FINRA Proposes Risk-Based Overhaul of Rule 2210 Communications Review
FINRA has proposed significant amendments to Rule 2210 that would replace the rule’s current default requirement for principal pre-use approval of retail communications with a more flexible, risk-based supervisory framework.
The proposal, issued in Regulatory Notice 26-14 on July 9, 2026, also would revise certain communication filing requirements, eliminate the regulatory distinction between static and interactive social media content, and simplify the standards governing communications that reference securities recommendations. Comments are due September 11, 2026.
Link here: https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/2026-07/Regulatory-Notice-26-14.pdf
The proposal is not yet an effective rule change. It is a request for comment, and any eventual amendments would require a separate rule filing with, and approval by, the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Principal Pre-Use Approval Would No Longer Be the Default for Every Retail Communication
Rule 2210 currently generally requires an appropriately qualified registered principal to approve each retail communication before the earlier of its use or filing with FINRA. The rule contains exceptions, including for certain communications posted on interactive electronic forums and communications that neither make an investment recommendation nor promote a product or service.
FINRA proposes replacing that prescriptive structure with a supervisory standard under which each firm would establish written procedures, appropriate to its business, size and structure, identifying the categories of retail communications that require principal pre-use approval.
The proposal therefore would not eliminate principal review. Firms would remain required to establish procedures for principal review of retail communications. They would, however, have discretion to determine which communications require review before first use based on the risks presented.
FINRA identifies eight nonexclusive factors that firms should consider:
The nature and complexity of the product or service discussed.
The preparer’s qualifications and experience.
Whether the communication recommends an investment or promotes a firm product or service.
Whether it promotes a product or service offered by an affiliate or third party.
Whether it appears tailored to a particular audience or individual.
Whether it includes performance data, rankings or comparisons.
The medium and method of distribution.
The firm’s or associated person’s history of communications-related concerns.
The proposed factors would also reach persons who are paid to prepare content or who expressly or implicitly endorse it, including financial influencers.
Where a firm does not require pre-use review of all retail communications, its procedures would need to provide for training, documentation, surveillance and follow-up. Firms also would have to retain evidence that the procedures were implemented and carried out and make that evidence available to FINRA upon request.
The Content Standards Would Remain Unchanged
The proposed flexibility concerns the method of supervision, not the substantive standards governing communications.
Rule 2210 would continue to require communications to be fair and balanced and to provide a sound basis for evaluating the facts concerning a security, product or service. False, exaggerated, unwarranted, promissory and misleading statements would remain prohibited.
FINRA emphasizes that firms would remain fully responsible for the content of their communications, including communications not reviewed before use. A risk-based approval process therefore would not create a safe harbor for lower-risk content or shift responsibility away from the firm.
That distinction is important. The proposal would offer firms greater operational discretion, but it would also make the design and defensibility of their supervisory systems more consequential. In an examination or enforcement matter, FINRA would be positioned to assess not only whether a communication was misleading, but also whether the firm reasonably categorized the communication, applied the appropriate level of review and followed its own procedures.
FINRA Would Retire the Static-Interactive Social Media Distinction
FINRA guidance has long distinguished between static social media content and interactive communications. Static content generally has been treated as advertising subject to principal pre-use approval, while qualifying interactive communications have been supervised under the more flexible standards applicable to correspondence.
FINRA now recognizes that this distinction has become difficult to apply. A social media post may remain visible indefinitely, resemble static content and still allow users to comment, share or engage in real time. FINRA also notes that the risks posed by a communication frequently turn on its substance, audience, author and distribution rather than whether a platform feature is classified as static or interactive.
The proposal would remove the distinction between interactive social media and other communications for supervisory purposes. Firms instead would assess social media communications under the same risk-based framework applicable to other retail communications.
For firms using influencers or other paid promoters, the proposal specifically identifies the qualifications, experience and conflicts of persons involved in preparing or endorsing content as relevant risk considerations. The change would not relax firms’ responsibility for influencer communications. It would replace a platform-based classification problem with a substantive supervisory analysis.
The Proposal Addresses AI Without Creating a Separate AI Rule
Regulatory Notice 26-14 also discusses firms’ increasing use of generative artificial intelligence to create, review and supervise communications.
FINRA reiterates that its rules are technologically neutral and that a firm remains responsible for a communication regardless of whether it was generated by a person or an AI system. Depending on its content and distribution, an AI-generated communication may constitute correspondence, an institutional communication or a retail communication.
