The Call You Didn't Ask For

# The Call You Didn't Ask For

It usually starts politely. Someone rings about your funeral cover, or an insurance policy you might not have thought about, or a product that would suit someone in your situation. They are pleasant, they are not in a hurry, and they are not obviously doing anything wrong.

Here is what most people do not know: that call may itself be prohibited. Not the product, not the price — the approach. And if you have already said yes to something that arrived this way, there is a provision that may let you hand it back.

This is general information, not personal financial advice, and it is not legal advice. Whether any particular approach breaches the law depends on the facts, so the last section of this article is about where to take that question.

The rule

Australian law contains what is usually called the hawking prohibition. Under section 992A of the Corporations Act, a person must not offer a financial product to a retail client in the course of, or because of, unsolicited real-time contact. The reforms commenced on 5 October 2021, out of the Banking Royal Commission, and ASIC's guidance on how they work is Regulatory Guide 38 (ASIC, https://www.asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/find-a-document/regulatory-guides/rg-38-the-hawking-prohibition/, as at August 2026).

Read that again, because the important word is unsolicited. This is not a rule about bad products or dishonest sellers. It is a rule about how you were approached. A perfectly legitimate company, selling a perfectly real product, at a perfectly fair price, can be on the wrong side of it purely because of the way the conversation began.

Consent has to be real — and it expires

The prohibition turns on consent, and the bar is higher than most people assume. Consent must be positive, voluntary, clear, and capable of being reasonably understood. It is not enough that you once filled in a form, or did not tick a box, or were once a customer of something adjacent.

Three points about the timing are worth knowing precisely, because together they are what make this checkable rather than merely interesting. Consent must have been given before the contact, and must not have been withdrawn before the contact occurs — that is the test in section 992A(5)(c) and (h), and it means the question is always what was true at the moment they rang, not what was true at some point in your history with them. An offeror may only rely on consent for a six-week period, under section 992A(5)(g) — so an enquiry you made two months ago is not a licence for someone to call you today. And you can withdraw consent at any time, which takes effect from the moment you say so.

That six-week limit is the single most useful thing in this article, because it turns a vague feeling — they probably shouldn't have rung me — into a question you can actually answer. Did I agree to be contacted about this? And if so, was it within the last six weeks?

It is not just phone calls

People assume this is a telephone rule. It is not. The prohibition is technology neutral: as well as telephone calls and face-to-face meetings, it extends to other real-time interactions in the nature of a discussion or conversation, including instant messages, and media that use artificial intelligence such as chat-bots.

So the pop-up chat window that starts talking to you about a product, and the message thread that turns into a sales conversation, sit on the same footing as the phone call. ASIC has itself acknowledged that applying the prohibition to chat-bots is difficult to manage given how those interactions typically run — which is a reason for a consumer to be more alert in that channel, not less. Face-to-face counts too, which brings in the doorknock and, depending on how it came about, the free seminar; our article on free retirement seminars and property spruikers covers that model in detail.

If you already bought something

This is the part worth reading twice. Where the hawking prohibition has been breached, section 992AA gives consumers a right to return the financial product issued or sold to them, and to receive a refund.

That is a statutory right of return, and it is not the same thing as a cooling-off period. Cooling off is a window you get whether or not anyone did anything wrong — our article on cooling-off periods for retirees covers those, and our article on the 14-day annuity cooling-off window covers a specific one. The right of return here arises because the prohibition was breached. Which means the timing works differently: if you were sold something through a prohibited approach, the relevant question is not whether you acted fast enough after signing, it is whether the approach itself was lawful.

Two honest limits. Whether the prohibition was breached in your case is a question of fact — was there consent, was it given before the contact, was it within six weeks, had it been withdrawn. And the prohibition has exemptions and boundaries that this article does not attempt to list. So the right exists; whether it is yours is something to have assessed rather than assumed.

This is not a scam, and the difference matters

Almost everything written for retirees about unwanted financial approaches is about scams. This is not that, and conflating the two costs people money.

A scam is a crime committed by someone who will disappear. The response is to hang up, protect your accounts and report it — our articles on scams targeting older Australians and on investment scams cover that properly. Hawking is different. These are generally real businesses, licensed, contactable, selling products that exist. Nobody is going to vanish, which means that unlike a scam, there is someone to complain to and something to get back.

