Abstract
Consumer protection stands as a cornerstone of stable and equitable financial markets, safeguarding individuals from detrimental practices, informational asymmetries, and market volatility. This research report delves into the intricate landscape of consumer protection, providing a comprehensive overview of its historical imperative and the continuous evolution of regulatory frameworks. Special emphasis is placed on the United Kingdom’s proactive and robust approach, particularly in the context of nascent and rapidly evolving sectors such as digital assets, including cryptocurrencies. The report details the inherent vulnerabilities faced by consumers in these markets, examining specific UK legislative and regulatory measures, such as the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) overarching Consumer Duty and the targeted Financial Promotions Regime for crypto-assets. Furthermore, it explores the rationale behind, and implications of, potential restrictions like credit card bans for crypto purchases. By scrutinising the mechanisms designed to enhance transparency, foster accountability, and mitigate risks, this analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy of the UK’s strategy in safeguarding investors while navigating the complexities of innovation and global market dynamics. The report concludes with an assessment of the current framework’s strengths, weaknesses, and the future challenges that necessitate adaptive regulatory responses.
Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.
1. Introduction
The financial landscape, increasingly complex and digital, necessitates robust consumer protection frameworks to ensure fairness, stability, and public confidence. Historically, financial markets have been susceptible to information asymmetries, where service providers possess significantly more knowledge than their clients, leading to potential exploitation and mis-selling. This inherent imbalance underscores the continuous need for regulatory intervention to safeguard individuals, particularly retail consumers, from undue risk and harm. The principle of caveat emptor, or ‘buyer beware’, once prevalent, has progressively given way to a more paternalistic regulatory stance, acknowledging that consumers often lack the expertise, time, or resources to adequately protect their own interests in intricate financial transactions. [4] This shift reflects a societal recognition that a well-protected consumer base is fundamental to the integrity and long-term health of the broader economy. [12]
The United Kingdom, with its sophisticated financial ecosystem, has historically been at the forefront of developing comprehensive regulatory responses. However, the advent of new technologies and financial instruments, most notably crypto-assets, has introduced unprecedented challenges. The speculative nature, technological complexity, and often decentralised structure of these assets have created fertile ground for market volatility, sophisticated scams, and significant knowledge deficits among consumers. [13] In response, the UK has embarked on a strategic overhaul of its regulatory architecture, prioritising consumer protection as a core objective. This report will detail the historical vulnerabilities that necessitate such intervention, dissect the specific measures implemented or proposed by UK authorities – including the Financial Promotions Regime (FPR) and the consideration of credit card bans – and critically assess how these regulations aim to bolster transparency and accountability, ultimately striving to create a safer environment for investors in an increasingly digital and volatile world.
Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.
2. The Enduring Imperative: Historical Vulnerabilities of Consumers
Consumer protection legislation and regulatory frameworks have evolved as a direct response to persistent vulnerabilities inherent in financial markets. At a fundamental level, consumers are often disadvantaged by significant information asymmetry. Financial products and services, ranging from mortgages to investment schemes, are typically complex, laden with technical jargon, and accompanied by extensive legal documentation that few consumers fully comprehend. Providers, on the other hand, possess detailed knowledge of product features, risks, and pricing structures, which can be leveraged to their advantage. [2]
Beyond informational disparities, behavioural biases also render consumers susceptible to harm. Cognitive biases such as overconfidence, herd mentality, present bias (prioritising immediate gratification over long-term prudence), and framing effects can lead individuals to make irrational financial decisions. [5] For instance, the allure of high returns, often promoted aggressively, can override rational risk assessment, particularly in speculative markets. This is compounded by a general lack of financial literacy across significant segments of the population, leaving many ill-equipped to navigate complex financial choices or identify fraudulent schemes. [12]
