The Marketing Rule meets AI content: what the latest risk alert reveals
The SEC's December 2025 Marketing Rule risk alert documents widespread non-compliance on testimonials, endorsements, and third-party ratings. As advisors start generating client-facing content with AI, that enforcement pattern is the map for what gets scrutinized.
The data: The SEC's December 16, 2025 Marketing Rule risk alert documented widespread non-compliance on testimonials, endorsements, and third-party ratings. (SEC risk alert summary) As advisors begin generating client-facing content with AI, that enforcement pattern is the clearest map of what examiners scrutinize — and authorship by a model doesn't move the line.
This piece reads the risk alert as market intelligence: it shows where advisers are already failing the Marketing Rule, and AI-generated content lands directly on top of the weakest spots.
What the risk alert documented
The Marketing Rule (Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-1, effective November 2022) modernized advertising for advisers. The December 2025 alert is the Division's read on how firms are doing — and it isn't flattering:
| Area | Documented failures |
|---|---|
| Testimonials & endorsements | Missing disclosures on whether promoters are clients or compensated; de-emphasized disclosures behind hyperlinks or in small fonts; undisclosed conflicts; absent written promoter agreements |
| Third-party ratings | Inadequate diligence on rating methodology; missing dates, rating periods, or provider identification; undisclosed compensation for logo use or placement |
| Disclosure prominence | The SEC stressed disclosures "must be at least as prominent as the testimonial or endorsement" and that "hyperlinks alone generally do not satisfy this requirement" |
The throughline is disclosure failure — content that promotes the adviser without the disclosures the rule requires, placed where readers won't see them.
Disclosures must be at least as prominent as the testimonial or endorsement. Hyperlinks alone generally do not satisfy this requirement.
Why AI content sits on the fault line
The Marketing Rule's definition of "advertisement" has two prongs:
- Prong 1 (general solicitations): any communication to more than one person that offers or promotes the adviser's services.
- Prong 2 (targeted communications): a communication that promotes services and contains certain content (hypothetical performance, testimonials, endorsements).
AI makes it trivial to generate and distribute market commentaries, personalized research summaries, and portfolio analyses at scale. The moment one of those is sent to multiple clients or prospects to promote the firm, Prong 1 is in play — and the disclosure failures the risk alert catalogs are exactly the ones that get baked in when content is generated quickly and shipped without review.
The market read
The risk alert proves advisers struggle with disclosure discipline on human-made content. AI doesn't fix that — it multiplies the volume of content while keeping the same disclosure obligations. The firms that get caught will be the ones who treated AI output as drafts to send rather than advertisements to review.
What disciplined AI content looks like
The rule doesn't prohibit AI-generated client content; it requires the same fair-and-balanced treatment and disclosures any advertisement needs. Practically:
- Treat AI-generated commentary distributed to multiple recipients as an advertisement, and route it through the same review as any ad.
- Keep performance claims fair and balanced, with required disclosures at least as prominent as the claim.
- Verify every factual claim against its source before distribution.
- Retain the content and its review as a record.
Where AdvisorIQ fits the data
AdvisorIQ's content is built from cited sources rather than unsourced model prose — every figure in a market outlook or research summary traces to a FRED series, market-data point, SEC filing, or firm document, and every generation is logged. That doesn't make a distribution decision for you, but it gives the review step real sources to check and a record to retain — which is precisely the discipline the risk alert says advisers are missing when content goes out the door.
Related
- Inside the 2025–26 exam cycle: what regulators are asking about AI
- The recordkeeping reckoning: what the off-channel sweep tells RIAs about AI
- Glossary: AI-washing, audit trail
Sources
- SEC Marketing Rule risk alert — December 2025 (summary)
- SEC — Investment Adviser Marketing Rule (206(4)-1)
This article is general market commentary, not legal or compliance advice. Consult your compliance counsel before distributing AI-generated client content.
- What did the December 2025 SEC Marketing Rule risk alert find?
- Released December 16, 2025, the Division of Examinations risk alert documented widespread non-compliance with the Marketing Rule, concentrated in testimonials and endorsements (incomplete or de-emphasized disclosures, undisclosed conflicts, missing promoter agreements) and third-party ratings (inadequate diligence on methodology, missing dates and disclosures). It stressed that disclosures must be at least as prominent as the testimonial or endorsement.
- Does AI-generated content count as an advertisement?
- It can. The Marketing Rule (Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-1) defines an advertisement broadly. If an AI tool generates a market commentary or research summary and the adviser distributes it to more than one client or prospect to promote its services, that distribution can qualify as a general solicitation subject to the rule — regardless of whether a human or a model drafted it.
Keep reading
All blog →Inside the 2025–26 exam cycle: what regulators are asking about AI
The SEC made AI and emerging technology a named examination priority for 2025, and the Division of Examinations is publishing risk alerts that read like a roadmap. Here's what the exam-priority data signals — and how to read it as a firm.
Reg BI in the exam data: why AI raises the documentation bar
Reg BI and Form CRS are repeat top examination priorities, and enforcement is active. As AI starts informing recommendations, the documentation burden the rule already imposes only gets heavier. Here's what the exam data implies.
Where advisor time actually goes — and why meeting prep is the target
Advisors spend under 20% of their time in client meetings and 5.3 hours a week preparing for them. The time-allocation data is the clearest case for why pre-meeting prep — not advice itself — is the part of the workflow worth compressing.