Using AI in RIA Marketing: Compliance Guide

RIA marketing teams increasingly use artificial intelligence to draft blog posts, LinkedIn updates, email campaigns, and website copy. These tools can reduce drafting time, but the resulting material can introduce claims, citations, disclosures, or records that require compliance review. RIAs can use AI in marketing, provided the same review and documentation standards applied to other advertising are followed.

This guide is general information, not legal advice. For how these issues apply to your firm’s marketing, consult a qualified compliance professional or securities attorney.

The short version

AI does not change an RIA’s compliance obligations, but it can increase the volume and speed at which noncompliant material is produced. Anything AI writes for marketing remains subject to the SEC Marketing Rule and the Advisers Act’s antifraud provisions, just as human-written material does. Two significant risks are “AI washing” (overstating how a firm uses AI, which the SEC has made an enforcement priority) and unsubstantiated or misleading claims (AI can generate inaccurate information, and the adviser remains responsible for what it publishes). Fabricated testimonials, recordkeeping gaps, and unvetted AI vendors create additional exposure. RIAs can manage these risks by requiring human review, substantiating claims, and retaining the appropriate records before publishing AI-assisted content.

The core principle: AI doesn’t lower the bar

The compliance standard for AI-generated marketing is the same as the standard for human-written marketing. There is no “the AI wrote it” defense. If a firm publishes the material, it remains responsible for every claim, implication, and omission. The Marketing Rule’s requirements—including fair and balanced presentation, substantiation of factual claims, proper disclosures, and no misleading statements—apply when AI-generated copy becomes an advertisement. AI can assist with drafting, but the adviser remains responsible for the advertisement and the process used to review it.

Risk 1: “AI washing” — the enforcement priority

The single sharpest risk is talking about AI itself. “AI washing” is the SEC’s term for overstating, misstating, or failing to substantiate how a firm uses artificial intelligence — in its investment process, its products, or its services. In March 2024, the SEC announced settled charges against two investment advisers over false and misleading statements about their purported AI use. The cited violations included the Marketing Rule and antifraud provisions. The Division of Examinations’ fiscal year 2026 priorities also state that examiners will review the accuracy of AI representations and assess whether firms have adequate policies and procedures to monitor or supervise their use of AI technologies.

The practical translation for your marketing: only claim what you can prove. Loose language is the trap — calling routine automation “artificial intelligence,” implying a proprietary model you don’t have, or suggesting AI drives investment decisions when it plays a minor role. Every public AI claim should map to what the technology actually does and who validates it. If you can’t substantiate it on demand, don’t publish it. This applies even when — especially when — the AI-generated copy is the thing overstating your AI use, because AI tools love to describe everything as “AI-powered.”

Risk 2: Unsubstantiated claims and confident fabrication

From a compliance standpoint, a central problem is that AI can fabricate fluently. It may invent statistics, misstate rules, cite nonexistent sources, or produce performance-style claims that read well but lack support. The Marketing Rule prohibits a material statement of fact when the adviser lacks a reasonable basis for believing it can substantiate that statement upon SEC demand. AI-generated copy therefore warrants careful scrutiny: someone should verify every factual assertion, number, and implied claim before publication. Part of the time saved in drafting needs to be reinvested in verification.

The same goes for the rule’s “fair and balanced” standard. AI is trained to be persuasive, so it naturally overweights benefits and underweights risks. Left unedited, it produces exactly the kind of one-sided, benefit-heavy marketing the rule prohibits. Human judgment has to restore the balance and add the required risk disclosures.

Risk 3: Fabricated or synthetic testimonials

AI has made it trivial to generate content that looks like client praise — synthetic reviews, AI-written “testimonials,” even AI-generated video avatars. This creates an obvious risk of false or misleading advertising and cannot substitute for satisfying the Marketing Rule’s testimonial conditions. If you use testimonials or endorsements, they should be genuine, properly disclosed, and handled under the rule’s requirements. AI should never be used to invent social proof.

Risk 4: Recordkeeping for AI-generated marketing

Advisers subject to the Marketing Rule’s related books-and-records requirements must retain the advertisements they disseminate, and AI-assisted marketing is no exception. Two wrinkles make this trickier than it looks. First, AI lowers the friction of publishing, so firms may produce far more material and lose track of what actually went out. Second, the adviser still needs support for factual and performance claims, while current examination priorities emphasize accurate AI representations and adequate supervisory policies. Build the ability to reconstruct and defend any AI-assisted advertisement into the process from the start.

