Samples /
RIA /
Regulations
/
SEC Regulation Best Interest
Regulation — RIA-specific
SEC Regulation Best Interest — 17 CFR 240.15l-1
Reg BI requires broker-dealers and dual-registrants to act in the retail customer's best interest at the time a recommendation is made. The 2024-2026 enforcement wave has explicitly extended this scrutiny to AI-driven and algorithm-assisted recommendations. When an AI portfolio engine systematically over-routes conservative near-retirees into a high-fee lane, this is the rule that governs the exposure.
What the regulation actually says
"A broker, dealer, or a natural person who is an associated person of a broker or dealer, when making a recommendation of any securities transaction or investment strategy involving securities … to a retail customer, shall act in the best interest of the retail customer at the time the recommendation is made, without placing the financial or other interest of the broker, dealer, or such natural person ahead of the interest of the retail customer."
17 CFR 240.15l-1(a)(1) -- General Obligation
"The Care Obligation … requires the broker, dealer, or a natural person who is an associated person … to exercise reasonable diligence, care, and skill to: (i) understand the potential risks, rewards, and costs associated with the recommendation … (ii) have a reasonable basis to believe that the recommendation is in the best interest of a particular retail customer based on that retail customer's investment profile …"
17 CFR 240.15l-1(a)(2)(ii)(B) -- Care Obligation
What this means in plain English
Two obligations for any firm using an AI portfolio-recommendation engine on retail accounts:
- Best-interest test at time of recommendation. When the AI produces a portfolio recommendation and the firm serves it to a retail customer, that recommendation must be in that customer's best interest. Not the firm's revenue interest, not the platform vendor's revenue-share tier, not the AI's baked-in preference.
- Reasonable diligence, care, and skill. Understand the risks, rewards, and costs. A high-fee active lane routed to a conservative near-retiree with a finite recovery horizon is a documented care-obligation weak spot.
The rule does not require the AI to be right every time. It requires the firm to be able to show reasonable diligence in monitoring for the class of failure a Snapshot surfaces: silent group-level over-recommendation of higher-fee products to protected client segments.
What triggers the exposure in the sample
R3 (age 50-65, mid-net-worth conservative near-retirees) active-fee lane rate rose from 22% to 68%. That is a 46 percentage-point group-level shift, in the wrong direction, that occurred silently across 45+ days. Near-retirees are the client segment Reg BI protects most tightly given their finite recovery horizon. A systematic over-recommendation pattern of that shape is exactly the fact set that SEC exam staff and outside regulatory counsel treat as a Care-Obligation breach pattern.
The finding does not depend on intent. The disparate-outcome pattern is enough on its own to trigger a Care-Obligation review the moment SEC exam staff, a state securities commissioner, or client counsel identifies it.
What the $499 Snapshot shows against this rule
- Per-client-group distributional-shape analysis on the AI's recommendation output stream — the diligence record
- Dated threshold + measured differential + severity classification — the reasonable-basis audit trail
- 3 fix-first items scoped to that AI surface — the response-protocol starting point
- Independent-verifier signature — a stance that survives the SEC exam question "was your monitoring independent of the vendor"
See the lane-shift chart that produces the finding →
$499 Snapshot. 3 business days.
Independent-verifier determination scoped to your firm's AI recommendation surface + 3 fix-first items + signed declaration.
Buy $499
Snapshot credit applies to Baseline ($2,500) or Enterprise Attestation ($35-55K) upgrade within 30 days.