If you file an unsolicited insurance call under "probably a scam," you hang up and forget it — and if you already bought something, you quietly assume it was your own fault for saying yes. If you understand it as a hawking question, you have a provision to point at and a path to follow. The product categories this was written about are the ones retirees are most often called about: funeral insurance, direct life insurance, consumer credit insurance and add-on products. ASIC was consulting on unsolicited telephone sales of life and consumer credit insurance as early as 2019, before the broader reforms landed (ASIC, https://www.asic.gov.au/about-asic/news-centre/find-a-media-release/2019-releases/19-188mr-asic-proposes-to-ban-unsolicited-telephone-sales-of-life-insurance-and-consumer-credit-insurance/). Our article on whether funeral insurance is worth it covers one of them on its merits.

Worked examples

These examples show how to frame the question. They do not decide it — whether the prohibition was breached in any real case depends on facts and on exemptions this article does not cover.

Margaret, 76, single, receives a call about funeral cover. She has no memory of asking anyone to contact her about insurance, though she did enter an online competition run by a comparison site around four months ago. The caller is courteous and offers to email a quote. The facts that matter here are the ones the rule turns on: was there consent that was positive, voluntary and clear; was it given before this contact; and was it within the six-week reliance period. Four months is well outside six weeks, so even if that competition entry amounted to consent, it could not be relied on now. On these facts what is generally rational is to say plainly that she did not consent to being contacted about this, decline to agree to anything on the call, and write down the date, the caller and what was offered — because if it becomes a complaint, that note is most of the case.

Robert and Susan, 71 and 70, bought a policy eighteen months ago after a call they did not initiate. They have felt uneasy about it since and have assumed the moment to act passed long ago. The important distinction on these facts is that they are thinking about it as a cooling-off question, where the clock runs from signing — but the statutory right of return under section 992AA does not turn on how quickly they acted. It turns on whether the approach itself breached the prohibition. What is generally rational here is not to conclude they have a refund coming, because that depends on facts they cannot assess alone, but to put the question to the provider in writing as a complaint, and to take it to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority if that goes nowhere. The cost of asking is nothing; the cost of assuming it was their own fault is the policy.

What to say, and where to take it

The sentence to use is simply: "I didn't consent to being contacted about this." It is accurate, it is complete, and it ends the conversation legitimately. If hanging up on a polite person feels rude to you — and for a lot of people it genuinely does — this is a form of words that lets you stop the call without being the one who was impolite. You do not owe anyone a reason beyond it.

Beyond that, do not agree to anything on the call: not "just send me the paperwork," not "I'll think about it if you call back Thursday." Ask for it in writing and end the conversation, because anything worth buying survives a week. Write down what happened while it is fresh — the date, who called, what was offered and what you said. If you already bought something this way, take it to the provider first as a formal complaint in writing, which is the internal dispute resolution step, and if that goes nowhere take it to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority; ASIC's Moneysmart sets out how that path works (https://moneysmart.gov.au/publications-and-resources/how-to-complain), and our article on financial disputes and AFCA covers what it costs, which is nothing. Report the conduct to ASIC even if you did not buy, because it is how patterns get found. And if the pressure is coming at someone you care about rather than at you, our articles on protecting against cognitive decline and on financial abuse and older clients are the ones to read — unsolicited selling does its worst damage where someone finds it hardest to say no.

The one-line version

An unsolicited real-time offer of a financial product is generally prohibited; consent has to be clear, has to pre-date the contact and can only be relied on for six weeks; the rule covers instant messages and chat-bots as well as phone calls — and if you were sold something through a prohibited approach, there is a statutory right to return it and receive a refund.

Sources

• ASIC RG 38 — The hawking prohibition
• ASIC 21-257MR — ASIC publishes guidance on hawking reforms
• ASIC 19-188MR — ASIC proposes to ban unsolicited telephone sales of life insurance and consumer credit insurance
• ASIC Moneysmart — How to complain

This article contains general information only. It does not constitute personal financial or legal advice and does not take into account your individual financial situation, objectives, or needs. Whether the hawking prohibition applies to a particular approach, and whether the statutory right of return is available in a particular case, depend on the facts — including whether consent was given, whether it was given before the contact, whether it was clear, whether it had been withdrawn, and whether any exemption applies. This article does not describe the exemptions to the prohibition and does not assess any individual situation; the worked examples are illustrations only, are not based on real people, and do not reach a conclusion about whether any breach occurred. If you believe a financial product was sold to you through an unsolicited approach, raise it with the provider, and if unresolved, with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority; conduct can also be reported to ASIC. Information is current as at 10 August 2026.

Theodore Karoumbalis is an Authorised Representative (No. 1237098) of iAdvice Technology Pty Ltd, AFSL 526700.