Marketing rule anti-fraud standards

The marketing rule anti-fraud standards requirement means your firm must prevent any advertisement from containing materially misleading statements, including misleading omissions, before it is published. Operationalize this by implementing a documented pre-use review process, substantiation standards for every claim, and recordkeeping that proves what ran, why it was approved, and what evidence supported it.

Key takeaways:

• Treat every marketing claim as “prove it or remove it” under a documented review and substantiation workflow.
• Build artifacts: approvals, substantiation files, final versions, distribution lists, and change history for each ad.
• Exams focus on repeatable controls: consistent reviews, trained approvers, and records that map to what was actually disseminated.

For a CCO or GRC lead, “anti-fraud” in the SEC marketing context is an operational requirement, not a slogan: marketing content must not be materially misleading. The fastest way to fail this requirement is to approve ads based on informal judgment (“looks fine”) without a substantiation file, or to lose track of what version was posted where.

This page focuses on the requirement-level implementation of prohibiting materially misleading statements in advertisements, anchored to the SEC’s framework for registered investment advisers (RIAs). The goal is speed-to-control: define what counts as an advertisement in your environment, route it through a consistent compliance review, require documentary support for each claim, and retain records that show both the content and the basis for approval.

You will see practical steps, evidence to keep, common exam questions, and implementation mistakes that create avoidable findings. Where recordkeeping intersects with marketing review, the guidance ties back to maintaining and producing the right books and records, since “we reviewed it” is not credible without proof of what you reviewed and what you relied on. (17 CFR 275.204-2)

Regulatory text

Requirement (operator summary): Prohibit materially misleading statements in advertisements. (17 CFR 275.206(4)-1)

What you must do in practice:
You must operate controls that prevent publication or dissemination of any advertisement containing a materially misleading statement or a misleading omission. That means:

• You define who can approve ads and what standards they apply.
• You require substantiation for each objective claim (performance, fees, rankings, capabilities, outcomes, processes).
• You keep records that show the final ad, the review/approval, and the supporting evidence. (17 CFR 275.204-2)

Plain-English interpretation (what “materially misleading” means for operators)

A statement is high-risk when it would likely affect how a prospective client interprets your services, performance, fees, or risks. Operators should treat these as common “misleading” patterns to control:

• Overstatement: Absolute language (“guaranteed,” “best,” “no risk,” “always”) without narrow, documented qualification.
• Omission: Disclosing benefits while withholding conditions, assumptions, limitations, or important exceptions that change the meaning.
• Cherry-picking: Highlighting only favorable results, periods, or client experiences without context that prevents a misleading impression.
• Imprecise comparisons: “Lower fees,” “better performance,” “industry-leading” without defined peer group, time period, and methodology documented in the substantiation file.
• Third-party content risk: Reposting articles, ratings, testimonials, or social posts in a way that turns them into your firm’s implied claims.

Your control objective is simple: if the claim could influence a client’s decision, you either (a) support it with evidence and context, or (b) remove or rewrite it.

Who it applies to (entity and operational context)

Primary scope: Registered Investment Advisers and their supervised persons producing or disseminating advertisements. (17 CFR 275.206(4)-1)

Operational context (where this shows up):

• Website content, landing pages, pitch decks, fact sheets, and one-pagers
• RFP responses and capability statements when used for marketing
• Social media posts (organic and paid), videos, webinars, podcasts, and event materials
• Email campaigns and newsletters intended to solicit or retain clients
• Consultant databases and third-party platforms where your firm maintains a profile
• Third parties acting on your behalf (PR firms, placement agents, lead-gen firms) that draft, edit, or distribute your marketing

Even if marketing is created by a third party, you still need controls that prevent materially misleading output from being disseminated in your name.

What you actually need to do (step-by-step)

1) Inventory and classify “advertisements” in your environment

Create a living inventory of marketing channels and content types. Tie each item to:

• Content owner (Marketing, IR, Product, Sales)
• Approver (Compliance, Legal, delegate with documented authority)
• Distribution method (website, email tool, social platforms, third-party portal)
• Whether content is static (web page) or ephemeral (social post)

Operator tip: Treat “profiles” on third-party platforms as advertisements once your firm controls or curates the content.

