This page summarises the data collected between 1 October 2024 and 31 December 2024 on 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 to provide consumers with financial promotions which are clear, fair and 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- number of closed cases where promotions have been amended and withdrawn, including split across sectors, excluding cases which are ongoing
- Unauthorised firms
- number of unauthorised reports received, and alerts issued
- Examples of our work on financial promotions during 2024 Q4:
- 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- Our interventions in 2024 Q4 resulted in 3,697 promotions being amended or withdrawn by authorised firms.
- We issued 584 alerts on unauthorised firms and individuals, 11% of these were clone scams.
- We proactively reviewed the marketing and promotions of claims management firms for motor finance claims. We reviewed 54 promotions across 8 individual firms; with breaches found in 6 out of the 8 firms. This resulted in 29 promotions being amended or withdrawn.
Authorised firms
Number of promotions reviewed
In 2024 Q4 we reviewed 1,358 financial promotions from multiple sources:
72% from our proactive monitoring
9% from firms
8% from consumers
6% from different areas of the FCA
5% from UK Regulators
Following our intervention, in Q4 we had 3,697 promotions amended/withdrawn.
Table 1: Number of cases with interventions and amend/withdraw outcomes
| 2024 Q4 |
|---|
| 0 s137S (the Banning Power) directing a firm to withdraw financial promotions. |
| 1 Own Initiative Action for Imposition of Requirements (OIREQ) was approved, restricting the firm’s ability to communicate or approve financial promotions. |
| 2 Voluntary Application for Imposition of Requirements (VREQ) were approved, restricting the firm’s ability to communicate or approve financial promotions. |
| 0 Undertaking and Attestation. |
| 3,697 promotions were amended or withdrawn following our intervention with 78 authorised firms.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 89% of our interventions with authorised firms.
Some of the most common breaches involved claims management companies, and s21 approvers for Crypto firms.
Unauthorised firms
Number of reports received
In 2024 Q4, we received 4,302 reports about potential unauthorised business.
We issued 584 alerts[1] about unauthorised firms and individuals. 11% of these involved clone scams, 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
| Firm marketing high-risk investment to retail investors without following our rules | |
|---|---|
| Issue | A firm offered high-risk investments on its platform and had not carried out thorough checks of the issuers of the investments. The firm had not identified the investments as high-risk investments and had marketed them to ordinary retail investors. |
| Action | Following our intervention, the firm was served with an Own Initiative Requirement (OIREQ) which stopped the firm from conducting business. The firm then carried out a redress review for its retail investors to confirm that they had not suffered any financial loss. |
| Firm with unclear and misleading financial promotions | |
|---|---|
| Issue | A firm with debt counselling permissions did not make it clear in its promotions that consumers can get free debt counselling, free debt adjusting and free access to providers of credit information services. The firm did not mention any not-for-profit debt advice bodies. It also promoted unrealistic debt write-off percentages and suggested that consumers could become 'debt free' within a certain time frame. The company also used its FCA regulated status in promotions, including on a website that only offered unregulated services. This creates a halo effect – to mislead consumers about the level of protection offered or give credibility to unregulated activities. |
| Action | Due to the breaches and the potential vulnerability of consumers searching for debt advice, we asked the firm to apply for the imposition of voluntary requirements (VREQ). The firm removed non-compliant promotions and amended its website and all other media platforms to comply with the relevant FCA Handbook rules. It also reviewed its systems and controls to ensure compliance. |
| Claims management firm with non-compliant and potentially misleading financial promotions | |
|---|---|
| Issue | A claims management firm did not clearly state on its websites and social media promotions, that consumers do not need to use their services to make a claim. It also did not tell consumers that they can make a claim for free, either directly to the person they are complaining about, to the relevant statutory ombudsman or the statutory compensation scheme – in this case, to the Housing Ombudsman[2]. It was also using the term ‘no win, no fee’ in its promotions, without explaining the applicable fees. It also did not make it clear that it is a claims management company, and it did not specify which claims activities were not regulated. |
