ASIC Corporations (Offers over the internet) Instrument 2017/181

The instrument rests on a small set of legal concepts and limiting phrases. Those concepts determine eligibility for the exemption and frame compliance obligations.

• Exemption scope: The instrument exempts a person from complying with Divisions 2 or 4 of Part 7.9 of the Act when making an offer of financial products to people outside "this jurisdiction" on or through the internet, where the offer is available to, or received by, people in this jurisdiction (s 5(1)). The exemption is therefore conditional and situational, not a blanket removal of obligations for internet offers.

• Offer and invitation: Section 4 provides that "offer includes an invitation to make an offer." That definition broadens the reach of the instrument to cover solicitations or invitations that stop short of an immediate offer. Any internet content that can be characterised as an "invitation to make an offer" therefore falls within the instrument’s potential scope.

• Merely incidental: Paragraph 5(2)(a) requires that "the receipt of the offer in this jurisdiction is merely incidental to the making of the offer outside this jurisdiction." The instrument contains no statutory definition of "merely incidental". The phrase functions as a limiting criterion, signalling that the primary marketing or distribution must target persons outside the jurisdiction; only incidental domestic receipt is tolerated.

• Reasonable steps: Paragraph 5(2)(b) requires the person to "take reasonable steps to ensure that people in this jurisdiction are excluded from accepting the offer." The instrument does not elaborate what measures count as "reasonable steps". The reasonableness standard imports judgement about proportionality and sufficiency of measures taken by the offeror.

• Other means of making offer: Paragraph 5(2)(c) bars application of the exemption where "the offer is made in this jurisdiction by any other means", unless the separate ASIC Corporations (Foreign Securities,Incidental Advertising) Instrument 2025/615 applies. This prevents circumvention by combining internet availability with other domestic marketing channels unless the other instrument governs that domestic activity.

• Reference to the Act: The instrument is made under s 1020F(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (s 3). Its legal effect is therefore to modify compliance obligations imposed by the Act through a legislative instrument rather than by amending Part 7.9 itself.

These concepts are compact but open-ended. The instrument deliberately uses qualitative thresholds ("merely incidental", "reasonable steps") rather than enumerating technical measures. That choice shifts factual assessment of compliance onto later application,by those who rely on the exemption and, ultimately, by the decision-maker interpreting the instrument. The instrument also explicitly ties its scope to other ASIC instruments, creating a dependency on parallel instruments for boundary issues (s 5(2)(c)).

Primary affected parties

• Offerors of financial products: The immediate and primary addressees of the instrument are people who make offers of financial products on or through the internet targeting persons outside "this jurisdiction" but whose offers are available to, or received by, people inside the jurisdiction (s 5(1)). The instrument shifts compliance obligations for these person(s) by exempting them from Divisions 2 and 4 of Part 7.9 of the Act provided the conditions in s 5(2) are met.

• Distributors and intermediaries: Any intermediary that creates, publishes or hosts internet offers (platform operators, website hosts, content publishers) will be implicated in practice because the exemption requires offerors to take "reasonable steps" to exclude domestic persons from accepting offers (s 5(2)(b)). Those intermediaries are not named beneficiaries or obligors under the instrument, but their operational choices will affect whether an offeror can demonstrate compliance.

Secondary affected parties

• People in this jurisdiction who receive internet offers incidentally: The instrument addresses offers that are available to or received by people in the jurisdiction even when the offers are targeted offshore (s 5(1)). For those domestic recipients, the instrument removes the specific protections that Divisions 2 and 4 of Part 7.9 would otherwise provide, to the extent the offeror meets the exemption conditions. The instrument therefore changes the compliance landscape in ways that affect the information and advertising regime experienced by incidental recipients.

• Regulators and enforcers: ASIC is the named statutory regulator implied by the cross-reference to other ASIC instruments and by the fact the instrument was made under s 1020F(1) (s 3). The instrument constrains the regulatory response by creating an exemption route but does not itself set enforcement powers or penalties.

