August 18, 2026 · Crypto

Financial Promotions and Crypto Ads in the UK: How to Read Claims Critically

In this guide

UK crypto financial promotions: the published FCA context

The FCA’s published materials set out a specific regulatory context for UK crypto financial promotions. The regulator’s June 2023 policy statement classifies cryptoassets as Restricted Mass Market Investments and explains that marketing to UK consumers is permitted subject to restrictions alongside the general requirement that communications be fair, clear and not misleading. The FCA’s publications identify a group of required or expected features for such communications, and state that the rules and expectations are relevant to a broad set of participants who may be involved in marketing, approving or otherwise communicating promotions in the UK.

Key points set out by the FCA in PS23/6 and linked guidance include:

The proposed classification of cryptoassets as Restricted Mass Market Investments, permitting marketing to UK consumers subject to restrictions and the overarching fair, clear and not misleading requirement;
That stated restrictions include clear risk warnings, a ban on incentives to invest, so-called positive frictions, client categorisation requirements and appropriateness assessments;
The FCA’s description that the rules are directly relevant to consumers considering cryptoassets, FCA-registered cryptoasset businesses, overseas cryptoasset firms marketing to UK consumers, authorised firms communicating or approving promotions, and other people involved in communicating promotions;
The FCA’s statement that financial promotions rules apply to firms marketing cryptoassets to UK consumers regardless of where the firm is based or what technology is used;
Reference to Finalised Guidance FG23/3 as setting out the FCA’s expectations for communication and approval, with PS23/6 noting it does not create new obligations but relates to existing regulatory obligations.

Readers looking for the regulator’s primary policy text can consult the FCA’s June 2023 policy statement at this link: FCA PS23/6.

What a financial promotion is in this FCA context

In the FCA material referenced above, the term financial promotion is used in relation to communications about cryptoassets that are aimed at, or likely to be received by, UK consumers. The regulator’s published position emphasises that the rules governing financial promotions apply to marketing of cryptoassets to UK consumers whether the promoter is based in the UK or overseas, and without regard to the technology used to deliver the communication.

Within this regulatory context, the FCA positions the financial-promotion rules as a framework that sets minimum expectations for how marketing and related communications reach consumers. The FCA’s statements and guidance set out both high-level tests (such as the fair, clear and not misleading standard) and a set of more specific restrictions and procedural expectations that are described as relevant where marketing concerns qualifying cryptoassets.

The fair, clear and not misleading standard

The FCA’s published materials consistently reference a core standard: all qualifying financial promotions must be fair, clear and not misleading. That standard sits above and alongside the other stated restrictions specific to cryptoasset communications. The FCA’s commentary links this overarching requirement to the need for prominent and understandable risk information and to discouragement of communications that may obscure or omit material downside or uncertainty.

In the FCA’s language, the fair, clear and not misleading requirement is a general regulatory threshold that applies across the various permitted routes for communicating cryptoasset promotions to UK consumers. The FCA’s policy material stresses that this standard should be observed together with any specific presentation or content requirements that apply to cryptoasset promotions.

Four FCA-described communication routes

In its October 2023 statement on common issues, the FCA describes four routes through which qualifying cryptoasset promotions can be lawfully communicated to UK consumers. The FCA’s description frames these routes as alternatives that operate within the existing financial-promotions regime; the regulator sets out these routes as options that firms may take if they wish to communicate qualifying promotions lawfully.

Communication by an authorised person;
Approval by an authorised person;
Communication by a crypto firm registered under the Money Laundering Regulations;
A promotion meeting the conditions of an exemption in the Financial Promotion Order.

The FCA’s published statement that lists these four routes is available here: Common issues with crypto marketing.

What the FCA says changed from October 2023

The FCA’s publications set out a timeline of scope and expectations. In the regulator’s description, the strengthened ‘back-end’ rules were brought into scope from October 2023. The FCA also records that an implementation modification — a temporary adjustment to the timetable for full compliance — expired on 8 January 2024, after which firms were required to be compliant with the standard as described.

