Practitioners — Lawyers · published 2026-05-26 · methodology v2.1

Consumer testing of communications — mandatory rule or non-binding guidance?

RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q007

What the RLB Specialist Panel found

4. Consumer testing of communications — mandatory rule or non-binding guidance?

Question (paraphrased to protect IP): Is consumer testing of communications a mandatory requirement under the Consumer Duty? What does PRIN 2A.5 require versus what FG22/5 recommends on this point?
Source regulation: Consumer Duty (PS22/9 + PRIN 2A), Financial Conduct Authority (Regulator portal: https://www.fca.org.uk)
What AI assistants typically say: The AI described consumer testing as "not an absolute mandatory rule" but then attributed the testing requirement to a specific binding Handbook rule — PRIN 2A.5.10R — which it characterised as requiring firms to test the effectiveness of their communications "where appropriate." This specific rule reference does not reflect the regulatory position and cannot be found in the Handbook.
What the regulator actually says: FG22/5 contains guidance (not rules) recommending firms should consider consumer testing of communications. PRIN 2A.5 requires firms to deliver good consumer understanding outcomes but prescribes no specific methodology.
Why the AI went wrong: The AI invented a specific binding rule reference to support a legal claim about consumer testing obligations, attributing to a rule what the FCA placed only in non-binding guidance. A lawyer relying on this fabricated rule reference and including it in advice or a compliance memo would be providing a citation that has no basis in the Handbook.
Cited source(s):
https://handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/PRIN/2A/5.html — Pretextual
https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/finalised-guidance/fg22-5.pdf — Pretextual

Impact for this audience

A lawyer advising a regulated firm on whether consumer testing of communications is a binding obligation — for example, when reviewing a firm's compliance programme or responding to an FCA query about its communications approach — needs to distinguish accurately between what PRIN 2A.5 requires and what FG22/5 recommends. The AI invented a specific binding Handbook rule (PRIN 2A.5.10R) requiring consumer testing where appropriate — a reference that has no basis in the FCA Handbook. A compliance memo or legal opinion that includes this fabricated rule reference cannot withstand scrutiny from an FCA review and would expose the drafting lawyer to a professional complaint if the error is identified.

References — raw findings (per AI model)

RLB-H-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q007-Sonnet46 Claude Sonnet 4.6 (web search on)

This finding also affects

← Previous finding Finding 3. Scope of "retail customer" — micro-enterprises and small charities under PRIN 2A Next finding → Finding 5. Quantifying non-monetary benefits in Consumer Duty fair value assessments

Cite this finding

Each finding has a stable Citation ID (RLB-F-… for aggregated case-study findings, RLB-H-… for raw per-model hallucinations) — like a DOI, the ID always resolves to the canonical finding even if URLs change.

Plain text

RegLeg Specialist Panel (2026). "Consumer testing of communications — mandatory rule or non-binding guidance? — Practitioners — Lawyers." Citation ID: RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q007. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research, published 2026-05-26. https://reglegbrief.com/audiences/practitioners/GB/lawyers/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-007/

APA 7th edition

RegLeg Specialist Panel. (2026). Consumer testing of communications — mandatory rule or non-binding guidance? [Hallucination finding RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q007]. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research. https://reglegbrief.com/audiences/practitioners/GB/lawyers/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-007/

Bluebook / OSCOLA (US + UK legal)

RegLeg Specialist Panel, Consumer testing of communications — mandatory rule or non-binding guidance? [RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q007], RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research (May 26, 2026), https://reglegbrief.com/audiences/practitioners/GB/lawyers/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-007/.

BibTeX

@misc{reglegbrief_RLB_F_GB_FCA_CONSUMER_DUTY_PS22_9_Q007,
  author    = {RegLeg Specialist Panel},
  title     = {Consumer testing of communications — mandatory rule or non-binding guidance?},
  year      = {2026},
  publisher = {RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research},
  note      = {Hallucination finding Citation ID: RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q007},
  url       = {https://reglegbrief.com/audiences/practitioners/GB/lawyers/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-007/}
}

← Back to case study summary Case study detail →

About Citation IDs →