255 promotions. 83 firms. 36 letters. How the FCA reviews now.

Buried in the notes to editors of an FCA press release last month is a paragraph most people scrolled past.

In June, the FCA reviewed 255 promotions across 83 authorised firms and wrote to 36 firms where it identified breaches of financial promotion rules or failures to meet expectations under the Consumer Duty.

Thirty-six of eighty-three. Forty-three per cent of the firms it looked at got a letter, in a single month.

Before that number gets repeated somewhere it shouldn't: those eighty-three firms are authorised claims management companies. The release is an update from the joint taskforce on motor finance claims, and its stated scope is lead generators, CMCs and law firms. If you run marketing at a lender, a bank, an investment platform or a fintech, this is not your hit rate.

It is, however, your preview. The number describes a sector under focus. The method behind the number is the FCA's, and the method travels.

What the taskforce actually is

Four regulators, working the same advertising.

The FCA, the Advertising Standards Authority, the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Information Commissioner's Office set up a joint taskforce on poor practice in motor finance claims. Each body brought its own rulebook to the same set of ads.

Look at what came out of it in one month:

• 170 misleading car finance claims adverts removed or amended, taking the total past 1,200 since January 2024
• 2 new voluntary requirements agreed with firms to stop or change their marketing, bringing the twelve-month total to 12
• 8 alerts published against unauthorised firms promoting regulated claims activity
• 6 ASA formal investigations opened into motor finance claims ads placed by law firms

No headline fine. No enforcement notice that made the trade press. This is the part of regulatory activity that happens below the threshold most compliance teams monitor, which is precisely why it is easy to underestimate.

The ICO's contribution to the picture is the one that should worry anyone running acquisition through outbound channels: over 12 million complaints from the public since September 2025 about nuisance calls, texts and emails, with multiple active investigations into CMCs and lead generators.

The four-rulebook problem, in one advert

The FCA listed the kinds of ads it found. One example is worth reading closely.

An advert "disguised as a consumer posting on social media recommending a website to look up agreements." It "failed to make clear it was a financial promotion for a CMC that was recommending its own website."

Count the exposures on that single asset.

The FCA can act on it as a financial promotion, and on whether the firm met its Consumer Duty obligations. The ASA can act on it under the CAP Code, which requires marketing communications to be obviously identifiable as marketing. The SRA can act where the advertiser is a law firm. And if the campaign behind it ran on purchased data through texts or calls, the ICO can act under PECR and UK GDPR.

One creative. Four rulebooks. Four sanction regimes. Four sets of evidential expectations.

Most approval workflows are built around one of those. The rule library is organised by regulator, because that is how rulebooks are published. Enforcement has started organising itself by advert, because that is how consumers encounter them.

The detection side got faster than the review side

Here is the part that changes the arithmetic.

The ASA has built an AI monitoring system called Active Ad Monitoring. On its own account, it "captures large volumes of advertising content from a range of online sources," including paid ads on social media, search and websites, and influencer marketing content. Machine learning models flag ads likely to breach the rules, and ASA experts then review and decide.

Watch the scale move. In a blog post in July 2023, the ASA's Head of Data Science wrote that the system "currently processes more than 100,000 ads each month." In 2025 it processed more than 60 million ads and supported over 30 regulatory projects.

The ASA also described, in that same 2023 post, what the system replaced:

In the past, we would have relied on limited, labour-intensive manual searches and complaints from the public to stay on top of any non-compliant ads.

That is the regulator's own account of the old model. Complaint-led enforcement is sparse, slow and close to random, and firms priced their risk accordingly, whether or not they would phrase it that way in a board paper.

The first area the ASA applied it to, incidentally, was cryptocurrency advertising, developed with the FCA. Financial services has been in scope from early on.

Now look at where the FCA says that capability is pointed today. The ASA "is harnessing its AI-based Active Ad Monitoring system to monitor motor finance claims ads at pace and scale to identify examples for a series of formal investigations and to create precedent for sector compliance action."

Read the last eight words again. The investigations are selected to create precedent.

A regulator reading at that scale does not need a complaint. It can see the distribution across a whole sector, choose the cases that will move it, and build precedent deliberately. The ASA is explicit that the system supports its experts rather than replacing them, and that matters a great deal for how individual decisions get made. It does not change how much gets seen.

So the constraint has moved. It used to sit on the regulator's capacity to find things. It now sits on your ability to explain the things they find.

Consumer credit is the sector behind this one

The taskforce is motor finance claims. The operating model is portable, and there is a clear signal about where it goes next.

The FCA published CP26/15 in April 2026, reviewing the financial promotions rules for consumer credit, with a policy intent to consolidate compliance requirements within the Consumer Duty. Thinner prescriptive rules, more weight on outcomes.

Put those two things side by side. A regulator with proactive review at volume, a partner regulator with machine-scale ad monitoring, and a rulebook moving from prescription toward judgement.

That combination has a specific consequence. When the rule is prescriptive, compliance is demonstrable by pointing at the rule and the ad. When the rule is an outcome, compliance is demonstrable only by evidencing the judgement: what was considered, what was rejected, against which provision, by whom, and on what basis.

The shorter the rulebook gets, the more the record has to carry.

What this means for the way you work

Four practical consequences, in the order they will bite.

Your back catalogue is in scope. A precedent-setting investigation opened in September can be about an advert you took down in April. The ad is gone; the exposure is not. If your evidence of approval lives in an email thread and a shared drive, reconstructing it six months later is a project rather than a query.

Approval is the regulated act, not publication. The FCA's May 2026 review of financial promotion approvers found firms approving adverts with unsubstantiated claims, letting retail investors see promotions intended for professional clients, and relying on third-party templates instead of doing their own checks. The approval decision is what gets examined. Whether it was documented at the time is what determines how that examination goes.

Identifiability is a live failure mode. The single example the FCA led with was an ad that did not look like an ad. Native formats, creator content and anything designed to sit naturally in a feed all carry that risk, and it is the ASA's territory as much as the FCA's.

Post-publish drift is unmonitored in most firms. Firms review content before it goes out. Regulators increasingly observe it while it is live, continuously, at scale. Anything that changes after approval sits in the gap between those two activities: a landing page, a partner's site, an affiliate's copy, a creator's caption.

The uncomfortable version

No compliance platform pre-clears an advert against four rulebooks with confidence. Anyone telling you otherwise is selling.

What is achievable is narrower and more useful: one durable record of every approval decision, in a form you can hand to whichever of the four bodies asks, months after the advert came down. What was checked. Against which provision. By whom. Why it was approved.

That is a smaller promise than the category tends to make. It is also the one that survives contact with a regulator that reads faster than you can review.

‍

Adclear watches financial promotions after they go live, across owned, partner and social channels, and keeps the record of every approval decision attached to the asset it belongs to. See how post-publication monitoring works, or read about how we handle claims evidence and audit trails.

‍

Sources

• FCA: Joint taskforce continues crack down on misleading car finance claims adverts, 16 July 2026
• ASA: Active Ad Monitoring system
• ASA: Our Active Ad Monitoring system, Adam Davison, Head of Data Science, 14 July 2023
• FCA: Joint regulatory taskforce on motor finance claims
• FCA: Review of financial promotion approvers finds some firms need to raise standards
• FCA: CP26/15, reviewing the financial promotions rules for consumer credit
• ICO: Multiple properties searched across UK after millions of car finance complaints

All figures in this piece are drawn from the regulators' own published material. The June review figures apply to authorised claims management companies within the scope of the motor finance claims taskforce, and are not a base rate for authorised financial services firms generally.