The FCA’s subsequent monitoring and assessment work describes the back-end rules as applying, in particular, to new consumers who request what the regulator calls a Direct Offer Financial Promotion. The FCA’s August 2024 publication on assessing compliance with these back-end rules reports on how the expectations were being implemented and evaluated against firms’ systems and processes.

Those publications together therefore describe a sequence in which the policy was set out in 2023 and then subject to monitoring and assessment as firms were required to operate within the stated requirements from the dates the FCA specified.

For the FCA’s summary of the policy development and its final policy statement, see PS23/6: PS23/6.

Risk warnings, incentives and “positive frictions”

A central element identified across the FCA’s publications is the regulator’s expectation that communications about qualifying cryptoassets include clear, prominent risk warnings and avoid presenting the product in a way that suggests safety or inevitability of returns. The FCA’s June 2023 material lists clear risk warnings, a ban on incentives to invest and so-called positive frictions among the stated restrictions for marketing qualifying cryptoassets.

The October 2023 common-issues statement reinforces these points, emphasising that qualifying promotions must be fair, clear and not misleading, that they must carry prominent risk warnings, and that they must not inappropriately incentivise investment. The FCA’s descriptions link the presence and presentation of risk information to the overarching fair, clear and not misleading standard.

The FCA’s published language on “positive frictions” frames these as procedural or structural requirements intended to ensure that consumers encounter deliberate moments of pause or further information before making an onward commitment arising from a promotion. The regulator includes positive frictions, alongside client categorisation and appropriateness checks, in the set of measures it expects where a qualifying cryptoasset promotion is communicated.

The FCA’s described cooling-off period

One of the specific back-end features described in the FCA’s August 2024 assessment is a minimum cooling-off period. The FCA’s published description identifies a minimum 24-hour period that should elapse before a Direct Offer Financial Promotion is presented to a new consumer who has requested such a promotion. The regulator’s assessment materials present that minimum period as a component of the strengthened rules that were being assessed.

The FCA’s text frames the cooling-off period as part of a set of measures intended to ensure consumers have time and clear information before facing a direct promotional offer. The August 2024 report situates the cooling-off period within a broader set of back-end requirements that the FCA reviewed when assessing compliance.

For the FCA’s published assessment of these back-end rules and the cooling-off period, see the August 2024 paper: Assessing firms’ compliance with ‘back end’ cryptoasset financial promotions rules.

Personalised risk-warning context

The FCA’s August 2024 publication describes expectations about personalised risk warnings as part of the back-end requirements for Direct Offer Financial Promotions. The regulator’s published description sets out that, where a personalised risk warning is used, it should identify the client by name, present a risk warning and include a link to an accessible risk summary. This appears in the FCA’s account of back-end measures intended to make risk information more prominent and more personalised for consumers who request direct offers.

The assessments in the FCA’s August 2024 material present the personalised risk warning as an element that regulators reviewed as part of evaluating whether firms met the strengthened standards in practice. The FCA’s report includes examples of observed practice in firms’ handling of personalised risk warnings and the surrounding presentation and record-keeping steps.

Client categorisation and appropriateness in the FCA material

Client categorisation and appropriateness assessments are identified across the FCA’s publications as relevant parts of the cryptoasset financial-promotion framework. The regulator’s August 2024 description notes that client categorisation is valid for 12 months and discusses the Restricted, High Net Worth and Certificated Sophisticated categories within its explanatory text. The FCA’s material also specifies that the self-certified sophisticated investor status is not applicable to cryptoassets.

The FCA’s August 2024 assessment lists client categorisation, appropriateness assessments, record keeping and due diligence among the components of the strengthened back-end rules it reviewed. The FCA’s narrative treats these elements as interrelated: client categorisation feeds into which consumers may lawfully be shown particular promotions, and appropriateness assessments are referenced as part of the necessary determination of whether a direct offer is suitable to an individual client category.

Further, the FCA’s materials indicate that firms’ approaches to client categorisation and appropriateness were subjects of supervisory focus when the regulator examined implementation following the October 2023 scoping of the rules and the expiry of the temporary implementation modification on 8 January 2024.

