Gerry Harvey branded the legal system unjust. It has come back to bite him

A judge has singled out comments from billionaire retailer Gerry Harvey calling the legal system “f---ed” as a factor in slapping his company Harvey Norman with $35 million in penalties for running misleading ads.

On Tuesday, Justice Michael O’Bryan made the orders against both Harvey Norman and credit company Latitude Finance Australia – which must pay $20 million in penalties – over a misleading and deceptive advertising campaign spruiking the latter’s credit card product.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) had taken Harvey Norman and Latitude to court over a national ad campaign that ran between January 2020 and August 2021, which promoted products as available via a “no-deposit” and 60-month interest-free payment method. But it failed to disclose that customers were actually required to sign up for a credit card with high establishment and monthly fees to access the deal.

In October 2024, the Federal Court found the companies had misled people with the ads, saying customers entered a “fundamentally different financial arrangement” than the one promoted. An appeal by Harvey Norman and Latitude was dismissed in September 2025.

In delivering his decision on penalties, O’Bryan highlighted how Harvey Norman and Latitude responded to the case in significantly different ways.

“Neither company had a suitable process for ensuring that their advertising complied with the consumer protection laws. Given the scale and sophistication of both defendants, that is an extraordinary state of affairs,” O’Bryan said.

He said it was “particularly striking in the case of Harvey Norman, given the size of the company”.

He added that while Latitude had since provided “evidence of the steps that it has now taken to improve its processes in that regard”, Harvey Norman failed to do so.

“That is a distinguishing feature between the two defendants, relatedly, the defendants have also exhibited a different level of contrition,” O’Bryan said. “Latitude’s general counsel offered an apology to Latitude’s customers on behalf of the company.

“In contrast, no executive or legal counsel of Harvey Norman gave evidence about the company’s compliance procedures or offered an apology, and public statements made by Harvey Norman’s chairman show a disregard for the potential harm suffered by consumers from Harvey Norman’s misleading conduct.”

A month after the court’s initial 2024 decision, the retailer’s namesake, Gerry Harvey, declined to specifically discuss the case and said his lawyers did not want him talking about the topic, but he unleashed on the legal system as a whole.

“If I had my way, I’d be out there screaming at the top of my lungs about the injustices, and yet I can’t do it. I’ve got to play along with it,” he told this masthead at the time. “The whole legal system is completely f---ed in Australia.”

O’Bryan said that taking into account those considerations had led him to decide more significant penalties for Harvey Norman. “A higher penalty is warranted to deter repetition and to motivate Harvey Norman to improve its compliance processes,” he said.

Harvey, who was contacted by phone for comment on Tuesday, downplayed his involvement in the company, which is now run by his wife Katie Page as chief executive. “I used to sell fridges, but now I’m a farmer,” Harvey said.

In the full judgment, O’Bryan was scathing of Harvey’s comments: “Mr Harvey is entitled to express his opinions, including about the legal system. However, Mr Harvey’s opinions indicate that the Chairman of Harvey Norman’s sole focus is upon the perceived injustice suffered by Harvey Norman, and a complete disregard for the potential harm suffered by consumers from Harvey Norman’s misleading conduct.”

“Taking the evidence as a whole, I am not persuaded that Harvey Norman has demonstrated any contrition for its wrongful conduct,” O’Bryan said.

O’Bryan also said that while the quantifiable harm to consumers was likely less than $5 million, consumers may have wasted their time investigating the offer, or become so invested before realising its true terms that they ultimately proceeded.

As such, he estimated the incremental revenue earned by each party through the contravening conduct was about $5 million.

Both Harvey Norman and Latitude will also have to publish notices on their websites about the orders for 90 days, and pay ASIC’s costs.

ASIC had been seeking penalties of $50 million against Harvey Norman and $35 million against Latitude, as well as injunctions restraining the companies from advertising similar deals for five years, which O’Bryan did not order.

A separate class action seeking compensation for customers was launched in April.

The Business Briefing newsletter delivers major stories, exclusive coverage and expert opinion. Sign up to get it every weekday morning.