Who is not affected

• Domestic offers: Offers made in the jurisdiction by means other than the internet are outside the exemption; s 5(2)(c) expressly disqualifies cases where the offer is made in the jurisdiction by any other means, unless the 2025/615 instrument applies.

• Non-internet offers: The exemption only applies to offers made "on or through the internet" (s 5(1)). Offers made solely by other channels are not covered.

• Other statutory obligations: The instrument states an exemption from Divisions 2 or 4 of Part 7.9 only. It does not purport to amend or exempt other obligations under the Corporations Act. Any obligation located elsewhere in the Act, or in other laws, remains in force and can continue to affect the same actors.

Practical implications for businesses and advisers

• Offshore issuers who use internet channels but wish to avoid preparing a Product Disclosure Statement or the advertising constraints under the specified divisions will assess whether they can structure their offers to meet the three cumulative conditions in s 5(2). Offerors must weigh the commercial benefit of avoiding PDS and advertising requirements against the evidentiary and operational burden of demonstrating that receipt in the jurisdiction was merely incidental and that reasonable steps were taken to exclude domestic persons from accepting the offer.

• Domestic intermediaries may face requests from offerors to implement exclusion measures. Even if intermediaries are not specified as bound by the instrument, their participation will materially affect compliance.

• Legal and compliance advisers will need to document the factual basis for each exemption claim, because the instrument sets standards susceptible to factual challenge.

Statutory duty modified

• Duty to comply with Divisions 2 and 4 of Part 7.9: The central legal change is removal of the duty to comply with those divisions for qualifying internet offers (s 5(1)). The offeror who meets the instrument’s conditions "does not have to comply" with those specific parts of the Act. That is a right (or legal relief) granted to the person making the offer, subject to conditions.

Conditions creating duties

• Ensure incidental receipt: Clause 5(2)(a) requires that "the receipt of the offer in this jurisdiction is merely incidental to the making of the offer outside this jurisdiction." That places an evidential duty on the offeror to ensure and be able to demonstrate the outbound targeting and incidental nature of any domestic receipt.

• Take reasonable steps to exclude domestic acceptance: Clause 5(2)(b) creates a positive obligation on the offeror to "take reasonable steps to ensure that people in this jurisdiction are excluded from accepting the offer." The duty is one of action and necessitates a contemporaneous decision about both the standard of reasonableness and the specific measures to adopt.

• No other domestic means of making offer: Clause 5(2)(c) disqualifies the exemption where the offer is also "made in this jurisdiction by any other means", subject to an exception where the ASIC Corporations (Foreign Securities,Incidental Advertising) Instrument 2025/615 applies. This imposes a duty on the offeror to monitor and control other marketing channels which could amount to making an offer in the jurisdiction.

Due process and evidentiary posture

• The instrument creates qualitative duties rather than quantitative ones. It does not specify documentary form, timing, or thresholds for the "reasonable steps" obligation. Therefore an offeror who wishes to rely on the exemption has a duty to create and retain evidence that its outbound targeting, exclusion measures, and absence of other domestic marketing channels meet the statutory conditions. The instrument implies that fulfilment of those conditions is determinative of the exemption, but it leaves significant assessment to fact.

Rights retained by offerors

• Where the three conditions are satisfied the offeror gains the right not to comply with Part 7.9 Divisions 2 or 4. That right removes the immediate PDS and specific advertising obligations for that offer. The instrument does not confer immunity from other obligations in the Act.

No new affirmative consumer rights

• The instrument does not create new rights for recipients, nor does it create statutory remedies or specify consumer information obligations in substitution for the removed duties. The text is silent on consumer-facing requirements once the exemption applies.