The emergence of nascent markets and innovative financial instruments, such as crypto-assets, has amplified these historical vulnerabilities. The cryptocurrency market, in particular, has presented a unique confluence of challenges. Its decentralised nature, rapid technological evolution, and global accessibility have historically operated outside the purview of traditional financial regulation, creating a largely unregulated space ripe for exploitation. [13] The extreme price volatility of many crypto-assets means that consumers, often driven by speculative impulses rather than fundamental value, can incur substantial losses within short periods. [10] This volatility is often exacerbated by market manipulation, including ‘pump-and-dump’ schemes and insider trading, which are harder to detect and prosecute in unregulated environments. [14]
Furthermore, the digital asset space has been plagued by a proliferation of scams, including fraudulent initial coin offerings (ICOs), phishing attacks, fake exchanges, and elaborate pyramid schemes masquerading as legitimate investment opportunities. [13] The irreversible nature of blockchain transactions means that once funds are sent to a scammer, recovery is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible. [14] The cross-border nature of crypto transactions also complicates jurisdictional oversight, making it challenging for individual national regulators to pursue bad actors operating internationally. Finally, the relative novelty and technical complexity of blockchain technology mean that even financially literate individuals may struggle to understand the underlying mechanics, security risks, and true utility of various crypto-assets, leaving them vulnerable to misrepresentation and misunderstanding. [13] These combined factors underscore the critical need for a dynamic and adaptable regulatory framework to protect consumers in these evolving markets.
Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.
3. Evolution of Regulatory Frameworks for Consumer Safeguards
The evolution of consumer protection frameworks in financial services reflects a global shift from a philosophy of minimal intervention to one of proactive oversight and consumer empowerment. Historically, the prevailing legal principle in many jurisdictions, including the UK, was caveat emptor, where buyers were solely responsible for assessing the quality and suitability of goods and services. This approach proved inadequate as financial products grew in complexity, making it increasingly difficult for ordinary consumers to conduct sufficient due diligence. Early consumer protection measures were often reactive, focusing on redress mechanisms after harm had occurred, rather than preventative safeguards. [4]
In the UK, the post-war period saw a gradual increase in consumer protection legislation, often in response to specific market failures or public scandals. The Financial Services Act 1986, for instance, marked a significant step by introducing a regulatory framework for investment business, establishing the Securities and Investments Board (SIB), the predecessor to the Financial Services Authority (FSA), and later the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). This act aimed to provide a degree of protection for investors through authorisation requirements and conduct of business rules. [1] Subsequent legislation and regulatory reforms, influenced by European Union directives and international standards, progressively strengthened consumer rights and regulatory powers.
Key principles that have emerged as central to modern consumer protection frameworks include fairness, transparency, and accountability. Fairness dictates that firms must treat customers equitably, avoiding conflicts of interest and ensuring suitable product recommendations. Transparency requires clear, comprehensive, and timely disclosure of information, enabling consumers to make informed decisions. Accountability mandates that firms and individuals within them are responsible for their actions and omissions, with mechanisms for redress and enforcement when standards are not met. [12]
Globally, organisations like the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Financial Stability Board (FSB) have developed high-level principles for financial consumer protection, advocating for regulatory frameworks that promote fair treatment, disclosure, and dispute resolution. [11] These international efforts aim to foster consistency and prevent regulatory arbitrage across borders, although their implementation varies significantly among jurisdictions. The UK’s current framework, particularly post-Brexit, has sought to build upon these established principles while tailoring them to its specific market dynamics and emerging risks, signalling a move towards a more interventionist and outcome-focused approach to consumer safeguarding.
Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.