The FCA’s common-issues statement

In October 2023 the FCA published a short statement identifying common issues it had observed in crypto marketing. The regulator named three recurring themes and reiterated that qualifying promotions must be fair, clear and not misleading, must carry prominent risk warnings and should avoid inappropriate incentives to invest.

The FCA’s three common issues, as described in that publication, are:

Claims about safety, security or ease of use presented without accompanying risk information;
Risk warnings not being sufficiently visible because of small font sizes, hard-to-read colour contrasts or non-prominent positioning;
Inadequate information about risks associated with specific products being promoted.

The FCA’s common-issues statement also reiterates the four routes to lawful communication of qualifying cryptoasset promotions (communication by an authorised person; approval by an authorised person; communication by a crypto firm registered under the Money Laundering Regulations; or a promotion meeting the conditions of an exemption in the Financial Promotion Order) and the regulator’s general point that the regime applies to firms marketing to UK consumers regardless of location or technology. The statement concludes with the regulator’s reminder that cryptoassets remain high-risk and largely unregulated.

The FCA’s October 2023 statement is available here: Common issues with crypto marketing.

Compact comparison of the FCA’s three common-issue themes

FCA common-issue theme	FCA-described context
Safety, security or ease claims without risks	The FCA reported that promotions claiming safety, security or ease of use sometimes omitted accompanying risk information, contrary to the fair, clear and not misleading standard.
Risk warnings with low visibility	The FCA observed risk warnings that were not prominent because of small fonts, poor colour contrast or non-prominent placement.
Inadequate product-specific risk information	The FCA noted instances where promotions lacked sufficient information on risks associated with the specific product that was being promoted.

How to distinguish a promotional claim from published regulatory context

The FCA’s publications make a clear distinction between the content of a promotional claim and the surrounding regulatory expectations that apply to how that claim is presented and to which consumers it may be shown. The FCA’s materials identify particular presentation and procedural features — such as prominent risk warnings, the absence of incentives to invest and the availability of positive frictions and appropriateness checks — as part of the regulatory context in which a promotional claim will be assessed.

When the FCA describes promotional content, it focuses on the message and presentation of the claim itself; when it describes regulatory expectations, it sets out the features of presentation, timing and categorisation that it expects to accompany or modulate that promotion. The FCA’s statements therefore provide a basis for distinguishing:

the substantive content of the promotional claim (what is being said about the product or service), from
the contextual regulatory requirements or expectations about how that content is presented, to which audiences it may be shown and what additional steps should occur before a transaction or direct offer.

That distinction is reflected across the FCA’s guidance and assessments. In the regulator’s published view, a claim that asserts ease, safety or similar attributes may be treated differently depending on whether the communication also includes prominent risk information, whether a ban on incentives is respected, and whether the stated back-end measures (for example, positive frictions or appropriateness checks) are implemented in the process that leads from promotion to sale.

The FCA’s materials underline that the same promotional wording might be considered within different regulatory contexts depending on how it is presented and who is shown the promotion. The FCA’s published work maps these contextual features rather than providing case-by-case outcomes for readers.

What the FCA’s publication does not decide for a reader

The FCA’s policy and supervisory publications describe regulatory expectations, operational features and observed examples of practice; they do not make decisions for individual readers about whether any particular promotion, product or firm is suitable, safe or endorsed. PS23/6 states that Finalised Guidance FG23/3 sets out the FCA’s expectations for communications and approvals, and PS23/6 clarifies that the guidance does not create new obligations beyond existing regulatory requirements.

The FCA’s assessments and common-issues commentary identify features the regulator considers important or problematic, but the publications do not themselves determine an individual’s personal circumstances, suitability or the intrinsic risk profile of any specific asset. The FCA’s descriptive publications are framed as regulator-to-market communications: they explain policy, provide expectations for industry and report on supervisory observations without yielding case-specific determinations for consumers.

Put differently, the FCA’s published position is a statement of regulatory framing and supervisory findings; it is not a substitute for individual decision-making processes that take account of an individual’s circumstances, nor is it an assertion about the merits or demerits of any particular asset or promotional approach beyond the general statements the FCA makes in its policy texts.

