Credit broker financial promotions: the FCA's CONC 3 review
The FCA's latest consumer credit consultation is not only a rule simplification exercise. For credit brokers, it is a prompt to ask whether adverts, landing pages, scripts and lead journeys genuinely help customers understand what is happening before they apply.
The rule change is only part of the story
The FCA's 2026 review of CONC 3 should matter to credit brokers even before the final rules land.
On its face, the consultation is about simplifying parts of the consumer credit financial promotion regime. It looks at cost of credit disclosures, representative APR, prescriptive wording, prominent information, and whether the current rules still work in a market shaped by digital journeys and the Consumer Duty.
That can sound technical. It is more important than that. The review is a reminder that the FCA is interested in how consumers actually understand credit, not merely whether a promotion contains the right compliance furniture.
For brokers, lead generators, appointed representatives and principal firms, this is a timely test. The question is not only whether an advert includes the required statement. The question is whether the whole journey helps a customer understand who they are dealing with, what is being offered, what the costs may be, what the broker's role is, and what risks sit behind a fast application journey.
Why CONC 3 is back on the table
The FCA has linked the review to the Consumer Duty and the consumer understanding outcome. The regulator is asking whether some parts of the existing rulebook are too prescriptive, while also exploring whether cost disclosures could work better for real customers.
That is an important distinction. Simplification does not mean lower standards. A more outcomes based regime can reduce unnecessary prescription while increasing the expectation that firms prove their communications work in practice.
The May 2026 Regulatory Initiatives Grid said the FCA was reviewing consumer credit advertising rules, with a focus on CONC 3.5, to identify opportunities to reduce prescription and align more closely with Consumer Duty. CP26/15 then set out proposed Handbook amendments and discussion points around cost disclosure.
This creates a practical window for credit brokers. Firms do not need to wait passively for a policy statement. They can use the consultation as a prompt to test whether their promotions and customer journeys would still stand up if the regulator asked a simple question: what evidence shows customers understand this?
The broker-not-lender point is still a live risk
Some of the most familiar credit broker risks have not gone away. CONC 3.7.7R requires a firm that is a credit broker and not a lender to ensure that any financial promotion states prominently that it is a credit broker and not a lender. Where a firm is both broker and lender, a promotion solely promoting broking services must make that clear too.
The FCA has warned before that it found broker promotions failing to make this point clearly. That warning remains highly relevant because modern lead journeys can blur roles quickly. A customer may arrive from a search advert, land on a comparison page, complete an eligibility form, see lender options, and receive follow up messages without ever forming a clear picture of who is doing what.
A small footer disclosure is unlikely to be enough if the rest of the journey gives the impression that the broker provides credit directly. The current Handbook concept of prominence is not cosmetic. It asks whether the average person to whom the promotion is directed is likely to notice the information in context.
That should push firms to review landing pages, affiliate copy, sponsored search wording, social adverts, introducer pages, email campaigns, SMS journeys, call scripts and comparison tables. The statement needs to work where the customer is actually making sense of the journey, not only where the compliance team last approved a template.
Representative APR is not just a number
The consultation explores the role of representative APR and wider cost of credit disclosure. The FCA's behavioural research looked at how different disclosure approaches affect consumer understanding and decision making. It found that APR and total amount repayable can be important comparison tools, but that customers also focus on monthly repayments, affordability, and access to credit.
For brokers, that should feel familiar. Many customers do not begin the journey wanting an abstract percentage. They want to know whether they can get finance, what it may cost each month, how quickly they can proceed, and what happens if they are refused.
This is exactly where promotions can become risky. If speed, ease, or availability are emphasised without a fair presentation of cost and risk, the customer may be nudged toward applying without the right context. The FCA's earlier Dear CEO letter reminded firms that representative APR may be triggered by incentives to apply, favourable comparisons, or wording suggesting credit may be available to people who might otherwise consider access restricted.
Even if the detailed rules change, the underlying compliance discipline remains. Firms should be able to explain why the cost information shown is accurate, balanced, prominent, and understandable for the intended audience.
Consumer Duty turns promotions into evidence work
Consumer Duty has changed the tone of this area. A financial promotion is not just a pre-sale compliance asset. It is part of the customer's understanding journey.
Under an outcomes based approach, firms should expect to show how they know communications support informed decisions. That could include testing customer comprehension, reviewing complaint themes, sampling calls and chats, monitoring drop off points, checking conversion pressure, analysing vulnerable customer outcomes, and comparing what customers saw with what the firm intended them to see.
This matters because many brokers still treat financial promotions approval as a sign off exercise. A campaign is drafted, compliance checks it, a version is approved, and the business moves on. That model is fragile in a world of multiple channels, affiliates, live optimisation, changing landing pages, and segmented messaging.
