Reply to thread

I believe the answer was in the Oxford judgement you provided all along McLovin.

It is not to the point that the defendants did not advise a client as to particular transactions, as for example whether to buy, sell or hold a particular security. It is sufficient that their system would "influence" such a decision, in the sense of making available information, and a system of analysing that information, which would be seen by a recipient as relevant to the making of a decision.

And from the ASIC media release;

Electronic delivery of financial products is a rapidly growing and convenient method of providing consumers with information on, and access to, goods and services. 

The Federal Court’s decision demonstrates however, the breadth of the definition of financial advice, and the broad range of activities which this definition will cover, including the development and application of software designed to help an investor make an investment decision. 

This is Judge Herrey's interpretation of the act. This judgement was handed down in 2008, so it is recent and relevant.