By Mark Robinson, Chief Commercial Officer at Wrapped Agency
The FCA wants clearer warnings on AI-generated financial advice. But for marketers in regulated sectors, the bigger question is whether we’re building trust or just borrowing it from a chatbot. (1)
We’ve all done it.
Asked ChatGPT a question, received a remarkably confident answer and thought, “Well, that sounds about right.”
And most of the time, that’s fine.
If you’re asking it how long to cook a jacket potato or whether you can get away with putting something in the dishwasher, the stakes are relatively low.
But when you’re asking it where to invest your life savings?
Slightly different kettle of fish.
And that’s exactly what the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is getting twitchy about.
Speaking at Bloomberg’s UK Policy Series, the FCA’s Jessica Rusu called for clearer financial advice disclaimers across general-purpose AI tools like ChatGPT, Gemini and Claude.
Why?
Because according to the regulator, only 40% of consumers correctly understand that if they act on financial advice from a general-purpose AI chatbot and things go spectacularly wrong, they don’t have the same regulatory protections they’d get from an authorised financial adviser.
Which means a rather worrying number of people could be treating a chatbot like a qualified financial adviser.
Spoiler alert: it isn’t one.
And while this might sound like a problem for the tech giants and financial regulators to sort out between themselves, there’s a much bigger conversation here for anyone working in marketing, particularly in regulated sectors.
Because AI isn’t just changing how we create content.
It’s changing who consumers trust, why they trust them and whether that trust is actually deserved.
The confidence is impressive. The understanding? Less so.
The FCA’s research paints a pretty interesting picture.
Four in five less-experienced investors aged 18 to 40 have used AI to help with investing.
More than half of surveyed young investors trust AI tools for investment information.
And 44% mistakenly believe AI-generated financial information is regulated.
Let that last one sink in.
Nearly half of the surveyed group believe there’s a regulatory safety net around information generated by a tool that can also write your wedding speech and explain why your houseplant is dying.
Now, I’m not knocking AI. Far from it.
It’s an incredibly powerful technology that’s making complex information more accessible to more people.
And that’s a good thing.
But there’s a fundamental difference between making information accessible and making it reliable, appropriate or suitable for someone’s individual circumstances.
The problem is that AI is very good at sounding like it knows what it’s talking about.
Even when it doesn’t.
And when the subject is mortgages, pensions, investments or insurance, that confidence can become a problem.
Because consumers don’t always distinguish between information that sounds authoritative and advice that comes with actual professional accountability.
For brands operating in regulated sectors, that’s a pretty important distinction.
Apparently, the small print might actually matter.
One of the FCA’s main messages is that AI platforms need to be clearer about their limitations when providing financial information.
Not buried somewhere in the terms and conditions.
Not hidden behind a link nobody’s clicking.
But communicated clearly, at the point where someone might actually act on the information.
Revolutionary stuff, I know.
Telling people something important when it’s important.
But this is where things get interesting from a marketing perspective.
Because in regulated industries, we’ve spent years navigating the delicate relationship between creating compelling communications and making sure they’re compliant.
The headline needs to grab attention.
The creative needs to engage.
The customer journey needs to convert.
And somewhere along the way, legal needs to make sure nobody accidentally promises something they can’t deliver.
The temptation is to treat disclaimers and regulatory information as necessary inconveniences.
Something to squeeze in once the exciting stuff has been approved.
But perhaps we’ve been looking at it the wrong way.
What if clarity isn’t the thing that gets in the way of good marketing? What if clarity is what makes the marketing good?
Consumers shouldn’t need a law degree, a magnifying glass and half an afternoon to understand what they’re signing up for.
And if we’re serious about building trust, we should probably stop treating transparency like the boring bit.
Just because AI wrote it doesn’t mean nobody owns it.
The FCA isn’t only concerned about what general-purpose AI platforms tell consumers.
It’s also reminding financial services businesses that using AI doesn’t magically remove their existing responsibilities.
Firms are expected to have appropriate safeguards, human oversight, clear escalation procedures and accountable senior management.
In other words, “the AI did it” isn’t going to cut it as an explanation.
And this is particularly relevant for marketing teams.
Because AI is already finding its way into practically every corner of the marketing process.
We’re using it to generate copy, develop creative concepts, personalise customer journeys, automate communications, analyse audiences and power chatbots.
All very exciting.
Until your AI-generated campaign overpromises a product benefit.
Or your chatbot gives someone information that’s misleading.
Or your beautifully personalised customer journey recommends something completely inappropriate.
Suddenly, that time-saving tool doesn’t feel quite so efficient.
The reality is that AI can help produce marketing communications, but it can’t take responsibility for them.
That still sits with the business.
Which means marketing teams need to understand not just what AI can do, but where its limitations are, how its outputs are checked and who’s responsible when something isn’t right.