Why a promotion is not a verdict on a product or personal position

A financial promotion is a communication that aims to present information about a product or service to potential investors or consumers. The FCA’s publications repeatedly separate the status of a communication from any definitive finding about the safety, legality or suitability of the underlying product. The regulator emphasises that cryptoassets remain high-risk and largely unregulated, and the policy materials are intended to make that general position visible when promotions are communicated.

The FCA’s approach treats promotional communications as one piece of the information environment that a consumer encounters. The regulator’s publications address how that piece should be presented, who may lawfully communicate it and what accompanying processes should exist. They do not, in themselves, serve as a regulatory endorsement of any product or a definitive assessment of how that product will perform in future.

The FCA’s commentary stresses that promotional claims should not convey a false sense of safety or minimise the risks involved. The regulator’s published work therefore draws a line between permissible communication (subject to the stated restrictions and standards) and any assertion that a promotion equates to an assessment or approval of the underlying product.

Financial promotions and other UK crypto frameworks

The FCA’s publications on financial promotions operate alongside other UK frameworks and reporting regimes that touch on cryptoassets. The FCA’s material explicitly confines its statements to the scope of the financial-promotion rules and the related supervisory expectations it sets out; other frameworks and reporting requirements exist independently and address different regulatory objectives.

One separate framework is the UK’s Cryptoasset Reporting Framework (CARF), which is a reporting regime distinct from the financial-promotion rules and has its own purpose and mechanisms. CARF is addressed in other official and industry material that sets out reporting obligations rather than marketing or communications standards. For more information on CARF, see this OGM explainer: Cryptoasset Reporting Framework (CARF) — OGM.

The FCA’s financial-promotion publications should also be read alongside the wider body of FCA policy and guidance that covers cryptoassets in other respects; the regulator’s policy statement and finalised guidance are part of a broader regulatory landscape in which different instruments and streams of supervision operate.

Framework or context	Primary focus (published description)
Financial promotions (FCA publications)	Regulatory expectations for how qualifying cryptoasset promotions are communicated to UK consumers, including fair, clear and not misleading standard, risk warnings, bans on incentives, positive frictions and client categorisation.
Cryptoasset Reporting Framework (CARF)	CARF is a reporting framework distinct from financial-promotion rules; its primary focus is reporting of certain transactions rather than the presentation of promotional material. See OGM coverage for more information.
Wider FCA cryptoasset regime	A broader set of regulatory policy, registration and supervisory measures concerning cryptoassets. FCA publications set out parts of this regime in their own documents; financial-promotion rules are one component within the broader landscape.

Reading FCA terminology as regulatory context

The FCA’s published material uses particular terms that carry regulatory weight. For anyone reading public accounts of UK crypto financial promotions, recognising how those terms are used is part of understanding the rules being described. Three FCA documents published across 2023–2024 are the primary sources for the regulatory language referenced in this supplement. For quick reference they are the policy statement PS23/6, the October 2023 common-issues note, and the August 2024 assessment of back-end compliance; links to each are provided in the body below.

At the centre of the FCA’s framing is the classification of many cryptoassets within PS23/6 as Restricted Mass Market Investments. That classification sits alongside an explicit, overarching standard: communications must be fair, clear and not misleading. PS23/6 then sets out a number of stated restrictions that sit under that standard. Those restrictions are described in the policy material as including clear risk warnings, a ban on incentives, so-called “positive frictions”, client categorisation and appropriateness assessments. The policy text also makes clear that the scope of the regime covers marketing to UK consumers regardless of the firm’s location or the technology by which the promotion is delivered.

Readers of regulatory commentary on UK crypto financial promotions will encounter the FCA’s phraseology repeatedly: direct offer financial promotion; client categorisation; appropriateness assessments; personalised or product‑specific risk warnings; positive frictions; and references to four lawful communication routes. In plain terms, those are labels used by the regulator to describe distinct parts of the regime. The labels themselves are not the entirety of the rules but serve as a controlled vocabulary for the FCA’s assessment and public explanation of compliance issues.