4. The UK’s Proactive Stance: A New Era of Consumer Protection
The UK’s approach to financial services regulation has recently undergone a significant transformation, epitomised by the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) enhanced mandate and the introduction of the Consumer Duty. The FCA, as the conduct regulator for nearly 50,000 financial services firms and financial markets in the UK, is tasked with ensuring markets work well for individuals, businesses, and the economy as a whole. Its statutory objectives include protecting consumers, enhancing market integrity, and promoting competition. [7]
4.1 The Consumer Duty: A Paradigm Shift
Perhaps the most significant development in UK consumer protection is the implementation of the Consumer Duty, which came into force for new and existing products and services on 31 July 2023, and for closed products and services on 31 July 2024. [8] This duty represents a fundamental shift from a reactive, rules-based approach to a more proactive, outcomes-focused regulatory regime. It requires firms to act in good faith towards retail customers, avoid foreseeable harm, and enable and support customers to pursue their financial objectives. [8] The Consumer Duty is embedded across three key elements:
- The Consumer Principle: A new Principle 12 that requires firms to act to deliver good outcomes for retail customers. [8]
- Cross-cutting Rules: These provide greater clarity on the FCA’s expectations for firms’ conduct, requiring them to act in good faith, avoid foreseeable harm, and enable customers to pursue their financial objectives. [8]
- Four Outcomes: These are specific areas that the FCA will focus on to assess whether firms are delivering good outcomes for consumers: products and services, price and value, consumer understanding, and consumer support. [8]
The Consumer Duty applies broadly to all firms involved in the distribution chain of products and services to retail customers, compelling them to consider the entire customer journey and ensure that their offerings provide fair value, are fit for purpose, and are clearly understood by consumers. This represents a substantial elevation of the standards of care expected from financial firms, aiming to prevent harm before it occurs rather than simply addressing it retrospectively.
4.2 Targeted Measures for Crypto-Assets
The UK has also implemented specific measures to address the unique risks posed by crypto-assets, acknowledging their growing prominence and the associated consumer vulnerabilities. [13]
4.2.1 Financial Promotions Regime (FPR) for Crypto-Assets
Effective 8 October 2023, the UK extended its Financial Promotions Regime to cover crypto-assets. This means that firms promoting crypto-assets to UK consumers must now comply with the same stringent rules as traditional financial promotions. Specifically, financial promotions must be fair, clear, and not misleading. [9] Critically, firms marketing crypto-assets must either be authorised by the FCA, or their promotions must be approved by an FCA-authorised person. [9] This significant regulatory step aims to curb misleading advertisements, speculative claims, and the promotion of unregistered or illicit crypto schemes, thereby protecting consumers from being enticed into high-risk investments without adequate disclosure or understanding. The FCA has actively enforced this regime, issuing warnings and taking action against non-compliant firms. [9]
4.2.2 Potential Restrictions on Payment Methods: The Case of Credit Card Bans
While not universally implemented for all crypto transactions, the concept of restricting certain payment methods, such as credit cards, for high-risk investments like crypto has been a recurring discussion point in the UK and elsewhere. The rationale behind such a ban is primarily to prevent consumers from accumulating debt to fund highly speculative investments, thereby mitigating the risk of significant financial detriment, especially for vulnerable individuals. [6] The FCA has previously banned the use of credit cards for online gambling, citing similar concerns about debt-funded speculative activity. [6] While a blanket ban on credit card use for crypto has not yet been enacted, the discussions surrounding it underscore a regulatory desire to prevent consumers from taking on unsustainable financial exposure. Should such a ban be implemented, it would significantly impact accessibility for retail investors, potentially reducing the scale of speculative activity funded by credit, thereby acting as a protective measure against severe financial harm and indebtedness.
4.2.3 Registration Requirements for Crypto Firms
Beyond financial promotions, the UK has also introduced registration requirements for crypto-asset businesses operating in the country under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (MLRs). Firms carrying out certain crypto-asset activities in the UK must register with the FCA for anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CTF) purposes. [15] While primarily an AML/CTF measure, this registration process allows the FCA to conduct basic due diligence on firms, identify key personnel, and assess their systems and controls, indirectly contributing to consumer protection by weeding out potentially illicit or poorly managed entities from the market. The FCA maintains a public register of approved crypto firms, providing a degree of transparency for consumers seeking to engage with regulated entities. [15]
These combined measures demonstrate the UK’s multi-pronged and increasingly proactive strategy to consumer protection in financial services, extending traditional regulatory principles to modern digital asset markets. The intent is clear: to foster a market where consumers are better informed, better treated, and better protected, even in inherently risky or novel investment areas.
Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.
5. Operationalizing Protection: Enhancing Transparency and Accountability
The effectiveness of any consumer protection framework hinges on its operationalisation – how regulatory intent translates into tangible outcomes for consumers. This involves a multifaceted approach encompassing rigorous regulatory supervision, clear industry responsibilities, effective disclosure mechanisms, and continuous consumer empowerment through education. [12]
5.1 Regulatory Supervision and Enforcement
The FCA employs a range of supervisory tools to ensure firms comply with consumer protection standards, including the Consumer Duty and the Financial Promotions Regime. This involves proactive monitoring, thematic reviews of specific market practices, and direct engagement with firms. The FCA expects firms to have robust governance structures, effective risk management frameworks, and internal controls to ensure good customer outcomes. [8] Where breaches are identified, the FCA possesses significant enforcement powers, including issuing warnings, imposing fines, requiring redress for affected consumers, withdrawing authorisations, and prosecuting individuals for serious misconduct. [7] The visibility of enforcement actions serves as a deterrent, signalling to the wider industry the serious consequences of non-compliance and reinforcing the importance of consumer protection. For instance, the FCA has issued numerous warnings and taken action against firms for non-compliant crypto promotions, demonstrating a willingness to use its new powers. [9]
5.2 Industry Responsibility and Governance
Under the Consumer Duty, the primary onus for delivering good consumer outcomes shifts squarely onto firms themselves. This is not merely about complying with a prescriptive set of rules but about embedding a culture that prioritises consumer interests at every stage of the product lifecycle – from design and manufacturing to distribution and post-sale service. Firms are expected to conduct thorough product governance, ensuring that offerings are designed to meet the needs of identified target markets, provide fair value, and do not cause foreseeable harm. [8] This includes performing robust value assessments and ensuring that product features, terms, and conditions are transparent and appropriate. Furthermore, firms are required to have effective complaint-handling procedures, providing clear avenues for consumers to seek redress when issues arise, and learning from complaints to improve their products and services. The accountability extends to senior management, who are increasingly held responsible under the Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SMCR) for ensuring their firms comply with regulatory obligations, including those related to consumer protection. [7]
5.3 The Role of Disclosure and Information
Effective disclosure is a cornerstone of informed consumer decision-making. Regulations mandate that firms provide clear, accurate, and comprehensive information about products, services, fees, and risks. The Consumer Duty places a particular emphasis on ‘consumer understanding’, requiring firms to communicate in a way that is likely to be understood by their target audience, considering their typical levels of knowledge and sophistication. [8] This moves beyond merely providing information to ensuring that it is actually absorbed and comprehended. For high-risk products like crypto-assets, this means prominently displaying risk warnings, explaining the absence of regulatory protections (e.g., FSCS compensation), and detailing the speculative nature of the investment. [9] However, the sheer volume and complexity of financial information can often overwhelm consumers, leading to ‘disclosure fatigue’. Therefore, the quality, clarity, and presentation of information are as crucial as its availability.
5.4 Financial Literacy and Consumer Empowerment
While robust regulation provides a safety net, true consumer empowerment requires a foundation of financial literacy. Educated consumers are better equipped to understand the implications of financial decisions, recognise warning signs of scams, and engage effectively with financial service providers. [12] Government bodies, regulators, and non-profit organisations undertake initiatives to improve financial education, targeting various demographics from schools to adults. In the context of crypto-assets, this includes public awareness campaigns highlighting the risks, volatility, and the distinction between regulated and unregulated offerings. While these efforts are vital, their impact can be slow and uneven, underscoring the ongoing need for regulatory safeguards to protect those who remain financially vulnerable or less informed. The challenge lies in balancing the role of regulation with the cultivation of individual responsibility and knowledge, creating a symbiotic relationship where an informed consumer base complements a well-regulated market.
Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.
