AI Hallucination Research › Audiences › Sectors › United Kingdom › Life Insurance › Compliance › Detail › Finding
Life Insurance × Compliance — United Kingdom · published 2026-05-26 · methodology v2.1

Scope of the harm avoidance obligation — customer-accepted risk

RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q003
What the RLB Specialist Panel found

2. Scope of the harm avoidance obligation — customer-accepted risk

  • Question (paraphrased to protect IP): Does the Consumer Duty require firms to prevent all foreseeable harm to retail customers? What is the position where a customer understands and accepts a risk?
  • Source regulation: Consumer Duty (PS22/9 + PRIN 2A), Financial Conduct Authority (Regulator portal: https://www.fca.org.uk)
  • What AI assistants typically say: AI tools state that where a retail customer understands a risk and the firm has acted in good faith, supported the customer's understanding, and avoided harm caused by its own conduct, the customer accepting a risk does not constitute a breach of the Duty. This framing imposes multiple additional conditions the rule does not require.
  • What the regulator actually says: Where a firm reasonably believes a retail customer understands and accepts a risk, the firm will not breach the rule if it fails to prevent that risk from materialising. The standard is the firm's reasonable belief — not a broader set of conduct conditions.
  • Why the AI went wrong: The AI dropped the critical "reasonably believes" qualifier — which sets the operative legal standard — and replaced it with a more demanding multi-condition test that does not appear in the rule text. This substitution makes the Duty appear stricter than it is and could lead a Compliance team to design unnecessarily burdensome processes, or to misunderstand what the FCA actually requires.
  • Cited source(s):
  • https://handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/PRIN/2A/2.html — Pretextual
  • https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/finalised-guidance/fg22-5.pdf — Pretextual
Impact for this audience

A Compliance team designing the firm's harm-avoidance framework or training content around customer-accepted risk will build in multiple conditions the FCA does not require, creating an operational standard that is both inaccurate and more burdensome than the actual rule. This could result in the firm mis-training its distribution and product teams, generating unnecessary customer contact or review processes, and — if challenged by the FCA — being unable to demonstrate that its stated standard reflects the Handbook text.

References — raw findings (per AI model)
This finding also affects
← Previous finding Finding 1. Legal basis for Consumer Duty — role of FSMA 2023 Next finding → Finding 3. Consumer testing of communications — rule or guidance?
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). "Scope of the harm avoidance obligation — customer-accepted risk — Life Insurance × Compliance — United Kingdom." Citation ID: RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q003. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research, published 2026-05-26. https://reglegbrief.com/audiences/sectors/gb/life_insurance/compliance/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-003/
APA 7th edition 
RegLeg Specialist Panel. (2026). Scope of the harm avoidance obligation — customer-accepted risk [Hallucination finding RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q003]. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research. https://reglegbrief.com/audiences/sectors/gb/life_insurance/compliance/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-003/
Bluebook / OSCOLA (US + UK legal) 
RegLeg Specialist Panel, Scope of the harm avoidance obligation — customer-accepted risk [RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q003], RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research (May 26, 2026), https://reglegbrief.com/audiences/sectors/gb/life_insurance/compliance/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-003/.
BibTeX 
@misc{reglegbrief_RLB_F_GB_FCA_CONSUMER_DUTY_PS22_9_Q003,
  author    = {RegLeg Specialist Panel},
  title     = {Scope of the harm avoidance obligation — customer-accepted risk},
  year      = {2026},
  publisher = {RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research},
  note      = {Hallucination finding Citation ID: RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q003},
  url       = {https://reglegbrief.com/audiences/sectors/gb/life_insurance/compliance/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-003/}
}
← Back to case study summary Case study detail →
About Citation IDs →