliaBanking Act 1959 (Cth), s. 69Confidence: medium

Does this one reach your facts?

The engine runs every regime that could apply at once and reconciles them, rather than making you guess which page to read.

Run your factsBack to the catalogue

Not a law firm. Not legal advice. You send it yourself. This page describes a law; it is not advice about your situation and no outcome is promised.