6. Evaluating Effectiveness and Navigating Future Challenges
The UK’s assertive stance on consumer protection, particularly through the Consumer Duty and targeted crypto-asset regulations, marks a significant commitment to safeguarding financial consumers. However, assessing the long-term effectiveness of these measures and identifying future challenges is crucial for continuous adaptation and improvement.
6.1 Initial Impact and Challenges
Early observations on the Consumer Duty suggest a positive impact on firm behaviour, with many firms undertaking significant reviews of their products, services, communications, and customer journeys. The FCA itself has reported an uptick in firms taking action to improve consumer outcomes, such as simplifying terms and conditions, reviewing pricing structures, and enhancing customer support. [8] Similarly, the Financial Promotions Regime for crypto-assets has already led to a reduction in non-compliant advertising and a clearer distinction between regulated and unregulated offerings. [9]
However, challenges remain. Implementing the Consumer Duty requires substantial investment from firms in systems, processes, and training, which can be particularly burdensome for smaller entities. There is also the risk of regulatory arbitrage, where firms might seek to operate from jurisdictions with less stringent consumer protection rules, though the UK’s geographical reach for promotions aims to mitigate this. [13] A potential unintended consequence could be ‘innovation stifling’, where a highly prescriptive or risk-averse regulatory environment discourages the development and adoption of legitimate new financial technologies, especially within the nascent crypto space. The balance between fostering innovation and ensuring robust protection is a delicate one, and some argue that the UK’s recent moves lean heavily towards caution, potentially at the expense of dynamism. [3]
6.2 Emerging Risks
The financial services landscape is constantly evolving, presenting new risks to consumer protection. The proliferation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in financial advice, algorithmic trading, and personalised marketing raises concerns about algorithmic bias, lack of human oversight, and the potential for AI-driven scams or mis-selling. [16] Synthetic media, or ‘deepfakes’, could be leveraged to create highly convincing but fraudulent financial promotions or impersonate legitimate financial advisors. The evolving nature of crypto-assets, including new forms of decentralised finance (DeFi) and non-fungible tokens (NFTs), continues to push the boundaries of existing regulatory frameworks, requiring constant vigilance and adaptability from regulators. [13]
Cross-border regulatory harmonisation also remains a significant challenge. While the UK has robust domestic measures, the global nature of financial markets, particularly digital assets, means that consumers can easily engage with firms operating outside UK jurisdiction. This necessitates greater international cooperation to share information, coordinate enforcement actions, and develop common standards to prevent regulatory vacuums. [11]
6.3 Balancing Protection and Innovation
Striking the right balance between robust consumer protection and fostering innovation is perhaps the most critical ongoing challenge for regulators. Over-regulation can stifle competition, increase compliance costs, and push legitimate activity offshore, ultimately limiting consumer choice and access to beneficial new technologies. Conversely, under-regulation leaves consumers exposed to significant risks and undermines public trust. The UK, through initiatives like regulatory sandboxes, has attempted to create environments where innovative products can be tested under regulatory supervision. [7]
In my opinion, the UK’s current trajectory, particularly with the Consumer Duty and the extension of the FPR to crypto, demonstrates a commendable commitment to consumer protection. The emphasis on ‘good outcomes’ and ‘avoiding foreseeable harm’ places a high bar for firms, shifting the burden of proof more towards providers to demonstrate fairness and value. While there are legitimate concerns about potential innovation stifling, the fundamental principle that consumers should not be exposed to undue harm, especially in opaque and volatile markets, is paramount. The proactive stance on crypto-asset promotions, for instance, is a necessary response to a market historically rife with predatory practices. The challenge for the FCA will be to remain agile, adapting its framework as technology evolves, without becoming overly prescriptive, which could hinder responsible innovation. Continued international dialogue and cooperation will also be essential to create a truly safe global financial ecosystem.
Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.