Because the FCA uses the same terminology across different publications, it is possible to trace how the regulator has articulated the same concepts at different times. That continuity is deliberate: the FCA’s statements and assessments aim to present a coherent framework for how the rules apply to UK-targeted marketing of cryptoassets. The three primary FCA sources cited in this supplement are:

Reading FCA terminology as regulatory context means treating these labels as descriptive shorthand for obligations and observed behaviours that the FCA records. This supplement aims to unpack that shorthand while remaining strictly tied to the FCA statements themselves.

The FCA’s published account of direct-offer stages

PS23/6 and the later FCA material outline how the FCA sees the lifecycle of a direct-offer financial promotion. The word “direct offer” is used by the FCA to identify promotions that directly invite a UK consumer to invest or otherwise participate, rather than communications sent via an intermediary or to a professional market only.

The August 2024 assessment elaborates parts of the back-end process the FCA examined in a sample of firms. The assessment describes a 24-hour cooling-off period where a new consumer requesting a Direct Offer Financial Promotion is given time before a transaction proceeds. It also details expectations the FCA observed, such as personalised risk warnings tailored to the product, client categorisation and appropriateness checks, together with record keeping and due diligence practices the FCA reviewed.

The FCA’s account of direct-offer stages in the assessment acts as an analytical map of the moments when specific compliance elements appear. It highlights the points where a promotion moves from an initial offer to an execution point where categorisation and suitability (or appropriateness) work are recorded. The assessment reports findings and provides examples of good and poor practice from the sample of firms it reviewed. That reporting is framed as a description of what the FCA saw in that sample, including where personalisation of risk information occurred and where it did not.

Across PS23/6 and the assessment, the FCA’s emphasis on a staged account is evident: initial marketing and promotional material; the point when a UK consumer indicates intent to proceed; the period for any cooling-off or reconsideration; any checks applied to categorise the client; and the appropriateness assessment that follows. The FCA’s language flags each of those moments as relevant to whether a direct offer complies with the overarching fair, clear and not misleading standard and with the specific constraints PS23/6 names.

Why the FCA separates warning, categorisation and appropriateness language

The FCA’s documents distinguish among three strands of the compliance apparatus: risk warnings; client categorisation; and appropriateness assessments. Each strand is described separately in the policy and assessments even though, in practice, they are often sequential and interdependent in communications concerning UK crypto financial promotions.

PS23/6 articulates the need for clear risk warnings as a distinct requirement under the broader standard. The October 2023 statement reinforces that point by highlighting common issues where risk information is obscured or insufficiently prominent. Separating the language for risk warnings allows the FCA to call out specific presentation and content shortcomings without conflating them with other procedural requirements.

Client categorisation is a different regulatory construct. In the August 2024 assessment, the FCA sets out how it observed firm practice around categorisation. The assessment names three categories that are relevant in the context of cryptoasset communications: Restricted, High Net Worth and Certificated Sophisticated. It also reports the FCA’s position that the self-certified sophisticated investor route is not applicable to cryptoassets. The FCA treats categorisation as a discrete administrative and evidential process: a client’s category determines what communications or services are lawful for that person and the type of checks a firm might apply.

Appropriateness assessments sit alongside categorisation in the FCA’s narrative but serve a function distinct from labelling. Where client categorisation is a status or label that can be valid for a period of time, appropriateness is an assessment of whether a specific product or service is suitable given the client’s knowledge and experience. The FCA’s August 2024 assessment reports that appropriateness checks were among the elements it reviewed, as part of the back-end compliance picture.

By separating these three strands in its publications, the FCA can examine and report on the specific weaknesses or strengths in each area. For example, a firm might present adequate categorisation evidence but still fail to display a prominent, product-specific risk warning. Conversely, another firm might provide a clear warning but fail to carry out an appropriate assessment or to record due diligence in a way the FCA finds satisfactory. The separation in language therefore supports a granular assessment of compliance across the different parts of a consumer journey.

