CashnGo Ordered to Pay $2.5 Million Over Unfair Loan Contract Terms

Key Takeaways

• CashnGo Fined $2.5 Million: Australia’s Federal Court ordered CashnGo to pay about $2.5 million (AUD 3.5 million) over unfair terms in its small amount credit contracts.
• Automated Withdrawals Targeted Borrowers’ Accounts: CashnGo’s systems could monitor bank balances and repeatedly attempt withdrawals after funds became available, without advance notice or an ability for consumers to opt out.
• Hundreds of Thousands of Contraventions: CashnGo admitted to 190,546 contraventions from contracts containing unfair terms and at least 658,000 from applying or relying on certain unfair terms in its debt-collection practices.
• More Than 53,000 Consumers Received Deficient Default Notices: The lender admitted to 67,545 failures to provide legally compliant default notices between March 2021 and June 2023.
• Court Orders Contract Changes: CashnGo must replace certain unfair terms, allow consumers to opt out of unscheduled withdrawals and is permanently restrained from using the unfair terms or substantially similar provisions in future contracts.

Deep Dive

Australia’s Federal Court has now ordered Venture 5 Group, which trades as CashnGo, to pay about $2.5 million (AUD 3.5 million) over unfair terms that enabled those practices in its small amount credit contracts. The penalty follows proceedings brought by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, or ASIC. CashnGo admitted the terms were unfair and consented to the orders sought by the regulator, including the penalty.

The contracts gave CashnGo’s automated systems considerable reach once a customer fell behind. Under what the company called its Default and Authority terms, the systems could monitor the balance of a consumer’s bank account and repeatedly attempt withdrawals as soon as funds became available. Customers received no advance notice of the timing, frequency or amount of an unscheduled withdrawal and had no ability to opt out.

That arrangement effectively allowed CashnGo to decide where it stood in the queue when a financially stretched customer received money. Justice Michael Jackman found that the lender had obtained “a substantial degree of practical control” over when and how overdue repayments were recovered. The practice could place CashnGo ahead of other demands on a borrower’s money, leaving consumers without enough to cover food, accommodation or medical expenses.

ASIC Chair Sarah Court put the problem more plainly.

“By monitoring consumers’ accounts and withdrawing consumers’ funds without notice shortly after they were deposited, CashnGo denied consumers control over their own finances, which is unacceptable conduct,” she said.

The borrowers involved were not an incidental part of the case. Small amount credit contracts are designed to provide relatively modest sums, and CashnGo marketed its products to people who needed money quickly and those with poor credit histories. Some, the court found, may have been unable to borrow from mainstream lenders.

For those customers, an unexpected withdrawal could carry consequences out of proportion to the amount involved. Jackman found that CashnGo’s practice could, and at times did, leave consumers with less than $3.60 (AUD 5) in their accounts.

The numbers become considerably larger when the practice is viewed across CashnGo’s business. Between April 2022 and May 2025, the company entered into more than 201,000 small amount credit contracts containing unfair terms with more than 85,000 consumers, according to admissions cited by ASIC.

From Nov. 9, 2023, through June 30, 2026, CashnGo admitted to 190,546 contraventions from entering into contracts containing unfair terms. It admitted to at least another 658,000 contraventions during the same period from applying or relying on its Default and Authority terms while collecting debts.

There was a separate problem with the notices customers received after default. CashnGo admitted that from March 11, 2021, through June 6, 2023, it failed on 67,545 occasions to provide default notices that complied with Section 87 of Australia’s National Credit Code. More than 53,000 consumers were affected.

Jackman rejected any suggestion that the conduct could be understood as a series of stray mistakes lower down the organization. The contraventions were “not the result of isolated conduct by junior employees,” he said. They arose instead from CashnGo’s systems, contractual terms and the practices of its senior management and directors.

The court’s orders reach beyond the financial penalty. CashnGo’s Default and Authority terms will be void in current consumer small amount credit contracts from Sept. 14. From that date, the company must introduce replacement terms allowing consumers to opt out of its unscheduled withdrawal practice.

The court also dealt with CashnGo’s Limitation of Liability and Indemnity terms, which the company admitted were unfair. Those provisions were declared void from the beginning of all affected consumer contracts entered into from April 20, 2022. Legally, they are to be treated as though they were never part of those agreements.

CashnGo must publish a notice on its website explaining the changes to consumers. It has also been permanently restrained from applying or relying on the unfair provisions, or substantially similar terms, in future small amount credit contracts. The roughly $2.5 million (AUD 3.5 million) penalty may be paid in installments over two years.

The GRC Report is your premier destination for the latest in governance, risk, and compliance news. As your reliable source for comprehensive coverage, we ensure you stay informed and ready to navigate the dynamic landscape of GRC. Beyond being a news source, the GRC Report represents a thriving community of professionals who, like you, are dedicated to GRC excellence. Explore our insightful articles and breaking news, and actively participate in the conversation to enhance your GRC journey.