And no, asking ChatGPT to double-check ChatGPT probably isn’t a particularly robust compliance strategy.
Trust isn’t a tone of voice.
Here’s the bit I find particularly interesting.
We’ve spent years talking about brand trust.
Building it. Measuring it. Protecting it.
It’s in practically every brand strategy presentation ever written.
Usually somewhere between authenticity and customer-centricity.
But AI introduces an entirely new dimension to that conversation.
Because consumers may trust the way information is delivered without understanding the authority behind it.
A chatbot can sound reassuring.
It can provide detailed answers.
It can respond instantly, remember the context of a conversation and make complex subjects feel wonderfully straightforward.
All the things we spend a lot of time trying to achieve through good customer experience design.
But sounding trustworthy and actually being trustworthy aren’t the same thing.
And that’s where brands need to be careful.
If you’re using AI to communicate with customers, are you making it clear what the technology can and can’t do?
Are you explaining when information is general guidance rather than personalised advice?
Are you being transparent about where human support is available?
Or are you relying on the fact that the experience feels intelligent enough that nobody will question it?
Because the real risk isn’t necessarily that AI gets something wrong.
It’s that someone trusts it enough not to realise it might be wrong.
And that’s a much bigger brand problem.
So, what should marketers actually be doing?
Before anyone rushes off to ban AI from the marketing department and return to brainstorming around a flipchart, that’s not what I’m suggesting.
AI has enormous potential to make marketing better.
It can help us understand audiences, improve accessibility, reduce repetitive work and deliver more relevant experiences.
But in regulated sectors, using it responsibly needs to be part of the strategy, not something compliance gets invited to discuss five minutes before launch.
A few things are worth thinking about.
First, stop treating compliance as the department that says no.
Bring legal and compliance teams into the creative process earlier. Not to kill the ideas, but to help develop ideas that are compelling, accurate and appropriate from the start.
It’s amazing how much easier things become when everyone isn’t meeting for the first time at final sign-off.
Second, know where AI is actually being used.
There’s a fairly significant difference between using AI to suggest ten alternative headlines and letting it recommend financial products to customers.
Understand the risks associated with different applications, particularly when AI is influencing real consumer decisions.
Third, make human oversight mean something.
Having someone glance over an AI-generated campaign while simultaneously eating their lunch isn’t necessarily a quality assurance process.
People need the time, expertise and authority to challenge outputs, check claims and identify potential problems.
Fourth, write for humans.
Not regulators. Not algorithms. Not the legal team.
Actual people.
Yes, communications need to meet regulatory requirements. But they also need to be understandable.
If the average customer can’t work out what you’re telling them, the fact that you’ve technically included the right words isn’t much of a victory.
And finally, remember that trust is earned through actions, not adjectives.
Calling your brand transparent, responsible or customer-first doesn’t automatically make it any of those things.
You have to demonstrate it.
Especially when technology is doing more of the talking on your behalf.
The opportunity isn’t just to use AI. It’s to use it better.
It’s easy to look at the FCA’s latest intervention and see another layer of regulation.
Another thing to worry about.
Another reason for someone in compliance to send an email beginning with “Just flagging…”
But I think there’s a much more interesting opportunity here.
As AI becomes more embedded in the way consumers research, compare and choose products, brands have an opportunity to stand out by making those experiences genuinely clearer, safer and more useful.
Not by pretending AI is infallible.
Not by hiding behind disclaimers.
And definitely not by automating every customer interaction simply because they can.
But by being thoughtful about where the technology adds value and where human expertise still matters.
Because ultimately, consumers don’t just want fast answers.
They want answers they can rely on.
And when it comes to important decisions, knowing who’s accountable matters.
The Wrapped view
At Wrapped, we work in a world where creativity and compliance need to get along.
And contrary to popular belief, they don’t have to be sworn enemies.
Some of the best marketing comes from making complicated things feel simple, without losing the detail that actually matters.
That’s particularly true in regulated sectors, where earning consumer trust is essential.
AI gives us new ways to communicate, personalise and engage.
Brilliant.
But it also gives us new responsibilities.
And as marketers, we can’t afford to get so excited about what the technology can do that we forget to question what it should do.
The FCA’s message is a useful reminder that innovation and accountability need to move together.
Because when things go wrong, consumers aren’t going to care whether the misleading information came from a person, a platform or a particularly enthusiastic algorithm.
They’re going to remember the brand that delivered it.
And unfortunately, “computer says so” isn’t much of a brand strategy.
At Wrapped, we help brands navigate the sometimes complicated world of regulated marketing, bringing creativity, clarity and commercial thinking together. Because doing things properly shouldn’t mean doing things boringly.
References
1. FCA. (2026). AI in financial services: Good practice and areas for improvement. [online] Available at: https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/good-poor-practice/ai-financial-services [Accessed 28 Oct. 2026].