“Prominent” risk information in the common-issues statement

The October 2023 common-issues statement focuses tightly on presentation and content defects the FCA had observed in marketing. It underlines that promotions must be fair, clear and not misleading, and that risk warnings need to be prominent. The statement lists specific presentation failures that the FCA encountered in the reviews that informed the note.

The common-issues statement identifies three recurring presentation problems: claims about safety, security or ease that lack any accompanying risk context; risk warnings that are obscured by small fonts, hard-to-read colours or placement that diminishes visibility; and a lack of product-specific risk information that would allow a consumer to see how general risks apply to a particular offering.

“Prominent” in the FCA’s usage therefore carries two complementary meanings: content prominence, meaning that the warning must provide product-specific context rather than generic caveats; and visual prominence, meaning that the warning’s presentation must be sufficiently readable and visible within the promotion. The FCA’s phrasing in the October 2023 statement links those two senses to its overall fair, clear and not misleading standard.

The October 2023 account also reiterates the FCA’s view that promotions should not inappropriately incentivise investment. That is presented alongside the visual and content issues. In short, the FCA’s common-issues note treats prominence as both what the words say and how clearly they can be seen and understood in the marketing material.

The difference between an FCA observation and a personal assessment

The FCA’s publications draw a distinction between reporting what the regulator observed and offering an assessment tailored to any individual or firm. The October 2023 statement and the August 2024 assessment both describe findings from reviews; those findings are framed as the FCA’s observations about practice in a sample of materials or firms, not as determinations about a specific other party beyond that sample.

When the FCA reports that certain practices were common issues, the language is reporting an observed pattern: marketing that made safety claims without risk context, or warnings that were obscured. When the FCA in August 2024 reports on what it saw in its back-end compliance assessment, it likewise presents examples of good and poor practice from the firms it reviewed. That reporting is descriptive of the FCA’s sample and its assessment methodology.

Readers should distinguish an FCA observation from an individual compliance determination for a particular third party. The FCA’s public statements summarise regulatory expectations and note common failings. They do not, in these documents, replace an assessment that would be carried out in the context of an enforcement action, a specific supervisory review of a named firm, or the provision of tailored regulatory advice. The FCA’s material is therefore evidence of the regulator’s concerns and priorities, and of what it judged to be features of good or poor practice in the sample it reviewed.

Four routes as FCA terminology, not a reader pathway

Across its publications the FCA describes four lawful communication routes for financial promotions. That description is part of the regulator’s explanation of the legal architecture that governs how firms may communicate about regulated investments, including those classified as Restricted Mass Market Investments under PS23/6.

It is important to read the FCA’s reference to “four routes” as an element of the regulator’s structure for analysing the permissibility of communications, rather than a prescriptive user journey. The phrase is regulatory terminology: the FCA identifies lawful routes to place a financial promotion in the market and then uses that framework to assess whether a specific communication fits within one of those routes.

The October 2023 statement uses that language to situate its observations about common issues. It is part of the FCA’s toolkit for explaining where, in its view, particular communications had fallen short of the legal and regulatory tests. The regulator’s description of four lawful communication routes is therefore best understood as an organisational device in the FCA’s public explanation of the financial-promotion regime and how it applies to UK crypto financial promotions.

What the 12-month categorisation reference does and does not say

In the August 2024 assessment, the FCA reports on how firms handled client categorisation. The assessment names the categories the FCA regards as relevant for cryptoasset communications: Restricted, High Net Worth and Certificated Sophisticated. It also reports that the FCA observed in the firms it reviewed that a categorisation of a client was valid for 12 months.

Two points follow from the FCA’s language in the assessment. First, the 12-month reference is presented as the period for which a categorisation record remained valid in the sample evidence the FCA reviewed. The FCA reports that firms in the sample treated client categorisation as having a 12-month validity period when they recorded a client’s category.

Second, the FCA’s assessment simultaneously notes that the self-certified sophisticated investor route is not applicable to cryptoassets. The FCA’s published material therefore draws a distinction between different categorisation routes in the context of cryptoasset communications and records how firms applied (or did not apply) those routes in practice.

