The Headline: Enforcement Did Not Go Away — It Just Got More Selective
There is a tempting narrative circulating in compliance circles right now: Chair Paul Atkins has dialed back SEC enforcement, so RIAs can exhale. The numbers do support a quieter environment overall. But the September 4, 2025 action against Meridian Financial, LLC should put that narrative to rest for anyone responsible for an advisory firm's marketing content or compliance program.
This was the first Marketing Rule enforcement action brought under the Atkins-led SEC, and it targeted conduct that is almost certainly present at firms across the industry right now: a website claim that contradicted disclosures the same firm had already filed with the SEC. The penalty was $75,000, plus a cease-and-desist order, a censure, and mandatory undertakings to fix the compliance program. More importantly, the action exposed three distinct violations that CCOs should treat as an immediate self-audit checklist.
What Actually Happened
On September 4, 2025, the SEC announced settled charges against Meridian Financial, LLC, a registered investment adviser based in Holliston, Massachusetts, for failing to comply with multiple provisions of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The administrative proceeding was docketed as In the Matter of Meridian Financial, LLC, Admin. Proc. No. 3-22525.
According to the SEC's order, Meridian disseminated a website advertisement in which it claimed it 'refuse[d] all conflicts of interest.' In reality, Meridian recognized various conflicts of interest inherent in its role as an investment adviser — including conflicts it had already disclosed in its own Form ADV Part 2A brochure. The SEC found that this violated the substantiation requirement under the Marketing Rule: Rule 206(4)-1(a)(2) prohibits RIAs from including any material statement of fact in an advertisement that the firm does not have a reasonable basis for believing it will be able to substantiate upon demand by the Commission.
The violations did not stop there. The SEC also found that Meridian failed to maintain complete records of its advertisements, including those published on its website — a breach of the Books and Records Rule. A third prong of the order found that Meridian failed to conduct an annual review of its compliance policies and procedures as required by Rule 206(4)-7, the Compliance Rule.
One detail buried in the order deserves special attention for firms that rely on third-party vendors to manage their digital presence: Meridian used a third party to manage its website but did not put in place a contractual agreement requiring that records of marketing and advertising materials be properly maintained or archived. The SEC did not let Meridian off the hook because a vendor controlled the site.
Why This Action Matters More Than the Dollar Amount
A $75,000 civil penalty is not a firm-ending event. What matters here is the signal. This was the first Marketing Rule enforcement action brought since Chair Atkins was sworn in, which means the Atkins-era Division of Enforcement chose this case — a straightforward website claim that contradicted the firm's own ADV — as its opening shot on marketing compliance. That is a deliberate message.
It also confirms that Marketing Rule enforcement is not limited to performance advertising, which has dominated headlines since the rule's compliance date in November 2022. The Meridian action targeted a qualitative claim about conflicts of interest. Combined with prior sweep actions targeting hypothetical performance disclosures — including charges against five advisers announced on April 12, 2024, resulting in $200,000 in combined penalties — the SEC has now demonstrated it will pursue both quantitative and qualitative advertising violations.
Finally, the three-violation structure of the order — Marketing Rule, Books and Records, Compliance Rule — is essentially a template of what examiners look for when they pull on one thread. A deficient advertisement often leads directly to a records deficiency, which in turn exposes an inadequate annual review. CCOs should expect that pattern to repeat in future actions.
The Three-Violation Template: A Self-Audit Checklist
Violation 1 — Rule 206(4)-1: The Substantiation Requirement
Under Rule 206(4)-1(a)(2), every material statement of fact in an advertisement must be one the firm has a reasonable basis for believing it will be able to substantiate upon demand by the Commission. That covers qualitative claims — 'independent,' 'objective,' 'conflict-free,' 'fiduciary-only' — just as much as performance figures. Consider pulling every page of your public-facing website and marketing collateral and asking a simple question for each claim: can we produce contemporaneous documentation to back this up right now? If the answer is anything other than an unambiguous yes, the claim should be revised or removed before an examiner asks.
Pay particular attention to claims that may have been accurate when first written but have since become stale. A firm that disclosed additional conflicts in a later ADV amendment but never updated its website is in the same position Meridian was in.
Violation 2 — Books and Records: Archive Everything, Including Your Website
The Books and Records Rule requires RIAs to retain copies of advertisements. The SEC's position — confirmed in the Meridian order — is that website pages are advertisements when they offer advisory services to prospective or current clients. That means every version of your website's homepage, about page, strategy pages, and any other client-facing content constitutes an advertisement that must be retained.
If your firm uses a third-party web developer or digital marketing agency, consider reviewing your contractual arrangements now. Do those agreements require the vendor to archive or preserve prior versions of web pages? If not, you may have a records gap that a routine examination could surface. Consider implementing a formal website-archiving solution — or at minimum a dated screenshot protocol — so you can reconstruct what your site said at any point in time. Document that process in your compliance manual.
Violation 3 — Rule 206(4)-7: The Annual Review Is Not Optional
Rule 206(4)-7 requires each RIA to review, no less frequently than annually, the adequacy of its compliance policies and procedures and the effectiveness of their implementation. The Meridian order reflects a finding that this review was not conducted as required.
The annual review is the mechanism by which marketing policy gaps are supposed to be caught and corrected. If your last annual review did not include a structured assessment of your advertising and marketing practices — including a line-by-line audit of website claims against current ADV disclosures — consider adding that as a standing agenda item. Document the review in writing, note what was tested, what was found, and what was remediated. That documentation is what separates a firm that passed the annual review from a firm that just went through the motions.
The Vendor Blind Spot
The Meridian action underscores a compliance gap that is easy to overlook: outsourcing a function does not outsource the regulatory obligation. Whether it is a third-party web developer, a content marketing firm, or a social media manager, the RIA remains responsible for the accuracy of every advertisement those vendors produce or publish on its behalf, and for maintaining the required records of that content. Consider reviewing your vendor agreements for marketing-related services and ensure they include explicit requirements around content approval workflows, retention of prior versions, and cooperation with regulatory requests.
What to Do This Week
First, pull your website and compare every qualitative claim against your current Form ADV Part 2A. Flag any claim that overstates your firm's independence, objectivity, or conflict posture. Second, confirm that your firm has a documented process for archiving website content and other digital advertisements. Third, review your vendor agreements with any third-party managing your web or marketing presence and confirm you have adequate data-retention provisions. Fourth, check your compliance calendar and confirm that your most recent annual review under Rule 206(4)-7 included a marketing and advertising component — and that the review is documented in writing.