Risk 5: Third-party AI vendors are your responsibility

Most advisers use AI through third-party tools rather than building their own. That doesn’t outsource the responsibility. If a vendor’s tool generates your marketing — or if you advertise capabilities that depend on a vendor’s AI — you’re accountable for the accuracy of what reaches the public. That makes vendor due diligence part of marketing compliance: understand what the tool actually does (versus what its own marketing claims), how it handles your data, and whether your public statements about it are accurate. Advertising a third-party capability you haven’t verified can turn the vendor’s exaggeration into your firm’s unsupported public claim.

What examiners may review

Beyond the content itself, the SEC’s fiscal year 2026 examination priorities say the Division will assess whether firms have adequate policies and procedures to monitor or supervise their use of AI technologies. For marketing, a practical implementation addresses where AI is used, who reviews AI-assisted materials before dissemination, and how AI-related statements are substantiated. A firm using AI across its marketing with no governing policy or review workflow will have a harder time demonstrating effective supervision.

How to use AI in marketing with appropriate controls

Using AI for marketing requires defined controls. A practical framework includes:

Human review before anything is published. A person with compliance responsibility approves AI-generated marketing — copy, emails, social posts, website changes — before it goes live. This is the single most important control.
Substantiation as a habit. Every factual and performance claim the AI produces gets verified and its support filed, ready to produce on demand. Unverifiable claims get cut.
A written AI-use policy. Document where and how AI is used in marketing, who reviews its output, and what’s off-limits (fabricated testimonials, unsubstantiated AI claims, unverified statistics).
Accurate AI disclosures. If you discuss your use of AI, describe precisely what it does, its role, and its limits. Avoid unsupported or inflated use of terms such as “AI-powered.”
Vendor due diligence. Vet the AI tools you rely on, understand their real capabilities and data handling, and make sure your public statements about them are true.
Disciplined recordkeeping. Retain AI-assisted marketing like any other advertisement, along with the substantiation behind it.

Most of the risk arises when AI-generated material is published without adequate review, verification, or recordkeeping. A defined approval process can preserve the efficiency of AI-assisted drafting while reducing the likelihood that unsupported or misleading content reaches the public.

Frequently asked questions

Can RIAs use AI to write marketing content? Yes. There’s no prohibition on using AI to draft blog posts, emails, social media, or website copy. But AI-generated marketing is subject to the same Marketing Rule and antifraud requirements as anything else you publish, so it needs human review, substantiation of claims, and proper recordkeeping before it goes out.

What is “AI washing” and why does the SEC care? AI washing is overstating or misrepresenting how a firm uses artificial intelligence. The SEC treats unsupported AI claims as Marketing Rule and antifraud violations and has brought enforcement actions against advisers for it since 2024. The core lesson is to claim only the AI capabilities you can actually substantiate.

Do we need a policy for AI use in marketing? It’s strongly advisable. The SEC’s fiscal year 2026 examination priorities say examiners will assess whether firms have adequate policies and procedures to monitor or supervise AI use. A marketing-specific workflow can define permitted tools, human review, substantiation, approvals, data handling, and recordkeeping.

Is it okay to use AI to generate client testimonials? No. Manufacturing testimonials — synthetic reviews, AI-written praise, AI-generated spokesperson videos — creates fabricated, misleading content that violates the rules. Testimonials must be genuine and handled under the Marketing Rule’s disclosure and oversight requirements.

Who’s responsible if a third-party AI tool produces a misleading claim? Your firm. Using a vendor’s tool doesn’t transfer accountability for what reaches the public. Vendor due diligence and verification of any capabilities you advertise are part of staying compliant.

Primary SEC sources

The bottom line

AI can improve an RIA’s marketing workflow, but it does not alter the firm’s regulatory obligations. AI-assisted material should receive human review, claim substantiation, and appropriate recordkeeping before publication.

For the full framework these obligations sit within, see our companion guide to marketing compliance under the SEC Marketing Rule. And if you’d rather have experienced reviewers on your marketing — AI-assisted or not — our directory of reviewed RIA compliance firms includes providers who handle advertising and marketing review, with our methodology explaining how providers are researched and included.