What the August 2024 wording does not do is provide new legal definitions or to extend categorisation rights beyond the scenarios the FCA describes. The assessment reports on observed practice and the FCA’s interpretation of how categorisation interacted with the promotion rules in the sample it reviewed. The 12-month reference in that document is an observation about the period over which categorisation evidence was treated as current by the firms examined rather than an open-ended legal prescription independent of context.

The role of record keeping and due diligence in the published assessment

The FCA’s August 2024 assessment includes consideration of record keeping and due diligence as part of the review of back-end compliance. The assessment reports that the FCA examined whether firms had recorded the steps they had taken at key points: when a consumer requested a direct offer; when a client was categorised; and when appropriateness checks were carried out.

Within the FCA’s account, record keeping and due diligence are presented as elements that enable the regulator to review and reproduce the steps taken by firms in particular cases. The FCA’s reporting points to record keeping as the means by which firms can demonstrate the application of client categorisation, the provision of personalised or product-specific risk warnings, the use of cooling-off periods and the execution of appropriateness assessments.

Equally, the assessment shows that the FCA used the presence or absence of records to distinguish good from poor practice in its sample. It reports examples where firms both did and did not keep sufficient documentation to evidence compliance with the processes described elsewhere in the FCA’s material. The description in the FCA’s assessment is therefore both procedural (what the regulator reviewed) and evidential (what the regulator found in the sample under review).

Readers encountering the FCA’s emphasis on record keeping will see it as part of the regulator’s method for assessing whether the stated processes — categorisation, warnings, cooling-off and appropriateness checks — were actually applied. The FCA’s own account treats records and due diligence as a central part of the back-end compliance picture it examined.

A neutral chronology of the published FCA material

Setting the FCA publications in chronological order clarifies how the regulator’s public commentary progressed over time. The documents referenced in this supplement appear in the FCA’s public record in the following sequence:

October 2023 — the FCA published a statement identifying common issues in crypto marketing. That statement sets out presentation and content failings the FCA had observed, reiterating the fair, clear and not misleading standard and noting the necessity of prominent risk warnings and the prohibition on inappropriate incentives. It also described the four lawful communication routes and restated that the regime applied to marketing targeted at UK consumers regardless of firm location or technology.
PS23/6 — the FCA’s policy statement (dated in 2023) describes the classification of many cryptoassets as Restricted Mass Market Investments. The policy statement established the overarching standard that promotions must be fair, clear and not misleading and set out stated restrictions including clear risk warnings, an incentives ban, positive frictions, client categorisation and appropriateness assessments. It also recorded that the scope covers marketing to UK consumers regardless of firm location or technology.
August 2024 — the FCA published an assessment of back-end compliance with the cryptoasset financial promotions rules. That assessment set out the FCA’s findings from a sample of firms, reporting examples of good and poor practice and noting particular aspects such as a 24-hour cooling-off period for new consumers requesting direct offers, personalised risk warnings, client categorisation, appropriateness checks, record keeping and due diligence. It named the categories Restricted, High Net Worth and Certificated Sophisticated and recorded that categorisation evidence was treated as valid for 12 months in the sample reviewed; it also noted that the self-certified sophisticated investor route did not apply to cryptoassets.

Seen together and in order, these documents show a progression from public identification of widespread marketing weaknesses, to a formal policy framing in PS23/6, to a subsequent review of how firms handled the procedural and evidential aspects of compliance. The chronology is relevant for understanding how the regulator’s public explanations and assessments of practice relate to one another.