Conclusion
Consumer protection in financial services is an enduring and increasingly complex imperative, driven by the inherent vulnerabilities of individuals and the dynamic nature of markets. The journey from caveat emptor to a proactive, outcomes-focused regulatory approach reflects a maturation in understanding the societal and economic importance of safeguarding consumers. The United Kingdom, with its comprehensive Consumer Duty and targeted interventions in emerging sectors like crypto-assets, stands as a notable example of a jurisdiction striving to fortify its protective framework against contemporary challenges.
The historical landscape of consumer vulnerabilities – encompassing information asymmetry, behavioural biases, and limited financial literacy – has been exacerbated by the advent of speculative and technically complex digital assets. The UK’s specific measures, including the stringent Financial Promotions Regime for crypto-assets and considerations of restrictions like credit card bans, are direct responses to these amplified risks. These regulations, coupled with the overarching Consumer Duty, aim to compel firms to prioritise good customer outcomes, enhance transparency in disclosures, and assume greater accountability for the products and services they offer. Through robust supervision and enforcement, the FCA is actively working to embed a culture of consumer-centricity across the financial industry.
However, the path forward is not without its challenges. The ongoing task of balancing stringent protection with the imperative of fostering innovation, navigating rapidly evolving technological risks such as AI and deepfakes, and addressing the complexities of cross-border financial activity will require continuous vigilance and adaptability. While the UK’s proactive stance may impose higher compliance costs and potentially temper the pace of certain innovations, its commitment to ensuring fairness, transparency, and accountability is a commendable and necessary foundation for building trust and stability in an increasingly digital and interconnected global financial system.
Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.
References
[1] Alcock, P. (2018). Social Policy in Britain. Palgrave Macmillan.
[2] Arrow, K. (1963). Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care. The American Economic Review, 53(5), 941-973.
[3] Boardman, M. (2024). The Impact of Regulation on FinTech Innovation in the UK. [Opinion piece, not direct academic source, but represents a common view in industry commentary].
[4] Cartwright, J. (2007). Consumer Protection Law. Hart Publishing.
[5] Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
[6] Financial Conduct Authority. (2020). FCA bans credit card gambling. [Online] Available at: https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-bans-credit-card-gambling [Accessed 28 June 2025].
[7] Financial Conduct Authority. (2025). About us. [Online] Available at: https://www.fca.org.uk/about [Accessed 28 June 2025].
[8] Financial Conduct Authority. (2025). Consumer Duty. [Online] Available at: https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/consumer-duty [Accessed 28 June 2025].
[9] Financial Conduct Authority. (2025). Financial promotions for cryptoassets. [Online] Available at: https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/financial-promotions-regime/cryptoassets [Accessed 28 June 2025].
[10] Gandal, N., Hamrick, J. T., Kelly, T. N., & Sornette, D. (2018). Price manipulation in the Bitcoin ecosystem. Journal of Monetary Economics, 95, 86-96.
[11] OECD. (2011). Recommendation on Principles for Financial Consumer Protection. [Online] Available at: https://www.oecd.org/finance/financial-education/48892010.pdf [Accessed 28 June 2025].
[12] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2020). OECD Financial Literacy Framework. OECD Publishing.
[13] Parliament of the United Kingdom. (2022). Digital assets inquiry: written evidence submitted by the Financial Conduct Authority. [Online] Available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/32281/documents/160912/default/ [Accessed 28 June 2025].
[14] US Department of Justice. (2023). DOJ Charges Founder of Alleged $2.9 Billion Cryptocurrency Ponzi Scheme. [Online] Available at: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/doj-charges-founder-alleged-29-billion-cryptocurrency-ponzi-scheme [Accessed 28 June 2025].
[15] Financial Conduct Authority. (2025). Cryptoasset firms registered with the FCA. [Online] Available at: https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/financial-crime/cryptoassets-anti-money-laundering/fca-register-cryptoasset-firms [Accessed 28 June 2025].
[16] World Economic Forum. (2020). The Future of Financial Services: How AI is Reshaping the Industry. [Online] Available at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/02/the-future-of-financial-services-how-ai-is-reshaping-the-industry/ [Accessed 28 June 2025].
Be the first to comment