简体中文
繁體中文
English
Pусский
日本語
ภาษาไทย
Tiếng Việt
Bahasa Indonesia
Español
हिन्दी
Filippiiniläinen
Français
Deutsch
Português
Türkçe
한국어
العربية
Fundrise Sued by SEC
Abstract:In the midst of growing regulatory scrutiny on financial influencers and their interactions with investment platforms, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has accused Fundrise Advisors, LLC of violating cash solicitation rules by enlisting social media influencers to attract clients without providing requisite disclosures, reflecting a broader trend of global regulatory efforts addressing such practices.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has levelled allegations against Fundrise Advisors, LLC, asserting that the Washington-based investment advisory firm contradicted the nation's regulations pertaining to cash solicitation. The SEC disclosed this Tuesday that Fundrise Advisors engaged over 200 social media influencers and digital newsletter publishers to actively attract clients to its investment platform in a manner that did not encompass the necessary compliance with required disclosures as mandated by the law.
A focal point of the SEC's observations was Fundrise's informational brochure, which was lacking in the specified disclosures. Notably, the contractual arrangement between the investment company and the influencers conspicuously omitted any reference to these essential disclosures. Nevertheless, the regulatory body acknowledged that Fundrise had reached an accord to bring closure to the case by agreeing to remit a civil penalty amounting to $250,000.

Moreover, in tandem with this resolution, the SEC has reported that Fundrise has consented to both a cease-and-desist directive and a formal censure. However, it is important to note that the company neither admitted to nor refuted the regulator's findings.
Elaborating on the details, the SEC expounded, “Fundrise consented to the entry of the SEC's order finding that the firm willfully violated the compliance and former cash solicitation provisions of Section 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rules 206(4)-3 and 206(4)-7 thereunder.”
Recently, regulatory bodies across major global financial markets have turned their gaze toward what has become known as 'finfluencers'—financial technology influencers. Last month, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the United Kingdom unveiled its intent to fortify measures against unauthorized and non-compliant financial promotions. Concurrently, the FCA intends to refine its guidelines for social media use, aiming to ensure more effective adherence when financial entities publicize their products or services online.
This thematic concern extends beyond the U.K. Partnering with prominent social media influencer Sharon Gaffka and the FCA collaborated with the Advertising Standards Authority to launch a campaign discouraging 'finfluencers' from endorsing illicit 'get rich quick' schemes. Similarly, the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission embarked on an investor protection initiative in response to promoting intricate and high-risk investment products through social media, often endorsed by celebrities. This campaign raised questions regarding the 'gamification' of retail investments.
Parallelly, as early as 2021, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) sounded a cautionary note against 'finfluencers', underscoring that many were dispensing unlicensed financial counsel within the nation. ASIC emphasized that only entities and individuals holding an Australian Financial Services (AFS) license were sanctioned to provide financial advice to investors.

Disclaimer:
The views in this article only represent the author's personal views, and do not constitute investment advice on this platform. This platform does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the information in the article, and will not be liable for any loss caused by the use of or reliance on the information in the article.
Read more

Grand Capital Doesn’t Feel GRAND for Traders with Withdrawal Denials & Long Processing Times
The trading environment does not seem that rosy for traders at Grand Capital, a Seychelles-based forex broker. Traders’ requests for withdrawals are alleged to be in the review process for months, making them frustrated and helpless. Despite meeting the guidelines, traders find it hard to withdraw funds, as suggested by their complaints online. What’s also troubling traders are long processing times concerning Grand Capital withdrawals. In this Grand Capital review segment, we have shared some complaints for you to look at. Read on!

ADSS Review: Traders Say NO to Trading B’coz of Withdrawal Blocks, Account Freeze & Trade Issues
Does ADSS give you plenty of excuses to deny you access to withdrawals? Is your withdrawal request pending for months or years? Do you witness account freezes from the United Arab Emirates-based forex broker? Do you struggle to open and close your forex positions on the ADSS app? Does the customer support service fail to respond to your trading queries? All these issues have become a rage online. In this ADSS Broker review article, we have highlighted actual trader wordings on these issues. Keep reading!

INGOT Brokers Regulation 2025: ASIC vs Offshore License - What Traders Must Know
Explore INGOT Brokers regulation in 2025: Compare their ASIC and Seychelles FSA licenses, understand trader protection levels, and learn about potential risks in this detailed guide.

INGOT Brokers Review 2025: High Risk or Hidden Gem? Expert Analysis Reveals All
Comprehensive INGOT Brokers review exploring the broker's mixed reputation in 2025. Discover the truth about regulation, trading options, and user experiences before opening an account.
