Under the Standards for RTOs 2025, Standard 2.1 sets a clear expectation:
👉 Every piece of marketing, enrolment, and student-facing information must be clear, accurate, current, and free from misleading claims.
This includes:
- Your website
- Student handbooks
- Course brochures
- Enrolment forms
- Third-party marketing material (e.g., agents for CRICOS RTOs)
The Standard exists for one reason: to protect students. If they don’t get accurate info before enrolment, they can’t make informed choices about their training and obligations.
What Standard 2.1 Requires
Your RTO must demonstrate:
- Clear, accurate, current information
- All published info (internal & third-party) must be reliable.
- Pre-enrolment communication
- Identify what students need to know before enrolment and give it to them before collecting fees.
- Easy access to essential details, including:
- Training product code and title
- Duration, delivery mode, location, commencement dates, scheduling
- Assessment requirements and work placement requirements
- Licensing/occupational licence requirements
- Third-party arrangements
- Support and wellbeing services
- All fees, charges, refund policies, subsidies, payment terms
- Student obligations (equipment, USI, withdrawal process, placements)
- Pre-enrolment documentation
- Written confirmation of:
- Training to be provided (by RTO/third parties)
- All fees and charges
- Student obligations
- Written confirmation of:
- Notification of changes
- Students must be informed as soon as practicable of changes to:
- Training products (superseded/deleted)
- RTO operations (location, delivery mode, third-party changes)
- Students must be informed as soon as practicable of changes to:
Common Non-Compliances (Consultant Insights)
From 15+ years in compliance consulting, I see the same issues repeatedly:
Non-compliant FEDS files
- RTOs list course names but omit the course codes.
- Students can’t verify what they’re enrolling in.
Marketing superseded courses
- Outdated qualifications still on websites or brochures.
- ASQA has issued fines of up to $50,000 for this breach.
Out-of-date documents
- Student handbooks still reference the 2015 Standards.
- Old refund policies linked on the website.
- Policies not updated after Standards 2025 release.
CRICOS agent lists not current
- International student agents missing or outdated on RTO websites.
- Breach of ESOS Act obligations.
Hidden or unclear fees
- Tuition listed, but material/placement/withdrawal fees not disclosed.
- Refund policies not upfront.
Slow or no communication of changes
- Students not informed when qualifications are replaced or deleted.
- No process to notify students of RTO operational changes.
Misleading claims in wording or imagery
- Marketing says “in the heart of Melbourne CBD” when campus is in the suburbs.
- Website shows the Opera House while the RTO is based in Melbourne.
- ASQA now checks images and wording for accuracy.
Case Study – Business RTO Audit
Context:
An RTO offering Certificate IV in Business was audited in 2024.
Findings:
- The website listed old elective units not available on training.gov.au.
- The superseded version of the qualification was still advertised.
- Students paid fees before seeing the full schedules of charges.
- The agent list on the CRICOS page was outdated.
Outcome:
- ASQA issued major non-compliance under Standard 2.1.
- RTO had to:
- Update all marketing within 7 days.
- Archive old documents properly.
- Publish a current CRICOS agent list.
- Implement a Marketing & Enrolment Checklist for future compliance.
Result: Rectification accepted, but not before serious reputational damage.
Self-Assurance Checklist
Ask yourself:
Do all course listings show the code + title from training.gov.au? 
Are website images/wording realistic and location-accurate? 
Have superseded/deleted courses been removed from all materials? 
Are handbooks and student docs updated for Standards 2025? 
For CRICOS: is the agent list current and published? 
Are all fees and refund policies listed upfront? 
Do we notify students promptly about qualification transitions or organisational changes? FAQs on Standard 2.1
Yes. ASQA has fined RTOs up to $50,000 for marketing superseded courses or misleading information.
Yes. If images create a false impression of location, facilities, or services, ASQA considers this misleading.
- Code & title
- Delivery mode, duration, location, start dates
- Fees, charges, refund policy
- Work placement and equipment requirements
- Contracts must specify compliance responsibility.
- RTO must approve all third-party marketing before publication.
Yes. Students must be informed ASAP when a course is superseded, deleted, or expired.
- Students may receive outdated obligations.
- Auditors will flag this as non-compliance.
- Damages credibility with students and ASQA.
Marketing is your RTO’s first impression. If it’s misleading, outdated, or incomplete, it’s not just a student issue — it’s a compliance and financial risk.
Get Standard 2.1 right, and you’ll protect your students, your registration, and your reputation.
Disclaimer:
The information presented on the VET Resources blog is for general guidance only. While we strive for accuracy, we cannot guarantee the completeness or timeliness of the information. VET Resources is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for the results obtained from the use of this information. Always consult a professional for advice tailored to your circumstances.
