Clement told the Auckland District Court today that she had contacted Youi for a story but was "ambushed" by a sales person at the other end of the phone who convinced her to get an insurance quote anyway.
Some time later she checked her bank statement to find that $592 had been taken from her account without her permission.
"If I had not checked my bank statement I would not necessarily have got that money back."
She said her emails to the company were ignored and it was not until she got someone on the phone that her money was refunded.
She was subsequently contacted by Youi and assured the error had been carried out by a "rogue employee".
"That was clearly in my view a lie because it happened over and over."
Counsel for the Commerce Commission, Alysha McClintock, told the court the website gave a "clear impression" a quote could be obtained online but in 80-90 per cent of cases customers got a call.
The site only told customers they "might" or "may" get a call but the words weren't displayed prominently, she said.
McClintock said the online quote was a means of obtaining customers' details for sales calls however people were using the website to avoid a phone-call.
"The words understated and dramatically understated the position because you were going to get that call."
Youi also failed to action some cancellations and led customers to believe they wouldn't be charged for invoices while some customers were charged for policies when they requested quotes.
And the insurer had a reward system in place for sales staff which wrongly incentivised them to "push hard for sales to the point they were actively misleading people", McClintock said.
Their conduct was systemic and ranged from reckless through to deliberately misleading.
However, the commission accepted there were mitigating factors including the company's early guilty plea, remorse, cooperation and its remedial actions since.
Youi's lawyer Oliver Meech said the company didn't condone pressure sales and found it as "abhorrent" as the general public and regretted customers were misled - that was never their intention.
The insurer was "deeply disappointed" and accepted those things never should have happened, Meech told the court.
"Youi is genuinely and sincerely sorry."
They had also apologised to affected customers, re-trained staff who were the subject of complaints and had changed a number of its practices.
However, Youi did not accept the misleading conduct was systemic.
Judge Philip Recordon said: "The website created the opportunity and the opportunity was taken by some of the agents to hard-sell."
He accepted the company's remorse was genuine and acknowledged the remedial steps it had taken, including apologising to each complainant individually.
He ordered the company pay $320,000.