2) Define review standards as rules, not vibes

Write a short marketing review standard that reviewers can apply consistently:

• Prohibited phrases (or “requires escalation” phrases)
• Required disclosures by claim type (performance, fees, strategy, risks)
• When substantiation is mandatory (answer: for any objective claim)
• Material change rules: when a revision triggers re-review

This is the “spec” your team executes.

3) Build a substantiation file requirement (“prove it or remove it”)

For each ad, require a substantiation file that maps each claim to supporting evidence:

• Claim: “Fees are lower than peers.”
• Evidence: defined peer set, date range, sources, calculation method, and who prepared the analysis.
• Output: reviewer can verify the claim is accurate and not misleading by omission.

Keep the substantiation file with the final approved content. (17 CFR 275.204-2)

4) Implement a pre-use approval workflow with enforceable gates

Set up a workflow in your ticketing system, GRC tool, or marketing content platform:

• Intake form (channel, audience, claims, owner, requested publish date)
• Attachment requirements (draft, substantiation, required disclosures)
• Review steps (Compliance, Legal as needed, optional business sign-off)
• Approval evidence (named approver, date/time, conditions)
• Publication confirmation (link/screenshot/version that matches approved copy)

Gate design: Publishing access should be restricted so content cannot go live without an approval artifact, or you need a detective control that reliably catches and remediates exceptions with documentation.

5) Train creators and approvers on the standard

Run role-based training:

• Creators: how to write claims that can be supported; how to avoid omissions
• Approvers: how to test for misleading context; how to document rationale
• Executives/SMEs: what “informal promises” look like in marketing copy

Document attendance and training materials for exam readiness. (17 CFR 275.204-2)

6) Monitor what actually went out (not what was drafted)

Set a recurring monitoring routine:

• Sample live website pages versus approved versions
• Spot-check social posts, paid ads, and third-party listings
• Confirm “last updated” pages did not drift from approved claims
• Track and remediate exceptions, with root cause notes

7) Recordkeeping: retain what you need to prove compliance

Recordkeeping is part of operationalizing the anti-fraud standard because you must be able to reproduce what was disseminated and why it was approved. (17 CFR 275.204-2)

A practical retention package per advertisement:

• Final version as disseminated (PDF, screenshot, HTML capture, video file)
• Distribution details (dates, channels, audience list where applicable)
• Approval record (workflow ticket, email approval with attachments, e-sign)
• Substantiation file (claim-by-claim support, calculations, source docs)
• Disclosures and legends included in the final version
• Change log and re-approval evidence for revisions

Required evidence and artifacts to retain (audit-ready list)

Use this checklist to stay exam-ready:

• Marketing review policy/standard mapped to anti-fraud requirement. (17 CFR 275.206(4)-1)
• Advertisement inventory (channels, owners, approvers, access controls).
• Approval workflow artifacts (ticket history, approver identity, conditions). (17 CFR 275.204-2)
• Substantiation files for objective claims, stored with the ad. (17 CFR 275.204-2)
• Copies of disseminated advertisements (final, as-published evidence). (17 CFR 275.204-2)
• Training records for marketing staff and reviewers. (17 CFR 275.204-2)
• Testing/monitoring results and documented remediation actions. (17 CFR 275.204-2)

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

Expect examiners and internal audit to pressure-test control design and operating effectiveness:

• “Show me the last set of ads you ran and the supporting evidence for each claim.” (17 CFR 275.204-2)
• “Who can publish to the website/social accounts, and what prevents bypassing compliance?”
• “How do you ensure third-party marketers or PR firms don’t publish unsupported claims?”
• “How do you handle updates to performance, AUM, holdings, or team bios without creating stale or misleading statements?”
• “Prove that the ad in production matches the ad you approved.” (17 CFR 275.204-2)

Hangups usually appear where teams cannot produce the final disseminated version, or where substantiation exists but is not mapped to specific claims.

