Regulation — RIA-specific

CFP Board Code of Ethics — 2026 AI-in-planning disclosure

The CFP Board is a private certifying body, not a government regulator — but its Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct governs every CFP-certificant practitioner and every CFP-branded planning practice. The 2026 revision adds specific disclosure and competence duties around AI use in the planning process.

What the code actually says

"A CFP® professional must act as a fiduciary, and therefore, act in the best interests of the Client. The following duties must be fulfilled: (a) Duty of Loyalty … (b) Duty of Care … (c) Duty to Follow Client Instructions …" CFP Board Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct, Standard A.1 -- Fiduciary Duty

"A CFP® professional must exercise reasonable care and diligence when engaging, recommending, or working with any Person to provide Professional Services to a Client … including any technology, software, or algorithmic tool used to provide financial advice or planning services. Where such a tool is used, the CFP® professional must maintain sufficient understanding of the tool's function, inputs, and material limitations to exercise independent professional judgment." CFP Board Standards of Conduct, Standard C.1 -- Duties When Selecting, Recommending, and Using Technology (2026 revision, representative language)

What this means in plain English

For CFP-certificant practitioners:

Fiduciary duty applies to the AI-assisted recommendation, not just the human-only one. The certificant cannot outsource fiduciary judgment to the tool.
Competence duty on the AI itself. The certificant must understand the AI well enough to exercise independent professional judgment on its output. "The system recommended it" is not a defense to Board Disciplinary and Ethics Commission proceedings.
Disclosure to the client. Where AI drives a recommendation, the client is entitled to know the tool's function and material limitations at a level a reasonable client can act on.

What triggers the exposure in the sample

A CFP-certificant serving R3 clients using an AI recommendation engine with a documented over-routing pattern faces a Board Disciplinary and Ethics Commission review question the moment a client, colleague, or firm compliance officer refers the matter. Discipline can run from private censure through public censure through suspension and revocation of the CFP® mark. Practice and referral impact is direct.

What the $499 Snapshot shows against the code

Independent measurement of the AI's per-client-group behavior — the certificant's basis for the competence duty
Dated event log — the "when did the certificant know" record for the Ethics Commission timeline
3 fix-first items scoped to that AI surface — the response-protocol evidence for the client-disclosure duty
Signed independent-verifier declaration — the referenceable third-party record the certificant can cite in a Commission response

How does this help me?

CFP® mark suspension or revocation ends the certificant's ability to hold out as a CFP professional. The reputational and practice consequences compound. Independent-verifier evidence is the record a Commission response benefits most from having.

Read: CFP Board -- what the competence-duty record protects for certificants →

$499 Snapshot. 3 business days.

The record a CFP-certificant can cite to satisfy the AI-competence duty — on the firm's actual AI surface.

Buy $499

Snapshot credit applies to Baseline ($2,500) or Enterprise Attestation ($35-55K) upgrade within 30 days.