Comparison site company iSelect suffered a number of hits to its revenue base during the December 2019 half, as new energy regulations took effect and life insurance commissions were cut.The company suffered a 17 per cent fall in revenue - down from A$74 million in the December half 2018 to $62 million in the latest half.Net cash flow from operating activities was $36,000 - down from $1.4 million in the previous corresponding period.It made a loss of $5.6 million, compared with a loss of $6.9 million in the previous corresponding period.iSelect chief executive Brodie Arnhold said in a statement that in July last year a series of energy market reforms were introduced, most notably in Victoria where a price ceiling was introduced.Arnhold said: "Initially, retailers took time to adapt to the regulations and this impacted iSelect's product range, as some retailers were unable to provide products compliant with the new regulations."With a price ceiling in place, retailers adjusted their prices and the spread of electricity prices in the market was reduced. This impacted iSelect's conversion rate and revenue."With less business in its energy segment, iSelect had fewer opportunities to cross sell, resulting in another hit to revenue.And in the life insurance segment, the Trowbridge reforms - a scheduled reduction in commissions - took effect.Overall, leads fell from 1.9 million to 1.8 million and the conversion ratio fell from 10 per cent 8.1 per cent.The iMoney division was the shining light, with strong growth in leads and a 32.1 per cent conversion rate.The company also incurred costs in relation to ACCC proceedings. When these costs are factored in, the company's underlying EBITDA was down 84 per cent year-on-year.In April last year the ACCC started proceedings in the Federal Court, claiming that iSelect made false or misleading representations in relation to its energy plan comparison service.The ACCC alleges that since at least November 2016, iSelect has claimed consumers using its website would benefit from iSelect comparing all plans available from its partner retailers in a specific location. During this period, iSelect also claimed that it would recommend the most competitive plan to consumers.The ACCC alleges iSelect did not compare all available plans and did not necessarily recommend the most competitive plan, but rather limited the number of plans it compared based on the commercial arrangement it had with retailers. It claims iSelect was actually favouring some partner retailers over others and that the preferred retailers paid iSelect higher commissions.Arnhold said the company expected a better second half, following the completion of energy market adjustments and the company's investment in systems to deal with that change.