Australia’s principal external dispute resolution body for financial services has closed a four week public consultation on new rules to handle scam complaints, a procedural milestone that tightens the architecture for how victims seek redress under the federal Scams Prevention Framework. The Australian Financial Complaints Authority invited submissions from industry participants, consumer groups and other stakeholders from August 31 through September 28, 2026. The consultation package proposed amendments to AFCA’s Rules that would establish a bespoke jurisdiction to hear scam complaints covered by the Scams Prevention Framework, which the government has built to make banks, telecommunications companies and digital platforms more accountable for scam-related harms. Why the consultation matters The consultation is a consequential piece in a wider reform that began earlier this year when the federal government authorised AFCA to act as the single external dispute resolution scheme for scam complaints under the Scams Prevention Framework. Under the framework, regulated entities that provide designated services are required to become AFCA members from September 1, 2026. The new complaint jurisdiction would begin operating from March 31, 2027. For victims the changes could be significant. AFCA’s proposed rules aim to create a faster, specialised pathway for consumers and small businesses to pursue complaints when an interaction with a bank, telco or platform leads to financial loss from a scam. That would supplement existing reporting channels such as Scamwatch and law enforcement by providing an independent forum with powers to propose remedies and oversee compliance by member entities. Key themes raised by stakeholders AFCA has already signalled it will publish a consultation feedback report after reviewing submissions, but several recurring issues were central to submissions and the public webinars AFCA held during the consultation period. First, stakeholders debated how broadly to define eligible scams and whether certain online services, such as some crypto trading platforms, should be included. Second, there were concerns about evidentiary standards and how AFCA will assess whether a regulated entity behaved reasonably in preventing or responding to scam activity. Third, participants pressed for clarity on systemic investigation powers and whether AFCA could require firms to make industry wide fixes when patterns of harm emerge. Industry groups sought proportionality. Financial institutions and telecommunications providers told AFCA any new rules must balance consumer protections with operational feasibility, particularly for smaller firms that would face new compliance and membership obligations from September 1, 2026. Consumer advocates and some legal commentators urged stronger enforcement levers and lower barriers for victims to access dispute resolution. What happens next AFCA will now analyse submissions and stakeholder feedback, and publish a consultation response and any refinements to the proposed Rules in the coming months. Final changes to AFCA’s Rules require approval by AFCA’s board and by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission where relevant, and AFCA must coordinate with other regulators under the framework, notably the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Australian Communications and Media Authority. The operational deadline of March 31, 2027, to begin receiving scam complaints under the Scams Prevention Framework remains in place. From that date AFCA will be able to accept eligible complaints against designated entities that are AFCA members. The period between now and March will be critical for AFCA to finalise procedures, publish guidance for members and potential complainants, and set up specialist case handlers. Why this shift matters globally Australia’s model aims to create an integrated enforcement and remediation ecosystem that sits alongside criminal investigations and consumer education. If AFCA’s expanded role reduces friction for victims seeking compensation or firm-level remedies, it could become an influential example for other jurisdictions struggling to translate anti-scam policy into effective redress. Experts caution that new dispute channels on their own will not stop criminals from exploiting weaknesses in payments rails, telecoms and social platforms. Effective prevention will depend on cooperation between regulators, better industry detection and faster information sharing, including timely reporting of suspicious activity by private firms. Practical guidance for consumers While the rule-making process concludes, AFCA and government agencies continue to urge Australians to report scams promptly to Scamwatch and to preserve documentation such as messages, payment receipts and any transaction references. Consumers who believe a regulated bank, telco or digital platform failed to act appropriately should prepare to use AFCA’s complaint pathways once the new jurisdiction opens. The close of this consultation is a procedural but meaningful step in reshaping how scam victims obtain independent remedies. Over the next six months AFCA, industry and regulators will translate policy into practice, with the effectiveness of that work likely to determine whether Australia can reduce the economic and social toll of scams more quickly and reliably.