Reviews for brokers
and advisers.

Search for advice on financial adviser reviews and much of what comes up is written for the United States, where the SEC's marketing rule governs testimonials. It doesn't apply in Australia, and following it here can make you more cautious than you need to be in some places and less careful in others.

Here it's a mix of four things: ASIC's advertising guide, the ACCC's review guidance, privacy law and each platform's own policy. Your licensee or aggregator may add its own rules on top, and theirs are the ones that bite first, so check them before you change anything.

RG 234 was updated on 9 June 2026. Its rules on testimonials are short. Testimonials should be attributed to the person and authentic (RG 234.130). Celebrity and well-known endorsers are trusted more readily, so their testimonials should be genuine, truthful and only contain reasonably held, informed opinions (RG 234.131 and 234.132). And an ad shouldn't suggest an endorsement or approval that doesn't exist, which includes careless use of other organisations' logos (RG 234.128).

Two other parts matter more than people expect. If a client posts a comment or testimonial on your Facebook page and you know about it and leave it up, ASIC says you'll be considered responsible for it, at least from the time you became aware of it (RG 234.187). And testimonials about results are past performance claims. ASIC says past performance carries a greater risk of misleading (RG 234.81), and using it selectively to exaggerate success may mislead (RG 234.89). 'My portfolio doubled' or 'saved me $600 a month' is that kind of claim.

Broking and advice have plenty of industry awards, and they end up on home pages, email signatures and ads. RG 234 says an ad that mentions an award should say who granted it, and make clear if the grantor is related to the promoter (RG 234.80). Ratings should be explained, current, and described as only one factor to consider (RG 234.77 to 234.79).

In practice: 'Finalist, [award name], [year], [organiser]' is easy to stand behind. 'Award-winning broker' on its own isn't.

The ACCC's online reviews guidance, updated 15 July 2026, applies to every business, finance included. The points that come up most for brokers and advisers:

• Reviews from family, staff or anyone paid can mislead unless the connection is clear. That includes referral partners who receive a fee.
• Don't edit, suppress or remove genuine negative reviews. Removing one needs a sound basis to think it's fake.
• Incentives must apply whether the review is positive or negative, and be disclosed. (Google doesn't allow them at all.)
• Show how many reviews a star rating is based on, such as '4.9 stars, 37 reviews'.
• If a platform publishes a false review about you, ask for removal or reply publicly to correct the record.

Google's policy on contributed content is stricter than the law. It bans offering payment, discounts or free services for reviews; discouraging negative reviews or selectively asking for positive ones; requiring staff to collect a set number of reviews; and reviews from people with a conflict of interest, such as current or former employees or contractors.

The quickest compliant way to ask is Google's own link. In your Business Profile you can create a review link or QR code and share it by email, message or printed card. Send it to every client at the same point: after settlement for a broker, after the advice is in place for an adviser.

Paste a testimonial you'd like to put on your site or in an ad, answer five questions about where it came from, and the checker flags what needs fixing, with the rule each flag rests on. Send anything amber or red to your licensee's compliance team before it goes live.

A bad review from a borrower whose loan was declined is the hardest one to answer, because the urge is to explain what really happened. Don't. In a 2024 case, a real estate agency answered a tenant's Google review with his full name, occupation and financial circumstances. The privacy regulator found it interfered with his privacy and ordered a written apology, noting the agency admitted it could have responded without identifying him.

Brokers and advisers hold far more sensitive information than a property manager. A safe reply thanks the person, says you take feedback seriously, and invites them to call or email a named person. No loan details, no lender names, no 'as we explained to you'. Then fix the cause, if there is one.