Does saying “this isn’t financial advice” protect you in the UK or US?

Not from the regulators. In the UK and the US, whether a post counts as regulated advice or an illegal promotion depends on what it says and whether it’s part of a business. A line saying it isn’t financial advice doesn’t change either. No UK or US law, regulator or court we could find treats that sentence as a defence.

We say it too. Our Warren Buffett video ends with a “Not financial advice” note. That video showed what two S&P 500 trackers cost and didn’t tell anyone to buy them, and the rules below care far more about that than about the note.

This guide covers the rules as of September 2026. The checker further down asks two questions about a post and tells you which UK rules are likely to apply.

Advice on a particular investment

In the UK, section 19 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) says no one may carry on a regulated activity unless they’re authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) or exempt. Advising on investments is one of those activities. Under article 53 of the Regulated Activities Order, it means advice on the merits of buying, selling, holding or otherwise dealing in a particular investment, such as a share, a fund or a bond.

Breaking that rule is a crime under section 23. The maximum is two years in prison on indictment, or a fine, or both. There’s a defence of taking all reasonable precautions, but nothing in either section mentions disclaimers.

Two limits matter for anyone posting about money:

• It has to be by way of business. The FCA says that usually means some regularity and a commercial purpose, and that things done “out of friendship or for altruistic purposes will not normally amount to a business”. It also says advice “available on a website may also be free of charge to users of the site but be part of a business funded by advertising fees or sponsorship” (PERG 8.34.2G). A monetised channel is likely to be a business.
• It doesn’t have to be personal. The FCA says advice is still covered “even though it may not be given to or directed at a particular investor (for example, advice given in a periodical publication or on a website)” (PERG 8.27.5G). Saying it to everyone isn’t a way out.

General points and plain facts

What keeps most money content outside the advice rules is its subject, not a disclaimer.

• General points aren’t covered. Advice must relate to a particular investment, and “generic or general advice is not covered” (PERG 8.26.1G). The FCA’s examples include the merits of investing in Japan rather than Europe, or investment trusts as opposed to unit trusts. Index funds against picking shares is the same kind of point. It changes if the general point leads into a named share or fund (PERG 8.26.5G).
• Plain facts aren’t advice on their own. The FCA says “advice requires an element of opinion”, and that giving information without any comment or value judgement on its relevance to someone’s decision is not advice (PERG 8.28). A fund’s yearly fee is a fact. Saying it’s the one to buy is an opinion.
• “Buy this share” can be advice. The FCA’s own example of advice on the merits is “I recommend that you take out the ABC investment” (PERG 8.29.7G). The medium doesn’t matter: a publication, broadcast or website is treated the same way (PERG 8.30).

There’s also an exclusion for newspapers, regularly updated news services and broadcasts whose main purpose isn’t advice (article 54). The FCA hasn’t said whether a YouTube or TikTok channel can use it, so we wouldn’t rely on it.

Promoting investments

The second rule is about promotion. Under FSMA section 21, you must not, in the course of business, communicate an “invitation or inducement” to invest unless you’re authorised or an authorised firm has approved it. Breaking it is a crime under section 25, with the same maximum of two years in prison. Promoting crypto has been covered since 8 October 2023.

The FCA’s guidance for finfluencers (FG24/1, March 2024) says:

• The rules don’t depend on how many followers you have (para 4.5).
• Unauthorised influencers promoting products in the course of business without approval “are likely to be communicating an illegal financial promotion” (para 4.12).
• “In the course of business” is read widely. It can include views “for which they will be directly compensated by the online platform” (para 4.22), promoting something to grow a following and “negotiate higher fees in future commercial deals” (para 4.23), and affiliate links (para 4.27).

The guidance only mentions disclaimers once, and not kindly: “it is not sufficient simply to include a disclaimer to the effect that the promotion is ‘for professional investors only’” (para 3.4).

In February 2026, seven reality TV stars were sentenced at Southwark Crown Court after pleading guilty to issuing unauthorised financial promotions. They had promoted a foreign exchange trading scheme on Instagram. Five were fined between £600 and £3,750, one got a conditional discharge and one an absolute discharge, and all seven were ordered to pay costs, according to the FCA’s release of 20 February 2026.

In the US

In December 2022 the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged eight stock influencers with fraud, alleging a scheme to promote shares on Twitter and Discord and sell into the rise. Paragraph 24 of its complaint says: “The Defendants each included disclaimers on their Twitter accounts that they were not providing stock recommendations or financial advice. But they intended for their followers to act on their promotional tweets, and understood that their followers would do so.”