| Action | We asked the firm to apply for the imposition of voluntary requirements (VREQ). The firm updated or removed its websites and all other social media platforms to comply with the relevant Handbook rules. The firm also reviewed its systems and controls, policies and procedures for its financial promotion activity. |
| Investment firm with non-compliant and potentially misleading financial promotions | |
|---|---|
| Issue | An investment firm did not include the prescribed risk warning on its website, which is meant to protect consumers from the potential harm of investment products. The risk warning was placed within the truncated text on its social media promotions which meant it lacked prominence. The firm was also promoting the benefits of Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) without including the relevant downsides/risks. Additionally, the firm used its FCA regulated status to imply that it was ‘safe and secure’. |
| Action | Following our intervention, the firm amended its promotions to ensure it was complying with the relevant FCA Handbook rules. |
| Firm with poor understanding of the financial promotions regime and a lack of systems and control | |
|---|---|
| Issue | A firm had poor systems and controls for oversight of its appointed representatives. One of its appointed representatives sent out financial promotions to consumers, offering the opportunity to buy bonds in the appointed representative itself. The financial promotion did not set out the risks involved when investing in the bond. |
| Action | After our intervention, the firm amended its financial promotions so that they were fair, clear, and not misleading and ended the relationship with the appointed representative. We wrote to the firm setting out our expectations of its systems and controls. |
Setting and testing higher standards
| Cryptoasset firm with non-compliant and potentially misleading financial promotions | |
|---|---|
| Issue | A cryptoasset firm was found to be issuing non-complaint financial promotions on its websites and across multiple social media platforms. Concerns were; missing risk warning or risk warning lacking prominence; inadequate or missing risk summaries; difficulty in finding risk information; missing past performance warning; using its FCA regulation in a promotional way; and misleading statements. |
| Action | Following our intervention, the firm amended its promotions to comply with the relevant FCA Handbook rules. |
| Section 21 approver providing clarity on the topics covered by a client’s appropriateness assessment | |
|---|---|
| Issue | Firms offering high-risk investments must assess whether the products are appropriate for their customers before they invest. Due to the complexity of the products, the assessments often need to cover multiple features of the products and the associated risks. |
| Action | One section 21 approver firm gave a clear breakdown of each step of the assessment, showing which feature or risk each question was assessing. The information was presented in a way that allowed filtering by each step, and by feature or risk. This good practice example helped the firm to make sure all relevant features and risks of the products being offered were covered in the assessment |
Promoting competition and positive change
Proactive monitoring of Claims Management Companies (CMCs)
We undertook a multimedia review of promotions made by CMC firms undertaking lead generation or offering their services for motor finance claims. We reviewed 54 promotions from 8 separate firms. We identified financial promotions breaches across 6 firms; with the concerns being: not advising consumers that a consumer can make the claim themselves for free, either to the person they want to complain or to the relevant statutory ombudsman or statutory compensation scheme; not making it clear in their promotions that they are a claims management company; using the term, ‘no win, no fee’ without including the required fee information, including details of termination fees; potentially unclear and misleading statements; and not making the current pause[3] clear.
We have addressed these cases with the relevant firms, leading to 29 promotions being amended or withdrawn.
Cracking down on misleading claims management companies
As well as our proactive monitoring and ongoing case work, we published a case study[4] which highlighted some misleading phrases used by claims management firms specialising in housing disrepair claims. This aims to let consumers know what to look out for when choosing a claims management company, helping to prevent potential consumer harm.
How to report a misleading financial advert or potential scam
Report a financial advert or promotion[5] that you think is misleading, unfair or unclear.
Report a scam[6], unauthorised firm or individual to us.
Our casework will usually involve confidential information, which means we are usually limited in being able to provide further information about particular cases. Find out more about the information we can share[7].
Disclaimer
- The figures reported within this data are accurate at the time of publication. However, 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[8].