This page gives a summary of data collected between 1 July 2024 and 30 September 2024 from our actions against firms breaching financial promotion rules, and referrals and investigations into unregulated activity.
This data shows how we are working to improve standards across the market so that consumers are provided with clear and fair financial promotions which are not misleading.
What’s included in the data
- Key messages
- Authorised firms
- number of financial promotions reviewed during this period
- number of closed cases where promotions have been amended and withdrawn, including split across sectors, excluding cases which are still ongoing
- Unauthorised firms
- number of unauthorised reports received, and alerts issued
- Examples of our work on financial promotions during 2024 Q3:
- reducing and preventing serious harm
- setting and testing higher standards
- promoting competition and positive change
- Information on how to report a misleading financial advert or potential scam
Key messages
- Our interventions in 2024 Q3 resulted in 10,593 promotions being amended or withdrawn by authorised firms. This includes one firm who withdrew 6,792 promotions, many of which were historical promotions withdrawn as a precaution.
- We issued 552 alerts on unauthorised firms and individuals, 12% of these were clone scams.
- The cryptoasset financial promotions regime came into force on 8 October 2023 and has now been live for a year. Over the last year we have issued 1,702 consumer alerts about illegal crypto promotions and our actions have resulted in the take down of over 900 scam crypto websites and the removal of 56 apps from UK apps stores. We are continuing to work with social media companies to remove and block illegal content on their platforms.
- We are actively engaging with firms who appear to be providing and advertising unauthorised debt advice and debt solutions to consumers via online promotions. We continue to observe trends of aggressive sponsored promotions placed by unauthorised firms, particularly through TikTok and paid-for Google advertisements. We remain committed to using our powers to work with and take appropriate action against unauthorised firms to prevent serious harm to consumers in this area.
Authorised firms
Number of promotions reviewed
In 2024 Q3 we reviewed 466 financial promotions from multiple sources:
36% from our proactive monitoring
26% from consumers
14% from different areas of the FCA
13% from firms
11% from UK Regulators
Following our intervention, in Q3 we had 10,593 promotions amended/withdrawn.
Table 1: Number of cases with interventions and amend/withdraw outcomes
| 2024 Q3 |
|---|
| 0 s137S (the Banning Power) directing a firm to withdraw financial promotions |
| 0 Own Initiative Action for Imposition of Requirements (OIREQ) were approved, restricting the firm’s ability to communicate or approve financial promotions |
| 7 Voluntary Application for Imposition of Requirements (VREQ) were approved, restricting the firm’s ability to communicate or approve financial promotions |
| 0 Undertaking and Attestation |
| 10,593 promotions were amended or withdrawn following our intervention with 53 authorised firms |
Figure 1 shows the split across sectors.
Chart
Data table
Figures rounded to the nearest percentage.
The retail investments and retail lending sectors had the highest amend/withdraw outcomes, totalling 87% of our interventions with authorised firms.
Some of the most common breaches involved claims management companies, credit broker firms, debt advice firms and Contract for Difference (CFDs) providers.
Unauthorised firms
Number of reports received
In 2024 Q3, we received 5,213 reports about potential unauthorised business.
We issued 552 alerts[1] about unauthorised firms and individuals. Some 12% of these related to clone scams, which is where fraudsters use details such as the name and address of authorised firms and individuals, and a 'firm registration number' (FRN) to suggest they are genuine. Many of these involved breaches of the financial promotion restriction online. In almost all cases we asked for the websites to be taken down.
Examples of our interventions - authorised and unauthorised firms
Reducing and preventing serious harm
| Claims management firms with non-compliant and potentially misleading financial promotions | |
|---|---|
| Issue |
Four claims management firms were found to be issuing non-compliant financial promotions on their websites and on social media. Concerns across the firms related to:
|
| Action | We intervened by inviting all 4 firms to apply for the imposition of voluntary requirements (VREQ). Following our intervention, the firms amended or withdrew their financial promotions and provided a review of their systems and controls. |
| Credit Broker firm misleading re-use of lavish lifestyle posts | |
|---|---|
| Issue | We identified content across the firm’s YouTube, TikTok and Instagram profiles which we considered to be extremely misleading. These posts implied that by using the firm’s credit broking services, consumers could achieve a similar lifestyle or wealth, as shown in the content. Access to credit does not enable consumers to achieve the lifestyle that was shown, so we considered it misleading for a consumer credit firm to communicate this type of content. |
| Action | We intervened by inviting the firm to apply for the imposition of voluntary requirements (VREQ). The firm withdrew all financial promotions and communications of this type. In addition, the firm enhanced its internal training for relevant areas and improved its procedures relating to financial promotions. |
| Cryptoasset firm with a failure to fully comply with our requirements surrounding its appropriateness assessment and client categorisation | |
|---|---|
| Issue | As part of its client onboarding process, a cryptoasset firm did not include sufficient questions to properly assess the knowledge and experience of potential clients looking to invest in cryptoassets. The questions did not cover sufficient topics from COBS 10 Annex 4G, did not address risks related to the specific types of cryptoassets offered, and some answers could be easily guessed. It also did not include the prescribed client categorisation declaration wording to categorise clients appropriately. |
| Action | After our intervention, the firm updated its client onboarding process to comply with the relevant FCA Handbook rules. It implemented an appropriateness assessment that covers all questions in COBS 10 Annex 4G, included questions on the risks related to the specific types of cryptoassets offered and made sure that its questions were sufficiently robust. The firm also amended its client categorisation process to align with the declarations prescribed in our handbook. It applied this process to new customers and required existing customers to redo the assessment. |
| Debt advice firm with unclear and misleading financial promotions | |
|---|---|