These are allegations. The SEC case has been on hold. In the parallel criminal case, one defendant pleaded guilty in March 2023; the charges against the rest were dismissed in 2024 and reinstated on appeal in October 2025, and their trial is set for May 2027. No court has ruled on the disclaimers.

US law asks for a disclosure instead. Under section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933, if you’re paid to promote a stock or other security, you must disclose that you were paid and how much. In October 2022, Kim Kardashian settled SEC charges for $1.26 million, without admitting or denying them. She had been paid $250,000 to post about EthereumMax’s crypto token on Instagram. The post was tagged as an ad but didn’t say who had paid her or how much.

Who counts as an investment adviser also turns on what you do. Under section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, it’s someone who, for compensation, is in the business of advising others about securities. Genuine publications of general and regular circulation are excluded. In Lowe v. SEC (1985), the Supreme Court applied that to newsletters that didn’t give individual advice, and said the conditions separate genuine publishers from “hit and run tipsters” and “touts”.

Where a disclaimer can help

The one place a disclaimer has clearly worked is when someone sues you for careless advice.

In Hedley Byrne v Heller, decided by the House of Lords in 1963, a bank gave a reference about a customer’s finances marked “For your private use and without responsibility on the part of the bank or its officials”. The advertising agency that relied on it lost over £17,000 when the customer went into liquidation. The Lords said someone giving advice can owe a duty of care, but the bank’s disclaimer meant it had taken on no such duty, so the claim failed.

It’s harder now. Under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, a business can only exclude liability for careless advice causing financial loss if the notice is reasonable (section 2(2)), and it’s up to the business to show that. For consumers, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 says an unfair consumer notice isn’t binding (section 62(2)). In Smith v Eric S Bush (1989), the Lords held that a surveyor’s disclaimer failed the reasonableness test.

Even in 1963, Lord Reid doubted that someone speaking to the public owes a duty to everyone who acts on their words, disclaimer or not. And none of this touches the FCA rules. A disclaimer might affect who can sue you. It doesn’t decide whether you needed to be authorised.

What the law wants you to say

The words the rules ask for are disclosures:

• If you own it, say so. In the UK, anyone making an investment recommendation must present it objectively and disclose their interests or conflicts (UK Market Abuse Regulation, article 20). Talking up something you hold and then selling it without having disclosed that can be market abuse (article 12(2)(d)).
• If someone’s paying you, say so. Paid posts must be obviously identifiable as advertising under the UK advertising rules (FG24/1 para 4.7). In the US, section 17(b) requires the payment and the amount for securities, and the Federal Trade Commission requires endorsers to disclose payments and free products clearly.

Disclosing doesn’t make an unauthorised recommendation or an unapproved promotion legal. It’s what the law asks for on top.

Do you need to say it?

No UK or US rule asks you to say “this isn’t financial advice”. It doesn’t decide whether you needed FCA authorisation or SEC registration, and it doesn’t stop a promotion being illegal. When it’s true, a short line saying your content is general and not about anyone’s situation is an honest label. In the UK it can also help if someone sues over careless advice, though a business’s disclaimer must be reasonable, or fair to consumers.

Our videos explain how things work rather than telling you what to buy, and as of September 2026 no one pays us to mention anything. We’ll keep a short line saying our videos are general and not about your situation, and if we ever own or get paid for something we mention, we’ll say so. Saying so doesn’t by itself make a paid tip legal; other rules can still apply.

Sources

• FSMA 2000 section 19, section 21, section 23 and section 25; Regulated Activities Order article 53 and article 54.
• FCA Handbook PERG 8.26, PERG 8.27, PERG 8.28, PERG 8.29, PERG 8.30 and PERG 8.34.
• FCA FG24/1, finalised guidance on financial promotions on social media, March 2024, and its release of 20 February 2026.
• SEC complaint in SEC v. Constantin et al., December 2022; US Department of Justice case page for United States v. Constantinescu et al.; SEC release on Kim Kardashian, 3 October 2022.
• Securities Act of 1933, section 17; Investment Advisers Act of 1940, section 202; Lowe v. SEC, 472 U.S. 181 (1985); FTC endorsement guides, 16 CFR 255.
• Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465; Smith v Eric S Bush [1990] 1 AC 831; Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, section 2; Consumer Rights Act 2015, section 62.
• UK Market Abuse Regulation article 12 and article 20.

This guide explains the rules as of September 2026. It’s general information, not legal advice about your situation.