The section 21 and FCA approval checks to run before comparing finance creator agencies

Map the promotional risk

Treat every proposed deliverable as a separate screening task, including a video, story slide, email or newsletter line. Neither conversational wording nor channel decides whether it promotes investment activity. Ask the agency to flag material for qualified review before agreeing a publication date or treating the work as routine content.

Section 21 of FSMA 2000 restricts communicating an invitation or inducement to engage in investment activity in the course of business, unless the sender is authorised or an authorised person has approved the communication, subject to conditions. Keep the statutory wording close to the screening decision rather than relying on a campaign label.

The FCA identifies online adverts, websites, emails and social media posts as possible formats. Ask the agency which deliverables it has assessed, and use the finance influencer rules as initial screening context, not as a substitute for legal assessment of each item. The creator promotion rules offer further context for paid partnerships.

Demand a route with proof

Before comparing suppliers, establish which legal basis the agency says permits each in-scope communication.

A written route makes a general compliance assurance testable and can expose a missing approval or unsupported exemption before commercial terms obscure the issue. Request an answer for every relevant content type and retain its supporting evidence.

Check any claimed authorisation against the Financial Services Register, including its stated scope. Record the evidence source and date, whether using the Financial Services Register or the FCA firm checker. Apply the same review method to every agency; if a supplier cannot state its route in writing, resolve that gap before comparing fees.

Match sign-off to the live asset

Identify who approves the final asset, whether that person has the necessary authorisation, and who retains the record. Approval must cover the final version, not merely a related draft; ask how later edits are treated and how the team will verify that approval matches what is published.

A firm approving a promotion for an unauthorised person must confirm compliance with the financial promotion rules, including that material is fair, clear and not misleading. The FCA's approval information sets out its position. Record version identifiers and ask who keeps the evidence; a quality check can test the workflow against an actual sample.

Write campaign responsibilities into terms

Set out an owner and deadline for every compliance task in the agreement. Include substantiation, risk wording, disclosure, audience controls, platform variants, approval records, corrections and withdrawal.

Defined ownership gives the parties a clear task allocation when content changes or a concern is raised, instead of leaving action dependent on assumptions.

Ask who may edit or withdraw a post and how the agency and creator will handle corrections. State the disclosure duty expressly and connect it to the campaign's advertising rules (see also handing an approved ad to the publisher). A separate disclosure policy can preserve a distinct promotion gate where client, agency and creator divide the work.

Name each data-handling role

Where an agency handles audience information for you, specify which party acts as controller and which as processor for each flow. Naming the roles matters because the written agreement should reflect the actual arrangement, rather than leave data responsibility implied by a general supplier clause.

Whenever a controller uses a processor, a written contract is needed; it must provide for personal data to be deleted or returned when the arrangement ends. Record those terms explicitly. Campaigns may use first-party lists, platform data and payment records, so note which party handles each category rather than assume one clause fits every flow.

Use the commercial contracts guidance to carry those data terms into the supplier agreement. Keep a record of each data category, its responsible party and the agreed end-of-arrangement treatment, so the contract reflects the campaign flows rather than a single assumed arrangement.

The references to put in your questions

Name the rule in each question, so the agency has to answer on the record:

This article does not review or rank any agency. It gives the checks, so that your own notes on each shortlisted agency are comparable. Record an answer, a document and a date against each line, and treat a blank line as a failed check, not a pending one.

Compare evidence before price

Give every shortlisted agency the same questions and judge the documented replies rather than presentation quality. Log its stated route, approver, version record, agreement duties and data arrangements. The guide to comparing an agency with other ways of producing finance content can structure that review, while the same evidence record makes gaps visible before price is discussed.

Do not move a supplier into commercial comparison while its section 21 basis remains unexplained in writing. Once the legal and operational answers are on file, compare fees using the agency fees guide. Retain the evidence alongside the decision so the price assessment reflects each agency's documented commitments, not an unsupported pitch.