| Issue | A debt advice firm did not make it clear in its promotions that consumers can access free debt counselling, free debt adjusting, and free access to providers of credit information services. The firm did not include reference to a not-for-profit debt advice body. In addition to this, it potentially misled consumers into believing they could become ‘debt free’ without making it clear in its promotions that this only applied to unsecured debt. The firm gave too much importance to Individual Voluntary Arrangements (IVAs) in its Google promotions which is not acting in good faith as required by the Consumer Duty[3]. An IVA may not be the best solution for a customer, but customers might be led to believe that is the only one available. Additionally, one of the firm’s Introducer Appointed Representatives (IARs) was found to have non-compliant social media promotions. |
| Action | Given the breaches and the potential vulnerability of consumers searching for debt advice, our intervention led us to invite the firm to apply for the imposition of voluntary requirements (VREQ). The firm amended its website and all other media platforms (including working with its Introducer Appointed Representative (IAR) to amend its promotions) to ensure it was complying with the relevant FCA Handbook rules. |
| Contracts for Difference (CFD) firm | |
|---|---|
| Issue | A CFD firm was not making it clear that its non-UK websites were not for UK consumers. The firm was also offering a ‘refer a friend scheme’ which breached our restrictions on monetary and non-monetary incentives, and they were not being clear about potential fees. |
| Action | Following our intervention, the firm amended its financial promotions, including multiple websites so they were appropriately directing consumers to the UK website. |
| Firm having poor systems and controls over issue of financial promotions | |
|---|---|
| Issue | An insurance intermediary firm had poor systems and controls for oversight of its Appointed Representative (AR) population. This was highlighted by one AR sending out financial promotions, for non-readily realisable securities, to consumers, offering the opportunity to buy shares in a company that proposed investing in environmentally friendly companies. |
| Action | After our intervention, the firm amended its financial promotions, to ensure they were fair, clear and not misleading. They withdrew approval of financial promotions and ended the relationship with the AR of concern. The firm reviewed its oversight processes and adopted software to monitor all outputs from its appointed representatives. |
Setting and testing higher standards
Cryptoasset financial promotions – One year since implementation
The cryptoasset financial promotions regime came into force on 8 October 2023 and has now been live for a year. We recognise that this has been the first conduct regime for cryptoasset firms and that adjusting to new regulation can be challenging.
We want to work collaboratively with the sector to raise standards. We understand firms have been seeking more guidance. That is why we have published extensive material setting out our expectations including:
- Guidance on cryptoasset financial promotions in FG23/3[4].
- Guidance on financial promotions on social media in FG24/1[5].
- Good and Poor practice[6] on firms’ preparations for this regime.
- Good and Poor practice[7] on firms’ implementation on the Direct Offer financial promotion rules.
We expect firms to be considering these publications and work to drive up standards in the sector. We have seen firms relying on industry comparisons to benchmark what is acceptable. Given the levels of poor practice in the market, firms should not be doing this. Instead, we expect firms to engage with us directly to raise standards across the sector. We will also consider firms’ compliance with regulatory requirements, including the financial promotions regime, as part of any application to be authorised under the future financial services regulatory regime for cryptoassets.
We are currently assessing applications under the s.21 gateway, including from several firms related to approving cryptoasset financial promotions. It is important for these firms to carefully consider their obligations and uphold the high standards we expect, particularly given the harm that could be caused by allowing inappropriate overseas firms to access the UK market. Requirements have previously been applied to 2 authorised firms to restrict them from approving cryptoasset financial promotions. The assessment process being conducted under the s.21 gateway is not a ‘rubber stamp’ process. We can and will reject firms where we consider doing so is necessary to protect consumers.
We have continued to take robust action against firms illegally promoting cryptoassets to UK consumers. Over the last year we have issued 1,702 consumer alerts about illegal crypto promotions and our actions have resulted in the take down of over 900 scam crypto websites and the removal of 56 apps from UK apps stores. We are continuing to work with social media companies to remove and block illegal content on their platforms.
We will not hesitate to consider further measures to address the harm from illegal cryptoasset financial promotions. We have referred several cases involving firms illegally promoting cryptoassets to our Enforcement division. We continue to work in partnership with other law enforcement agencies and global regulatory partners to tackle illegal cryptoasset financial promotions.
Promoting competition and positive change
Engagement with unauthorised debt firms
We continue to actively engage with firms who appear to be providing and advertising unauthorised debt advice and debt solutions to unsuspecting consumers through online promotions. We often encounter firms who appear to be straying beyond simple lead generation and generic advice into providing targeted advice and pushing consumers into specific solutions. These firms appear to be persistently testing the boundaries established by legislation which poses a significant risk to consumer protection.
We continue to observe trends of aggressive sponsored promotions placed by unauthorised firms, particularly through TikTok and paid-for Google advertisements, trying to entice vulnerable consumers to discuss managing their debts and pushing them towards fee-bearing solutions such as Individual Voluntary Arrangements (IVAs). As a result, this may lead consumers to bypass free sources of debt advice and miss out on alternative solutions that may be more suitable for their circumstances.
As we continue our work, we remain committed to using our powers to engage with and take appropriate action against unauthorised firms to prevent serious harm to consumers in this area.
How to report a misleading financial advert or potential scam
Report a financial advert or promotion[8] that you think is misleading, unfair or unclear.
Report a scam[9], unauthorised firm or individual to us.
Our casework will usually involve confidential information for the purposes of section 348 of Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA). We are therefore unlikely to be able to provide further information about particular cases. Find out more about the information we can share[10].
Disclaimer
- The figures reported within this data are accurate at the time of publication. But they can be subject to change depending on any ongoing work with a Firm.
- The amend and/or withdraw outcome figure is based on cases closed during this period and will be determined by the number of promotions across various platforms.
Copyright
The data on this page is available under the terms of the Open Government Licence[11].