Operational duties for intermediaries and platforms

• While intermediaries are not named as primary duty-holders, the requirement to take "reasonable steps" to exclude domestic persons from accepting an offer will, in practice, require interaction with hosting platforms, payment processors and intermediaries. The instrument does not specify the distribution of duties among these parties; responsibility remains with the person making the offer.

Interaction duties

• The instrument ties its operation to other ASIC instruments by excluding cases where another instrument applies (s 5(2)(c)). That produces a duty on the offeror to consider the applicability of ASIC Corporations (Foreign Securities,Incidental Advertising) Instrument 2025/615 when other domestic marketing is present.

Recordkeeping implication

• The absence of prescriptive measures means an offeror has a duty to create and retain evidence that its conduct satisfied the instrument’s qualitative requirements. The instrument does not state a specific recordkeeping rule, but compliance will necessarily require contemporaneous records in order to demonstrate that the conditions were met.

The instrument itself does not create new offences, penalties, or express enforcement mechanisms. It is an exemption instrument made under subsection 1020F(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (s 3) that modifies the application of certain parts of the Act. The immediate legal effect is declaratory: where its conditions are met, persons "do not have to comply with Divisions 2 or 4 of Part 7.9 of the Act" (s 5(1)). The instrument does not amend Part 7.9 or the enforcement provisions of the Act.

Implications for enforcement

• Enforcement of the Corporations Act, including Divisions 2 and 4 of Part 7.9, continues to be governed by the Act itself and by any applicable enforcement provisions that are not altered by this instrument. The instrument’s text does not specify how an allegation that an offeror falsely claimed the exemption would be resolved; there is no internal disciplinary or penalty clause in the instrument. Therefore any enforcement action for non-compliance or misrepresentation will arise, if at all, through the mechanisms in the Act and relevant ASIC instruments or proceedings under the Act.

Standard of proof and disputes

• Because the instrument imposes qualitative conditions ("merely incidental", "reasonable steps", "made in this jurisdiction by any other means"), disputes about whether an offeror legitimately relied on the exemption will be factual and context-specific. The instrument does not identify an administrative review route, nor does it provide a statutory presumption in favour of offerors. The absence of stipulated procedural protections in the instrument means that contested questions will rely on the evidence and any enforcement or dispute provisions in the Act or other law.

Role of other ASIC instruments

• Paragraph 5(2)(c) expressly references ASIC Corporations (Foreign Securities,Incidental Advertising) Instrument 2025/615. That cross-reference creates an interaction point where the applicability of the 2025/615 instrument may determine whether the exemption remains available. Any enforcement approach to mixed-channel marketing will therefore likely require simultaneous consideration of both instruments.

Practical enforcement risk for offerors

• An offeror who claims the exemption faces enforcement risk if fact-finders conclude the conditions were not met. The instrument itself does not cap or specify penalties; those consequences, and any remedies, would flow from the Act. The instrument therefore changes the compliance landscape but does not insulate offerors from enforcement action if their factual claims are rejected.

Limits on regulator discretion in the instrument

• The instrument does not itself grant or constrain any regulator’s discretionary powers beyond the substantive exemption. It does not create an express administrative approval mechanism or a prior-notification requirement for reliance on the exemption. The instrument therefore places the onus on offerors to self-assess and document compliance rather than seeking pre-authorisation from a regulator under the instrument.

Direct textual interactions

• Corporations Act 2001: The instrument is made under s 1020F(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (s 3) and expressly refers to Divisions 2 and 4 of Part 7.9 of the Act (s 5(1)). Its legal operation is therefore to modify compliance obligations created by that body of law. The instrument does not purport to amend Part 7.9 itself; rather it operates as an exemption from specified parts of the Act when its conditions are met.

• ASIC Corporations (Foreign Securities,Incidental Advertising) Instrument 2025/615: Paragraph 5(2)(c) conditions one aspect of the exemption on whether the other instrument applies. That creates a direct dependency: if an offer is made in the jurisdiction by other means, the exemption here will not apply unless the 2025/615 instrument applies to that domestic activity. The instrument therefore should be read alongside that ASIC instrument when offers cross channels.

