Six violations.
None of them obvious.
All happening right now.

Violation #1

FCA Financial Promotion: Criminal Liability

The context

A digital agency wrote landing page copy for a fintech client offering a savings product. The copy looked professional and compliant to everyone who reviewed it.

What the checker found

This is an unapproved financial promotion under Section 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Communicating a financial promotion without FCA authorisation is a criminal offence, not a civil fine. A criminal offence. The agency that wrote this copy, not just the client, is exposed. The '4.2% annually' figure is a specific return claim that requires FCA approval before publication. The 'low risk' claim is false: all investment carries risk and this wording is specifically prohibited.

The fix

Any copy that invites someone to invest, save or engage with a financial product must be approved by an FCA authorised person before publication. The agency should have flagged this before writing a word. Without that sign off, neither the client nor the agency should publish.

If not fixed

Criminal prosecution of the person who communicated the promotion. FCA public censure. Campaign takedown. PI insurance may not respond.

Violation #2

CASL Consent Violation: $10M CAD Per Breach

The context

An ecommerce brand's email capture form had been running for two years. The agency built it. It had 40,000 subscribers on the list, including Canadian recipients.

What the checker found

Canada's Anti Spam Legislation (CASL) requires express consent before sending commercial electronic messages. 'By signing up you agree to receive marketing' is not express consent, it is implied consent. Under CASL, every email sent to a Canadian recipient without proper express consent is a separate violation carrying fines up to $10 million CAD per violation for businesses. With 40,000 subscribers, this list has been accumulating liability for two years.

The fix

Add an unchecked checkbox with explicit language: 'I agree to receive marketing emails from [Brand]. I can unsubscribe at any time.' This must be a separate, affirmative action, not bundled with terms acceptance. All existing Canadian subscribers without proper consent should be suppressed.

If not fixed

Potential fines of millions per violation. CRTC enforcement. List destruction. Campaign suspension.

Violation #3

Drip Pricing: CMA Enforcement Priority

The context

A SaaS client's pricing page was written and managed by the agency. It had been running for eight months generating significant paid traffic.

What the checker found

The £29 figure appears in the hero, the ads and the Google Shopping feed. The actual first month cost is £29 plus a mandatory £49 onboarding fee plus VAT: a total of £92.80 for month one. This is drip pricing. The CMA has made drip pricing one of its top enforcement priorities under the Digital Markets Competition and Consumers Act 2024. The agency that wrote and managed this campaign is in the chain of liability.

The fix

The advertised price must represent the total mandatory cost from the first point of contact. Either include all fees in the headline price, or clearly state 'from £29/month + £49 setup fee' in every placement. This must be updated in ads, landing page and comparison sites simultaneously.

If not fixed

CMA enforcement notice. Fines without court order under DMCC Act 2024. Ad account suspension. Chargeback wave from existing customers.

Violation #4

EU AI Act Article 50: Undisclosed AI Copy, August 2026

The context

A content agency used ChatGPT to write blog posts, email sequences and ad copy for twelve clients. The content was edited and published without any disclosure that AI was used in its creation.

What the checker found

EU AI Act Article 50(4) comes into force on 2 August 2026. It requires that AI generated content intended for public audiences is clearly disclosed. This copy was written by ChatGPT, edited by a human, and then published with the claim that it comes from 'genuine human expertise.' That is not disclosure, it is the opposite. The agency is producing this content for twelve clients across the EU market. Every piece of undisclosed AI content published after 2 August 2026 is a violation. Fines reach €15 million or 3% of global annual turnover.

The fix

Add disclosure language to all AI assisted content: 'This content was created with the assistance of AI writing tools and reviewed by [Name] on [Date].' Document your human editorial review process. Update all client contracts to include AI tool usage clauses.

If not fixed

Fines up to €15 million or 3% of global annual turnover. ICO investigation. PI insurance exclusions may apply to AI generated content claims.

Violation #5

Greenwashing: EU Green Claims Directive and CMA Enforcement

The context

A fashion brand client briefed the agency to write copy positioning their new product line as sustainable. The agency wrote the copy based on information provided by the client's marketing team.

What the checker found

Every environmental claim in this copy requires substantiation under the EU Green Claims Directive, the CMA Green Claims Code and the FTC Green Guides. 'Eco-friendly' is a vague claim with no legal definition. 'Carbon neutral' requires independently verified offsets under a recognised standard. 'Kind to the planet' is meaningless under any regulatory framework. The agency wrote and published this copy without asking the client for substantiation.

The fix

Never write environmental claims without first obtaining documented substantiation from the client. 'Carbon neutral' requires a specific offsetting certificate. 'Eco friendly' must be replaced with a specific, verifiable claim. Add a clause to your agency agreement requiring clients to provide evidence before you write sustainability claims.

If not fixed

CMA enforcement notice and public censure. EU Commission investigation. Product withdrawal from EU market. Agency named in proceedings.

Violation #6

Affiliate Non Disclosure: FTC Criminal Referral Territory

The context

An agency managed an influencer campaign for a supplement brand. Twenty influencers posted content. The agency briefed them, managed the contracts and approved the content.

What the checker found

Twenty influencers posted variations of this without any disclosure. No #ad. No #sponsored. No 'paid partnership.' The agency briefed them, paid them and approved the content. Under FTC Endorsement Guides 2023, the agency that organises and manages an influencer campaign bears direct responsibility for disclosure failures. The FTC has issued civil investigative demands to agencies, not just brands, for exactly this pattern. Each post is a separate violation.

The fix

Every piece of paid, gifted or incentivised influencer content must include clear, prominent disclosure before any promotional content. '#Ad' or 'Paid partnership with [Brand]' must appear at the start of the caption. The agency's influencer brief must include mandatory disclosure language and the contract must require it.

If not fixed

FTC civil investigative demand. ASA public ruling. CMA enforcement notice. Agency named publicly.