Comparing FCA policy, the October 2023 common-issues statement and the August 2024 assessment
Document	Primary focus (as stated by the FCA)	Key elements highlighted in the FCA text	Scope remarks in the FCA text
PS23/6 (policy statement, 2023)	Policy framework for cryptoasset financial promotions	Classification of cryptoassets as Restricted Mass Market Investments; overarching fair, clear and not misleading standard; restrictions including clear risk warnings, incentives ban, positive frictions, client categorisation and appropriateness assessments	Scope applies to marketing to UK consumers regardless of firm location or technology
October 2023 common-issues statement	Observed marketing defects and presentation failures	Safety/security/ease claims without risk context; risk warnings obscured by small fonts, poor colours or placement; inadequate product-specific risk information; need for prominent warnings; prohibition on inappropriate incentives; description of four lawful communication routes	States regime applies to UK-targeted marketing regardless of firm location or technology
August 2024 assessment	Back-end compliance review based on a sample of firms	24-hour cooling-off for new consumers requesting a Direct Offer Financial Promotion; personalised risk warnings; client categorisation and appropriateness checks; record keeping and due diligence; examples of good and poor practice; naming of categories: Restricted, High Net Worth and Certificated Sophisticated; self-certified sophisticated route not applicable to cryptoassets	Observations drawn from a firm sample; records showed categorisation treated as valid for 12 months in the cases reviewed

Questions a public-information article can answer — and questions it cannot

A public-information piece that draws on the FCA’s published material can responsibly do several things while staying within the limits of what the FCA has said. It can summarise the regulator’s stated standards and the categories of communication the FCA has discussed. It can explain the regulatory terms the FCA uses, and highlight the specific problems the regulator has publicly recorded, such as the presentation faults set out in the October 2023 statement and the procedural elements the FCA reviewed in August 2024.

Such an article can also illuminate the chronology of the FCA’s public commentary and the relationship among the documents: PS23/6’s policy framing, the October 2023 common-issues observations about presentation, and the August 2024 assessment of back-end compliance. Where the FCA’s texts name features of good or poor practice in a sample of firms, a public-information article can report those examples as the FCA described them.

What a public-information article cannot do, if it remains within the FCA facts, is to offer bespoke compliance advice or to draw conclusions about a specific firm’s compliance status beyond what the FCA has published. It cannot, on the basis of the FCA’s public statements alone, provide legal or regulatory determinations for an individual case. The FCA’s publications describe samples, policy positions and common issues; they are not substitutes for case-specific regulatory decisions or tailored legal guidance.

Equally, a public-information article that adheres strictly to the FCA facts should avoid inventing additional examples, citing cases or enforcement outcomes not contained in the documents, or asserting statistical claims absent from the FCA texts. The FCA’s own documents record specific findings and examples from their sample reviews; any broader generalisation beyond those documents’ stated scope would go beyond the published sources.

Closing context on high-risk cryptoasset communications

The FCA’s chosen language across PS23/6, the October 2023 statement and the August 2024 assessment frames many cryptoasset communications as high risk. That framing is visible in the regulator’s classification of many cryptoassets as Restricted Mass Market Investments and in the emphasis on clear, personalised and product-specific risk information, and on procedural checks such as categorisation and appropriateness.

Readers examining the FCA’s public material will find a consistent set of concerns: marketing that gives a misleading impression of safety or ease; risk information that is visually or substantively inadequate; procedural records that are incomplete or that do not show the steps the FCA says it expects to see in a given sample; and a regulatory vocabulary that treats categorisation and appropriateness as distinct but connected compliance elements. The FCA’s assessment work and public statements together form a record of those concerns and of the regulator’s effort to explain them to a wider audience.

For further reading of the primary sources cited in this supplement, the FCA publications referenced here are available directly from the regulator’s site: the PS23/6 policy statement, the October 2023 common-issues statement, and the August 2024 assessment of back-end compliance for cryptoasset financial promotions.

OGM has published related material that situates the financial-promotion discussion within broader UK regulatory developments. These pieces are offered as editorial context and explanatory coverage rather than guidance:

No-advice statement

This article summarises published FCA material on UK crypto financial promotions. It is general information only and not personalised investment, legal, financial, tax or compliance advice.

For the FCA’s policy statement and finalised position on financial-promotion rules for cryptoassets, see: PS23/6. For the FCA’s published assessment of back-end compliance expectations, including the cooling-off period and personalised risk-warning descriptions, see: Assessing firms’ compliance with ‘back end’ cryptoasset financial promotions rules. For the FCA’s note on common issues observed in crypto marketing, see: Common issues with crypto marketing.