Frequent implementation mistakes (and how to avoid them)

1. Approving without substantiation
   Fix: make substantiation attachments required fields in the workflow for any objective claim.

2. Storing drafts but not the “as-published” version
   Fix: require a post-publication capture (screenshot/export) and store it with the approval ticket. (17 CFR 275.204-2)

3. Letting channel owners publish directly
   Fix: restrict access, or implement detective monitoring that documents findings and remediation.

4. Assuming third-party content is safe to repost
   Fix: treat reposts and curated third-party content as advertisements if they convey your firm’s message; route through the same review standard.

5. Inconsistent disclosures across channels
   Fix: maintain approved disclosure language blocks by claim type and require their use in templates.

Enforcement context and risk implications

Even without specific enforcement cases in this packet, the risk is concrete: materially misleading ads trigger regulatory exposure, remediation costs, reputational damage, and increased exam scrutiny. “Medium severity” is a reasonable internal starting point, but your actual risk level increases quickly with:

• high-volume digital marketing,
• complex products or strategies,
• frequent performance or capability claims,
• heavy use of third parties to create or distribute marketing.

If you need to operationalize fast across many channels, Daydream is a practical fit for building a review workflow, standardizing substantiation requirements, and producing exam-ready evidence sets from a single system of record.

Practical 30/60/90-day execution plan

First 30 days (stabilize and stop gaps)

• Stand up a single intake and approval workflow for all new marketing.
• Freeze or re-review high-risk channels where publishing bypasses review (social and web updates are common).
• Publish a one-page review standard: prohibited phrases, substantiation expectations, and required disclosures.
• Start an advertisement inventory and assign channel owners.

Days 31–60 (make it repeatable)

• Implement substantiation templates by claim type (fees, performance, comparisons, awards).
• Centralize storage so the final disseminated ad and substantiation file are linked. (17 CFR 275.204-2)
• Train creators and approvers; document completion. (17 CFR 275.204-2)
• Begin monitoring: spot-check live content against approvals and log findings.

Days 61–90 (prove operating effectiveness)

• Run a mock exam: select a sample of ads, produce the full evidence package, and document any gaps. (17 CFR 275.204-2)
• Tighten access controls or add detective monitoring where bypass risk persists.
• Add metrics that matter operationally (cycle time, exception rate, rework causes) without inventing benchmarks.
• Formalize third-party oversight language in contracts/SLAs: draft review requirements, approval gates, and record delivery expectations.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does this apply only to glossy marketing materials, or also to emails and social posts?

It applies to advertisements broadly, which in practice includes websites, emails, social posts, and other content used to solicit or retain clients. Route each channel through the same anti-fraud review standard. (17 CFR 275.206(4)-1)

What counts as “substantiation” for a marketing claim?

Substantiation is the evidence a reviewer can inspect to confirm the claim is accurate and not misleading by omission. Keep it attached to the ad’s approval record so you can reproduce it on request. (17 CFR 275.204-2)

Can Marketing approve low-risk content without Compliance?

You can delegate review, but you still need documented standards, trained approvers, and evidence that the process prevents materially misleading statements. Exams typically focus on whether the control works consistently across channels. (17 CFR 275.206(4)-1)

What’s the fastest way to get exam-ready if our records are scattered?

Centralize each advertisement’s package: final as-published content, approvals, and substantiation in a single linked record. Prioritize the channels you use most and the claims most likely to be challenged. (17 CFR 275.204-2)

How do we handle third parties that post content about us?

Treat third parties acting on your behalf as part of your control environment: require pre-use review, prohibit unsupervised publishing, and contract for record delivery and cooperation. Keep evidence of oversight and the final disseminated content. (17 CFR 275.204-2)

What do we do when we find a misleading statement already live?

Takedown or correct promptly, document the issue, preserve the original as-published version for the file, and record remediation steps and preventive changes. That remediation record becomes part of your exam narrative. (17 CFR 275.204-2)