Gaps and reliance on external definitions

• The instrument uses several jurisdictional and qualitative terms without defining them (for example "this jurisdiction", "merely incidental", "reasonable steps", and the scope of "on or through the internet"). Those terms will require interpretation in the context of the Corporations Act and may also be informed by other statutory definitions or by ASIC guidance, judicial interpretation, or administrative practice under the Act. The instrument therefore interacts functionally with those other interpretive and definitional sources even though it does not expressly cite them.

Limited scope of the exemption

• The instrument affects only the duties found in Divisions 2 and 4 of Part 7.9. Any obligations elsewhere in the Corporations Act or other laws (for example licensing, market misconduct rules, other disclosure obligations) are not touched by this instrument. Practitioners must therefore treat the exemption as partial and situated; compliance with other statutory or regulatory regimes will remain necessary.

Administrative and evidentiary interaction

• Because the instrument imposes qualitative conditions, its application will intersect with administrative processes that address evidence, investigation and enforcement under the Act. For example, an enforcement action under the Act alleging non-compliance with Part 7.9 divisions will require resolution of whether the instrument applied; that will in turn engage evidentiary rules under the Act and associated procedures.

Consequences for cross-border regulatory coordination

• The instrument is designed to address cross-border internet offers. It therefore creates an interface between domestic statutory obligations and offshore marketing activities. Where offers are genuinely targeted at persons outside the jurisdiction, the instrument limits domestic disclosure and advertising obligations. That choice means the instrument will, in practice, affect cross-border regulatory dynamics; however, the instrument itself does not create international comity rules, nor does it alter foreign regulatory regimes.

Amendment and legislative history interaction

• The endnotes show that the instrument was amended by ASIC Corporations (Amendment and Repeal) Instrument 2025/617 (registered 23/09/2025; commenced 24/09/2025) and that para (5)(2)(c) was amended in that instrument (see Endnotes 3 and 4). That history indicates that the instrument has been adjusted to coordinate with other ASIC instruments or regulatory changes, and that practitioners must read the instrument in its current compiled form alongside amending instruments.

Practical interface considerations

• Advisers and compliance officers must read the instrument together with the Corporations Act and the referenced ASIC instrument 2025/615. They must also recognise that the instrument’s qualitative thresholds necessitate structured factual assessment in any case where the exemption is claimed. The instrument provides a statutory route to avoid certain disclosure duties for qualifying internet offers, but it does not remove the need to consider the full statutory and regulatory environment.

The compiled instrument includes an amendment recorded in the endnotes. The relevant details are:

• Original instrument: ASIC Corporations (Offers over the internet) Instrument 2017/181 was registered on 6 March 2017 and commenced on 7 March 2017, as recorded in Endnote 3 under "Legislation history."

• Amending instrument: ASIC Corporations (Amendment and Repeal) Instrument 2025/617 [F2025L01152] is recorded as registered on 23 September 2025 and commencing on 24 September 2025 (Endnote 3).

• Provision-level amendment: Endnote 4 records that paragraph (5)(2)(c) of section 5 was amended by the 2025/617 instrument. The compilation shows the text of para 5(2)(c) as amended: it now disqualifies the exemption where "the offer is made in this jurisdiction by any other means, unless the ASIC Corporations (Foreign Securities,Incidental Advertising) Instrument 2025/615 applies to the making of the offer."

• Other editorial changes: Endnote 4 also notes that section 2 was repealed by LA s 48D (the Legislation Act 2003). The compilation identifies that s 2 was affected but the compiled text does not show the repealed provision.

• Compilation details: The compilation is No. 1 and the compilation date is 24/09/2025, indicating the instrument’s text in this document reflects amendments in force on that date (see the opening compilation notes).

