In a landmark ruling, the Gauteng High Court has found JDG Trading guilty of exploiting vulnerable social grant beneficiaries through its insurance policies. The case revolved around an insurance product that bundled disability and retrenchment cover with household loans—products that were not only unsuitable but impossible for many of the consumers, especially those who were already disabled or unemployed, to use. The court’s decision has shed light on the unscrupulous practices within the credit industry, particularly how vulnerable groups can be taken advantage of.
The Unfair Insurance Bundle for Social Grant Beneficiaries
JDG Trading, a company that provides loans for household goods, furniture, and other credit products, required customers to take out insurance as a condition for receiving the loan. This insurance product included coverage for disability and retrenchment, but it was a bundle that many consumers, especially social grant beneficiaries, could not benefit from.
Many of JDG Trading’s clients are already disabled or unemployed, and because of this, they could not make any claims for the disability or retrenchment components of the insurance. For these consumers, purchasing this insurance was not just unnecessary but completely unreasonable, as they were unable to ever claim on the product. The court deemed this practice exploitative, as it put vulnerable consumers in a position where they were forced to pay for something that offered them no real protection or benefit.
The Court’s Findings
The court found that JDG Trading’s insurance policy was inherently unreasonable for customers who could never claim the benefits it promised. The National Credit Regulator (NCR), which had taken JDG Trading to the National Credit Tribunal, argued that by offering these consumers insurance coverage that they could never use, the company was placing an unfair burden on them and violating their constitutional right to social assistance.
Initially, the National Credit Tribunal ruled in favor of JDG Trading, allowing the company to continue offering the insurance bundle. However, the National Credit Regulator appealed the decision, leading the matter to the Gauteng High Court.
The court ruled in favor of the National Credit Regulator, declaring the insurance policy exploitative. Judges Shaida Mohamed and Khashane Manamela emphasized that the insurance policy failed to serve the needs of its intended beneficiaries—many of whom were already relying on social grants for their survival. They pointed out that JDG Trading had effectively forced these consumers into an unfair contract without an option to exclude the disability and retrenchment cover from the bundle.
Learn More: Avoiding Loans and Mashonisas: Safer Month-End Money Tips for South Africans
Black Sash and the Role of Civil Society
Civil society organizations like Black Sash played a pivotal role in the case. Black Sash, supported by the Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS), joined the legal proceedings as an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court.” They submitted expert evidence from an actuary to demonstrate the negative financial impact that this insurance policy had on the affected customers.
Black Sash’s submission focused on the fact that social grant beneficiaries, who are already in a vulnerable financial position, were being disproportionately affected by JDG Trading’s actions. By forcing them to pay for insurance they would never be able to use, the company was violating their constitutional right to access social security and financial assistance.
The court agreed with Black Sash’s argument, noting that the policy was particularly detrimental to those in marginalized communities. As the court observed, vulnerable consumers, such as pensioners and people dependent on social grants, would not have understood the implications of the insurance policy at the time they signed up, often under pressure to accept the loan.
JDG Trading’s Defense
In defense, JDG Trading argued that the insurance policy was not unreasonable and that consumers were free to obtain insurance elsewhere if they wished. They also claimed that the product was affordable and provided greater access to credit, especially for consumers who may have difficulty securing loans from other sources. JDG Trading further argued that the insurance was optional and that consumers were not compelled to accept the insurance at the point of sale.
However, the court was not swayed by these arguments. It noted that the manner in which the insurance was presented—bundled with the loan and requiring immediate agreement—left little room for consumers to properly evaluate the policy. Additionally, the company’s concession that many of its customers could never benefit from the insurance made it clear that the product was unfairly benefiting other consumers while exploiting vulnerable individuals.
The Wider Impact on Vulnerable Consumers
This case is not only a win for the individual consumers involved but also for broader consumer rights protections in South Africa. The ruling highlights the vulnerability of social grant recipients who depend on government assistance to survive. The court acknowledged that these individuals are often financially illiterate or overwhelmed by their financial circumstances, leaving them open to exploitation by companies offering dubious products.
The ruling also highlights the importance of regulating the credit industry to ensure that vulnerable consumers are protected from financial abuse. By declaring the insurance policy unfair, the court reinforced the broader goals of the National Credit Act, which aims to promote fair and responsible lending practices and protect consumers from exploitation.
JDG Trading’s Future and the Need for Better Regulation
Following this ruling, JDG Trading may face stricter scrutiny regarding the products it offers, especially in terms of the insurance bundles tied to loans. The company may be required to reassess its business practices, ensuring that any products offered are fair, transparent, and genuinely beneficial to customers.
This case also serves as a reminder of the need for better regulation within the credit and insurance industries. While the National Credit Act provides some protection for consumers, this case shows that more needs to be done to ensure that vulnerable groups, such as social grant beneficiaries, are not subjected to exploitative practices.
Related: 210,000+ Sassa Beneficiaries Face Grant Delays Over Undisclosed Earnings
The Gauteng High Court’s decision is a critical victory for consumer protection, particularly for the most marginalized in society. JDG Trading’s insurance policy was found to be exploitative and in violation of the constitutional rights of social grant beneficiaries. As the credit industry continues to evolve, this ruling sets a precedent for how companies must treat vulnerable consumers, ensuring they are not taken advantage of in their most desperate times.
While this case does not undo the harm done to those who were forced into these unfair insurance policies, it does provide a glimmer of hope for better regulatory oversight and stronger protections for consumers in the future. It is a clear message to all credit providers: businesses must prioritize fairness and transparency, particularly when dealing with those most in need of support.
Credit: Article originally published by Ohene Yaw Ampofo-Anti on GroundUp on 19 June 2025. Link to the original article: GroundUp.
