Super funds finally bank some anti-hacker advice; A win for the real fanatics over American giant

Super funds are still lagging when it comes to protecting member money from cyber attacks but they’re at least looking for external help.

It appears that Australia’s major superannuation funds are finally taking an interest in securing their members’ funds from identity theft, scams and fraud after a couple of them belatedly visited the banking sector seeking help.

Despite repeated warnings from regulators and cybercrime experts, lax security at Australia’s $4.2 trillion honeypot for criminals was only brought to the forefront after attacks in March targeting AustralianSuper members, as well as Rest, Hostplus, Cbus Super, Media Super, Insignia’s Expand platform, and ART.

Even after that, as recently as a month ago the prudential regulator was still warning that major super funds were lagging in their efforts to stop basic online attacks like credential stuffing – using username and password combinations exposed in previous data breaches to access accounts.

Little things, like requiring member accounts to have multi-factor authentication before money can be transferred, for example.

Margin Call hears that at least some major funds – perhaps spurred by APRA’s threat to fine fund executives for further breaches – have finally stirred themselves into action.

APRA chair John Lonsdale. Picture: John Feder

We’re told that at least two of Australia’s biggest super funds have been touring the major banks recently, looking for some insights into how it should be done.

Seems like a no-brainer that should have been done years ago. Apparently not, however.

Not that the banks are in great shape themselves. It has taken years to implement basic anti-scam technology, such as making sure customers know who owns the account they are trying to transfer money into.

It’s a development trumpeted from the rooftops by the banks this week, but which customers and regulators have been calling for years.

But still, the banks are well ahead of super funds. They’ve been sharing massive amounts of data about inbound calls of concern from customers for years, allowing them to at least spot emerging trends in fraud as they happen; rather than, say, sitting round like stunned rabbits in March as the superannuation industry did when the first of the targeted attacks on their own members occurred.

It’s only a surprise that it hasn’t happened until now.

We’re told the big banks have been more than willing to share the expertise and systems they’ve already developed. At cost, even.

A win for the fanatics

Sports clothing behemoth Fanatics LLC is now running 0-5 in its bitter trademark battle with Warren Livingstone’s FanFirm and the US-based giant is likely to have to cop to a fair whack of the estimated $7m in legal costs spent during the fight.

The full bench of the Federal Court handed down another loss to Fanatics on Wednesday, mostly at least rubbing out the $50bn company’s right to use the word “fanatics” on clothing sold to sports fans across the country.

The decision comes after an appeal by Fanatics – headed by US billionaire Michael Rubin and with investors such as rapper Jay-Z – from the court’s initial judgment a year ago, hailed by Livingstone as a win for the little guy.

And little it is. In reality, FanFirm mostly organises sporting tours for Aussies keen to cheer on their heroes at events across the globe. But the company also has a sideline selling to fans shirts and bucket hats emblazoned with its fanatics logo. It so was forced to defend its trademark when the US giant muscled into the Australian industry a few years ago.

The little guy in the battle, Warren Livingstone, with his own fanatics. Picture Craig Greenhill

The decision puts in doubt Fanatics’ deals with major sporting codes – including its 10-year agreement with the AFL, said to be worth about $100m to the code. It also has agreements with AFL clubs such as Richmond and Hawthorn, along with NRL club Melbourne Storm (signed after the federal court handed down its ruling last year).

It might also pose a new problem for the other, struggling, rugby code, given Fanatics has a deal with the Wallabies over merchandise for the men’s Rugby World Cup in 2027.

FanFirm’s lawyers are still poring through the detail of the 100-page full bench decision. But it wasn’t a complete victory.

Fanatics still gets to put the word on the washing instructions of the clothes it sells, without breaching FanFirm’s trademarks, and possibly on towels and blankets.

There’s also a little uncertainty around how the decision will impact Fanatics’ online presence in Australia – a key issue given the company’s deal with sporting clubs such as the Storm includes running the club’s online merchandise sales.

But the full bench was pretty clear in its view that Fanatics had lost the day, which is likely to be a key factor when it comes to costs.

“It has had some very limited success in the context of its defences under s 122(1) of the Trade Marks Act, none of which are consequential. Put another way, it has succeeded in part on its first move on the chess board, but not on the others,” said the decision of Justice Stephen Burley, Justice Darren Jackson and Justice Kylie Downes.

And if, like Margin Call, you wonder how a spat over the use of a single word led to three years of legal warfare and a combined cost estimated at $7m? So did Their Honours, who closed out their decision with a quick smack at the legal teams on both sides.

“The byzantine complexity of these proceedings is reflected in the lengthy primary judgment and in these reasons,” the decision said.

“It is also a reflection of the skill of the legal practitioners involved whose understanding of the Trade Marks Act is deep. However, an aspect of that skill must also be the ability of practitioners to winnow the wheat from the chaff.

“In our view, legal practitioners bear a responsibility to confine the case of their clients to a reasonable compass. It is regrettable that this is not evident in the conduct of many contemporary cases involving the infringement of trademarks, of which this case is an example.”

That won’t stop the legal eagles from sending through their final bills, however.