It meant the renewal price rise was actually 39.9 per cent.ASIC's case alleged that at least 434,548 renewal certificates were issued between September 2019 and December 2024, where the "last period premium" did not reflect the actual amount paid.Customers had even complained to the insurer since 2019 that the comparison was "very misleading", ASIC's lawsuit said.But RACQ, in defence documents obtained by the ABC, rejected the corporate regulator's allegation that the average policyholder would have believed that the "last period premium" amount was the amount they had actually paid.RACQ maintained policyholders had known the initial premium quote, had been aware of any subsequent changes to premiums from that quote, and knew why they had sought a change.That meant any "ordinary and reasonable policyholder" would have understood the context of the "last period premium" amount listed in the renewal notice, RACQ said.ASIC's legal reply rejected that argument It said the renewal notices did not clarify the "last period premium" had been subject to adjustments.Even if a customer had adjusted the pricing and received paperwork earlier on, the customer could not be reasonably expected to remember those contents or cross reference them with the "last period premium" amount on the latest renewal notice, ASIC alleged.When the case broke last year, RACQ revealed it had changed renewal notices to now reflect actual pricing changes."We are disappointed this has happened and apologise to our members as this is not in keeping with our high standards or the experience we strive to offer," it said at the time.Still, its defence also tries blunting the impact of ASIC's allegations about pricing