AI Hallucination ResearchAudiencesPractitionersUnited KingdomFinancial AdvisersDetail › Finding
Practitioners — Financial Advisers · updated 2026-05-26 · methodology v2.1
Share / Print Twitter LinkedIn Email

Foreseeable harm and customer-accepted risk under the Consumer Duty

RLB Citation ID: RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q003
AI's failure:Inference Drift Risk for Financial Advisers:Regulatory enforcement / professional liability exposure
What the RLB Specialist Panel found
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?

RLB's analysis

The FCA's rule sets a single condition, the firm's reasonable belief that the customer understands and accepts the risk. The model reconstructed a multi-part compliance test (good faith, supported understanding, avoided firm-caused harm, plus general Duty compliance) that does not appear in the regulator's text. This expansion substitutes an inference-derived elaboration for the published rule, removing the qualifier "reasonably believes" and replacing it with a more demanding composite standard.

AI Head's analysis — what weakness in the AI model caused this

This finding implicates the model's handling of qualified regulatory rules: the FCA's foreseeable harm provision is a single-condition safe harbour ('reasonably believes'), but the model reconstructed it as a multi-factor compliance test ('good faith', 'supported understanding', 'avoided firm-caused harm', 'otherwise complied with the Duty'). The model dropped the qualifier 'reasonably believes' and inflated the test in the direction of a more demanding standard. The retrieval layer did not correct this; the cited FCA Handbook URL did not anchor the response to the actual rule text.

For a compliance-eval probe, this is a high-priority candidate: pair a rule that turns on a single test with a question that invites a multi-factor answer, and watch whether the model preserves the regulator's structure or reconstructs it.

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
  • Regulator portal (if any cited link is dud): https://www.fca.org.uk
Impact for Financial Advisers in the United Kingdom advising on the Consumer Duty (PS22/9 + PRIN 2A)

Financial advisers designing retail-product journeys for vulnerable or general retail customers need a clean view of what the foreseeable-harm safe harbour actually requires. The model's multi-factor reconstruction will, if imported into a customer-disclosure template or product-governance memo, raise the compliance burden on the firm without any regulatory basis. The adviser who acts on the AI's framing builds a customer-warning standard the Duty does not impose, which both elevates cost and dilutes the actual single-test rule the FCA wrote.

References — raw findings (per AI model)
This finding also affects
← Previous finding Legal basis of the Consumer Duty — the role of FSMA 2023 Next finding → Scope of the retail customer definition — micro-enterprises and charities
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.

RLB Citation ID: RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q003
Plain text Download
RegLeg Specialist Panel (2026). "Foreseeable harm and customer-accepted risk under the Consumer Duty — Practitioners — Financial Advisers." Citation ID: RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q003. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research, published 2026-05-26. https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j3/gb/fca/consumer-duty-ps22-9/practitioners/financial-advisers/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-003/
APA 7th edition Download
RegLeg Specialist Panel. (2026). Foreseeable harm and customer-accepted risk under the Consumer Duty [Hallucination finding RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q003]. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research. https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j3/gb/fca/consumer-duty-ps22-9/practitioners/financial-advisers/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-003/
Bluebook / OSCOLA (US + UK legal) Download
RegLeg Specialist Panel, Foreseeable harm and customer-accepted risk under the Consumer Duty [RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q003], RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research (May 26, 2026), https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j3/gb/fca/consumer-duty-ps22-9/practitioners/financial-advisers/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-003/.
BibTeX Download
@misc{reglegbrief_RLB_F_GB_FCA_CONSUMER_DUTY_PS22_9_Q003,
  author    = {RegLeg Specialist Panel},
  title     = {Foreseeable harm and customer-accepted risk under the Consumer Duty},
  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/regulators/j3/gb/fca/consumer-duty-ps22-9/practitioners/financial-advisers/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-003/}
}
← Back to case study summary Case study detail →

Every finding on this page compares an AI subject's account of the rule against the regulator's verbatim text from the regulator's own portal. Both are linked. Each delta, its root causes, and impact analysis are documented and published with immutable Citation IDs.