Implications of the amendment

• The specific 2025 amendment to para 5(2)(c) introduces an express cross-reference to ASIC Corporations (Foreign Securities,Incidental Advertising) Instrument 2025/615. That amendment narrows or clarifies the circumstances in which the internet exemption remains available where there is also an offer made in the jurisdiction by other means. Practitioners assessing the exemption must therefore evaluate both instruments together.

• The amendment history indicates that the instrument has been subject to recent change. Where reliance on the exemption is contemplated, advisers should confirm the compiled version is current before taking action and check the endnotes for any further uncommenced amendments.

What the instrument does not change

• The amendment history is limited to the changes recorded. The instrument’s core structure and the qualitative thresholds remain in place. The instrument continues to rely on non-definitive language such as "merely incidental" and "reasonable steps", and the amendment history does not convert those standards into quantitative tests.

The compiled instrument does not include any cases or litigation history. The text contains no reference to judicial decisions, and the endnotes do not record any litigation or case citations. The instrument’s endnotes focus on amending instruments and compilation details (Endnotes 3 and 4).

Implications for practitioners

• Because no litigation is recorded in the compilation, there is no precedent within the instrument for how courts or tribunals have interpreted its qualitative thresholds ("merely incidental", "reasonable steps") or its interaction with Divisions 2 and 4 of Part 7.9. That absence means that contested questions about the instrument’s application would likely be novel factual and legal issues in enforcement or civil proceedings under the Corporations Act.

• Advisers should be aware that reliance on the instrument therefore carries interpretive uncertainty. The absence of reported judicial guidance increases the evidentiary and regulatory risk for offerors asserting the exemption.

• The endnotes show the instrument has been amended as recently as 2025. Future litigation or administrative rulings may arise to interpret the amended para 5(2)(c) and its cross-reference to the 2025/615 instrument. Practitioners relying on the exemption should monitor for any future decisions or regulatory guidance that clarify how the qualitative standards are applied.

What is not available in the compilation

• The compilation does not include decisions, enforcement actions, or administrative rulings by ASIC, courts, or tribunals. It therefore does not provide an evidentiary record of how regulators have applied or contested the exemption.

• Because the instrument is contingent on the Corporations Act and because Part 7.9 provisions and enforcement mechanisms exist outside the instrument, relevant litigation is likely to appear in cases addressing Part 7.9 compliance broadly. The compiled instrument, however, records none of those matters.

Ambiguous terms and standards

• Undefined jurisdictional term: The instrument repeatedly uses the phrase "this jurisdiction" (s 5(1), s 5(2)(a)-(c)) but does not define that phrase in its own text. The absence of a local definition in the instrument is a source of uncertainty about the territorial application of the exemption and creates implementation risk for offerors who must decide whether recipients are "in this jurisdiction."

• Qualitative standards: The instrument conditions the exemption on "merely incidental" receipt and "reasonable steps" to exclude domestic acceptance (s 5(2)(a)-(b)). These are inherently context-sensitive standards. The instrument does not provide measurable criteria, illustrative examples, or a safe-harbour list of measures that constitute "reasonable steps." That lack of specificity generates legal uncertainty and evidentiary risk.

Interaction trap with other domestic marketing

• The instrument disqualifies offers "made in this jurisdiction by any other means" unless a specified ASIC instrument applies (s 5(2)(c)). That wording creates a trap for multi-channel campaigns. An internet offer directed offshore can lose the exemption if any other promotional method reaches domestic persons and counts as making the offer "in this jurisdiction." The exemption therefore requires careful control of all marketing channels.

Cross-instrument dependency

• Reliance on the exemption can require simultaneous consideration of ASIC Corporations (Foreign Securities,Incidental Advertising) Instrument 2025/615 because para 5(2)(c) incorporates that instrument as an exception. Practitioners cannot evaluate the exemption in isolation; the applicability of the 2025/615 instrument to any domestic marketing will affect eligibility.