The principal pre-use approval requirement can be difficult to apply to AI systems capable of generating large volumes of individualized content. FINRA’s proposed risk-based structure is intended in part to address that mismatch.
The proposal does not prescribe a separate approval regime for AI-generated content. Nor does it authorize firms to rely on AI without supervision. FINRA states that generative AI tools may form part of a reasonably designed supervisory system if they are appropriately vetted, tested and monitored. It also identifies accuracy, hallucination risk, data protection and ongoing performance monitoring as relevant governance considerations.
For firms deploying customer-facing chatbots, automated marketing tools or AI-assisted content review, the practical issue will be whether the firm can demonstrate that the technology performs consistently with Rule 2210’s content standards and that humans with appropriate qualifications remain responsible for oversight.
Filing Changes Would Affect New Members and Certain Fund Communications
FINRA proposes two narrower changes to Rule 2210’s filing requirements.
First, the one-year pre-use filing period applicable to certain widely disseminated retail communications of new members would begin when the firm makes its first communication filing after its FINRA membership becomes effective, rather than on the membership’s CRD effective date.
FINRA found that approximately 60% of first-year filers waited at least 91 business days after their membership became effective to submit an initial filing. Starting the one-year period with the first filing would ensure that FINRA reviews a full year of a new member’s communications activity.
Second, retail communications concerning registered investment companies that contain self-published performance rankings or comparisons would move from pre-use filing to filing within 10 business days after first use.
FINRA reports that only approximately 13% of the 1,315 filings in this category reviewed between 2023 and 2025 were noncompliant. By comparison, 24% of all retail communications filed before use during the same period were noncompliant. FINRA views the lower rate as supporting post-use rather than pre-use filing for this category.
The proposed change does not appear to eliminate the separate pre-use filing requirement for retail communications concerning security futures.
FINRA Would Simplify the Rule for Communications Containing Recommendations
Rule 2210(d)(7) currently imposes specific requirements on retail communications containing securities recommendations. Among other things, the rule requires a reasonable basis for the recommendation and specified disclosures concerning market-making activity, financial interests and supporting information. It also contains detailed requirements for communications referring to past specific recommendations.
FINRA proposes deleting those specific provisions and replacing them with a prohibition against referring to a past specific recommendation unless it is presented in a fair and balanced manner.
FINRA would rely on Rule 2210’s general content standards to require any disclosures necessary to prevent the communication from being misleading. The change is intended to align the broker-dealer standard more closely with the SEC’s Investment Adviser Marketing Rule, which applies a fair-and-balanced standard to advertisements referencing specific investment advice.
The proposal would not alter Regulation Best Interest or the obligations governing whether a broker-dealer may properly make a recommendation to a retail customer. It addresses how recommendations are presented in communications, not the substantive standard of conduct applicable when the recommendation is made.
The Proposal Could Reduce Review Burdens but Increase Supervisory Judgment
FINRA reviewed 177,399 retail communications filed between 2023 and 2025. Of those, 4,501 were filed before use and 172,898 after use. Twenty-four percent of the pre-use filings were found noncompliant, compared with 10% of post-use filings.
FINRA expects the proposal to reduce principal review time for lower-risk communications and allow firms to make greater use of supervisory technology. At the same time, firms may incur substantial implementation costs in developing risk classifications, revising written procedures, training personnel, documenting decisions and conducting surveillance.
The proposal may have different effects across the industry. Larger firms may be better positioned to build sophisticated risk-scoring and technology-assisted review systems. Smaller firms may determine that continuing to require pre-use approval for most or all retail communications is less costly and easier to administer. FINRA expressly recognizes that firms could retain universal pre-use review if they conclude that it remains appropriate for their business.
What Firms Should Consider
Although the proposal remains subject to comment and SEC review, firms should begin evaluating how a risk-based system would operate in practice.
Relevant questions include:
Which communications would remain subject to mandatory pre-use principal approval?
How would the firm document its risk classifications?
Would different products, audiences, platforms or associated persons receive different levels of review?
How would the firm supervise paid promoters, influencers and third-party content?
What validation and escalation controls would apply to AI-generated communications?
How would surveillance identify patterns of noncompliance in communications that were not reviewed before use?
What evidence would the firm retain to demonstrate that its procedures were implemented?
The proposal would give firms more flexibility, but it would also require them to exercise and defend more judgment. The central compliance question would no longer be simply whether a principal approved a communication before use. It would be whether the firm designed a reasonable supervisory framework, classified the communication appropriately and operated the framework as written.
Comments on Regulatory Notice 26-14 are due September 11, 2026.