A better model treats promotions as controlled journeys. The firm knows which versions are live, who approved them, where they appear, what claims they make, what disclosures they include, what customer group they target, what outcomes they produce, and when they should be reviewed.
Affiliates and ARs need closer supervision
The risk is sharper where brokers use appointed representatives, introducers, affiliates, comparison partners or marketing agencies. The customer may not distinguish between the authorised firm, the AR, the lead source and the lender. The regulator is unlikely to find that confusion charming.
Principals and directly authorised firms should be able to evidence how third party promotions are approved and monitored. That includes who can create copy, who can change landing pages, who checks paid search wording, who monitors social campaigns, and who keeps records of what was live at a given time.
The FCA's Consumer Duty letter to credit brokers asked firms to consider reviewing systems and controls, retaining evidence, checking for prohibited terms such as guaranteed acceptance, and looking at sign off requirements for ARs and introducer ARs. That remains a sensible checklist, but it should now be applied to the live realities of digital acquisition.
If an AR changes copy overnight, if an affiliate uses language the principal has not approved, or if a lead source implies that approval is guaranteed, the harm can happen quickly. Oversight that only samples materials once a year is unlikely to be enough for higher risk models.
Promotions are still an enforcement priority
The wider supervisory backdrop is clear. In a July 2026 speech, the FCA said it had amended or withdrawn nearly 10,000 financial promotions over the previous 12 months to protect consumers. That statistic is not limited to consumer credit, but it is a strong signal that promotions remain one of the regulator's most visible intervention points.
This is not surprising. Promotions are easy to review, easy to compare against rules, and directly connected to customer harm. They are also often the first place a weak compliance culture becomes visible.
A broker that cannot control its public claims is unlikely to persuade the FCA that it has strong controls elsewhere. If a firm says customers are treated fairly but its adverts overstate ease, underplay cost, blur lender status, or create unrealistic expectations, the promotion may become the thread that unravels the rest of the compliance story.
That is why the CONC 3 review should not be parked with the legal team. It should be discussed by senior management, marketing, compliance, AR oversight, complaints, customer support, and anyone responsible for the customer journey.
What firms should do now
First, map every live financial promotion and communication route. Include website pages, paid search adverts, social posts, emails, SMS, introducer pages, landing pages, call scripts, chatbot scripts, comparison tables, referral journeys and AR materials.
Second, identify the high risk claims. Look for speed, ease, acceptance, poor credit, guaranteed language, comparisons, representative APR triggers, low monthly payment messages, fee statements, lender panel claims, and anything that could make the firm look like the lender when it is not.
Third, test prominence in context. Do not assess the broker-not-lender disclosure by reading a desktop PDF in a quiet room. Check the mobile journey, the advert preview, the landing page fold, the social format, the call script and the customer follow up.
Fourth, create a stronger evidence trail. Keep records of approved versions, approval dates, live URLs, screenshots, change requests, responsible owners, review cycles, and monitoring results. If an affiliate or AR is involved, evidence their approval route and ongoing checks.
Fifth, connect promotions to outcomes data. Complaints, abandoned applications, repeat contact, customer misunderstanding, vulnerable customer indicators and lender feedback may all reveal whether communications are working. A firm that reviews promotions without looking at outcomes is only reviewing half the picture.
The opportunity for better firms
There is a positive story here. A clearer and more outcomes based approach to consumer credit promotions could help good firms communicate more plainly. It may reduce needless prescription and give firms more room to design information around customer understanding.
But that opportunity belongs to firms that can evidence control. The FCA is not asking firms to be less careful. It is asking them, in effect, to be more intelligent about how communications work.
For credit brokers, the practical message is straightforward. Treat the CONC 3 review as a rehearsal for the next regulatory conversation. If the FCA, a principal, a lender partner, or a customer asked why a promotion is fair, balanced and understandable, could the firm answer with evidence rather than confidence?
The best time to find the weak spots is before the policy statement, before a platform complaint, before an AR campaign drifts, and before a customer says they thought the broker was the lender.
Financial promotions are the front door of the credit journey. In 2026, the FCA is reminding the market that the front door still needs a lock, a sign, a light, and someone responsible for checking who is walking through it.
Source note: Key sources relied on: FCA CP26/15, CONC 3: Reviewing the financial promotions rules for consumer credit; FCA Handbook CONC 3; FCA Dear CEO letter on clear, fair and not misleading financial promotions; FCA Consumer Duty letter to credit brokers; FCA July 2026 speech on growth, risk and trust; Regulatory Initiatives Grid May 2026.