Limited scope of relief

• The exemption applies only to Divisions 2 and 4 of Part 7.9. It does not remove obligations elsewhere in the Act or in other statutes. Offerors who assume the exemption removes other duties risk non-compliance. The instrument’s text does not list what otherwise remains in force, so careful statutory mapping is required.

Evidentiary burden and recordkeeping

• The instrument imposes obligations that must be demonstrated on a facts basis. "Taking reasonable steps" and proving that domestic receipt was "merely incidental" will likely require contemporaneous documentation. The instrument itself does not prescribe records to be kept, so omission of adequate documentary evidence could expose an offeror to challenge.

No express pre-clearance or notification mechanism

• The instrument contains no procedure for notifying ASIC or obtaining a ruling before relying on the exemption. The absence of a pre-clearance route means that the decision to rely on the exemption is unilateral and carries the risk that a later enforcement or dispute may find the reliance unjustified.

Potential operational friction with intermediaries

• The instrument’s practical effectiveness depends on the ability of offerors to implement exclusion measures online. Intermediaries, platforms and payment processors may be subject to contractual or regulatory constraints that affect their willingness or ability to implement exclusion measures. The instrument does not address intermediary liability or co-operation obligations.

Amendment risk

• The instrument has been amended; para 5(2)(c) was changed by a 2025 instrument (Endnote 4). That history indicates potential for future amendment that could shift the exemption’s scope. Relying parties should be attentive to amending instruments and to the compilation date.

No dispute or precedent guidance in the instrument

• The compilation contains no litigation history or precedent for interpreting the instrument. Those relying on the exemption will encounter higher legal uncertainty until administrative or judicial interpretation emerges.

Narrow beneficiary class

• The exemption targets offers made to people outside the jurisdiction; it does not create an exemption for offers that are deliberately targeted to domestic persons. Attempting to structure around the "merely incidental" requirement could produce factual disputes or be viewed as an attempt to circumvent domestic protections.

Legal baseline

• Read the instrument with the Corporations Act: The exemption operates against the statutory duties in Divisions 2 and 4 of Part 7.9 (s 5(1)). To assess whether the instrument provides relief in any case, begin by identifying the specific obligations in Part 7.9 from which relief is sought and confirm that those are the divisions referenced.

• Confirm the exact factual posture: The instrument applies only where offers are made "to people outside of this jurisdiction on or through the internet" and are "available to, or received by, people in this jurisdiction" (s 5(1)). The offeror must establish the primary target market of the offer and whether domestic receipt is merely incidental (s 5(2)(a)). A clear factual record distinguishing targeted offshore recipients from incidental domestic recipients is therefore essential.

Practical steps aligned with the instrument’s conditions

• Establish outbound targeting and incidental receipt: Prepare contemporaneous documentation that demonstrates the offer was intended for persons outside the jurisdiction. Relevant evidence could include marketing strategy documents, audience targeting settings on platforms, geographic parameters for ad buys, timestamps, and server logs showing the locations of targeted IP address ranges. The instrument requires that "the receipt of the offer in this jurisdiction is merely incidental" (s 5(2)(a)), so documentation that substantiates incidental domestic receipt is material to claiming the exemption.

• Take and document "reasonable steps" to exclude domestic acceptance: The instrument requires the person to "take reasonable steps to ensure that people in this jurisdiction are excluded from accepting the offer" (s 5(2)(b)). To align with that requirement an offeror should implement exclusion measures and contemporaneously record them. Possible measures include technical controls (geoblocking, IP-based access restrictions), transactional controls (declining payments from domestic payment instruments), front-end notices and mandatory declarations at point of sale denying domestic residency, and contractual representations that prohibit domestic residents from accepting offers. The instrument does not specify that any particular measures are sufficient. Therefore every step taken should be documented, and the offeror should consider a proportionality assessment showing why the steps taken were reasonable in the circumstances.

