Consumer advocates believe that Justice Michelle Gordon's finding earlier this week that ANZ's late payment fees were extravagant and unconscionable may force dispute resolution schemes such as the Financial Ombudsman Service to review the way they hear claims from disgruntled consumers.Chief executive of the Consumer Action Law Centre of Victoria, Gerard Brody, said the Federal Court decision was likely to have far-reaching effects on the way consumer complaint schemes operated."We'd hope that external dispute resolution schemes, such as the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, [would] examine the case closely to determine whether there are systemic problems with the way their members impose late payment fees," Brody said."This case also opens up the prospect of future consumer claims and/or class actions in respect of fees charged across other industries that impose high late payment fees."Brody indicated that the industries in the line of fire for future class actions were internet service providers, telcos and pay TV providers."Telcos especially should examine this judgment and determine whether their fees are similarly excessive, extravagant and unconscionable," he said. "Clearly, this ruling says that late payment fees that are $30, $40 or $50 are too high and [are] illegal, and are designed to penalise the consumer rather than recover costs." Choice spokesman Tom Godfrey said that late payment fees in other industries should be reduced as a result of the judgement in the ANZ test case, and flagged that more litigation was likely.Godfrey said: "It's highly likely we'll see further action by consumers. Businesses shouldn't punish their customers, and today's ruling sends a clear message to all that late fees must reflect actual costs."