• Control other marketing channels: The exemption is disapplied where "the offer is made in this jurisdiction by any other means", unless the 2025/615 instrument applies (s 5(2)(c)). Practically, this requires an audit of all marketing and distribution channels to ensure there are no domestic advertisements, roadshows, agent solicitations, call campaigns or other means that would bring the offer within the jurisdiction. If other domestic marketing exists, determine whether ASIC Corporations (Foreign Securities,Incidental Advertising) Instrument 2025/615 applies; if it does not, the exemption under this instrument will not be available.

Risk management and documentation

• Maintain an audit trail: Because the instrument predicates relief on qualitative factual standards, maintain contemporaneous records showing the targeting intent, exclusion measures, and absence of domestic channels. Records should include the decision-making rationale, implementation steps, monitoring checks, platform settings, transactional logs, and any compliance opinions obtained.

• Implement monitoring and remediation: Put in place ongoing monitoring to detect domestic access or domestic acceptance attempts. If domestic acceptance occurs despite exclusion measures, take documented corrective action promptly, and reassess whether reliance on the exemption is still viable.

• Legal review and sign-off: Obtain written legal and compliance sign-off that articulates the factual basis for relying on the exemption and records the steps taken to comply with s 5(2)(a)-(c). The instrument provides no pre-clearance route; internal sign-off is therefore part of prudent risk management.

Cross-check other statutory obligations

• Do not assume full immunity: The instrument exempts from Divisions 2 and 4 of Part 7.9 only. Conduct a statutory review to identify other obligations under the Corporations Act that may apply irrespective of the exemption, and ensure those are satisfied. Where necessary, obtain advice on licensing, investor protection, or other regime intersections.

Account for the cross-reference to the 2025/615 instrument

• Review ASIC Corporations (Foreign Securities,Incidental Advertising) Instrument 2025/615: Because para 5(2)(c) cross-references the 2025/615 instrument, compliance requires assessing whether that instrument applies to any domestic marketing channels that might otherwise disqualify reliance on the internet exemption. Do not rely on this instrument alone if other marketing channels are present.

Prepare for enforcement scrutiny

• Anticipate factual review: Expect that any assertion of exemption could be audited or challenged. Design compliance processes to produce clear, contemporaneous evidence of outbound targeting, steps taken to exclude domestic acceptance, and control over other marketing channels.

• Consider consumer-facing notices and disclaimers with care: While notices may assist in evidencing intent, the instrument does not make any statement about their legal sufficiency. Use notices as part of a layered compliance approach rather than as the sole measure.

Operational checklist (practical, but not exhaustive)

1. Identify the offer and confirm it is an internet-based offer aimed at persons outside the jurisdiction (s 5(1)).
2. Document marketing strategy demonstrating offshore targeting and why any domestic receipt would be incidental (s 5(2)(a)).
3. Implement and document exclusion measures to prevent domestic persons accepting offers (s 5(2)(b)).
4. Audit all marketing channels to confirm no offers are made in the jurisdiction by other means, or confirm applicability of the 2025/615 instrument where other means exist (s 5(2)(c)).
5. Maintain logs and contemporaneous records of technical and contractual exclusion measures, monitoring checks, and remedial actions.
6. Obtain internal legal sign-off recording the factual basis for relying on the exemption.
7. Retain records sufficient to demonstrate the reasonableness of steps taken in case of challenge.

Limitations on compliance advice in the instrument

• The instrument does not prescribe or endorse specific technical or contractual measures nor certify any particular approach as sufficient. The measures listed above are functional steps that implement the instrument’s textual requirements, but this instrument provides no guarantee that any particular measure will satisfy a regulator or a court. The onus remains on the person making the offer to show the statutory conditions are met.

• Because the instrument has been amended, and because no litigation guidance is recorded in the compilation, practitioners should periodically re-check the instrument and related ASIC instruments prior to relying on the exemption.