Financial misinformation is no longer a fringe annoyance; it is a mainstream risk that increasingly shapes the choices of people already under pressure from debt, the cost of living, and economic uncertainty. Nor is its impact limited to financial services, either; the energy sector, local authorities and central government are routinely impacted by false information circulating online.
Our recent paper, “Misinformation: Addressing and preventing consumer harm”, sets out a number of interventions that would curb the impact of harmful online advice and steer people towards legitimate and effective routes to resolving their financial situation. The CSA has called on Ministers, regulators, and industry to take action now to address the harms caused by misinformation.
At its core, the challenge is simple to describe and hard to tackle. A growing minority of consumers are misled into adopting tactics that promise easy escape from debt but, in reality, worsen their situation. The tactics themselves often vary, ranging from sending a particular sequence of letters, disengaging entirely, or aggressively pursuing legal and regulatory routes. What they tend to have in common is that they do little to improve the consumer’s circumstances.
The increasing level of misinformation we now see is inextricably linked with the growth in social media use
It is worth noting that, although the CSA paper talks of ‘misinformation’, its focus is actually broader, encompassing both misinformation and disinformation.
- Misinformation: While misinformation is incorrect information, it tends to be shared relatively innocently by others who have fallen for it
- Disinformation: Disinformation, however, is false information that is intentionally created and / or distributed by bad actors with the specific goal to mislead and deceive.
As we have done in the paper, I’ll use ‘misinformation’ as a catch-all term for both misinformation and disinformation.
Regardless of whether it is misinformation or disinformation, the ultimate harm to the consumer remains the same, so it is critical that steps are taken to address both. As we discuss in the paper, that means:
- Cooperation and collaboration across industry, consumer bodies, Government and regulators to improve the quality of information available to consumers, to better share intelligence about emerging misinformation, and to better educate the general public on the myths of misinformation.
- More effective accountability for the platforms that allow the spread of misinformation and for those that intentionally create and spread misinformation.
- Statutory and regulatory intervention to close off loopholes and gaps that are open to exploitation.
Better informed consumers: When it comes to consumer information, we need to make sure that consumers can a) access clear and accurate information from legitimate and trusted sources, and b) that those trusted sources are equipped to debunk the most common misinformation.
The actual content of the misinformation that consumers encounter can differ considerably, ranging from plausible distortions of genuine legal and regulatory requirements through to outright conspiracy theories. When consumers turn to strategies advocated by misinformation, it can be difficult to steer them back toward engaging with their financial situation. Having consumer-trusted sourced that can debunk some of the most common myths is a key strand in helping consumers to understand that there is support available, that the information they are relying on is not legitimate, and that its most likely outcome is further harm.
Unfortunately, it is not as simple as telling the consumer that what they have been told is wrong, even if the customer views you as a trustworthy source. In many cases, the misinformation is something they want to hear, reinforcing a narrative that they do not owe the debt or that there is a simple way out of their circumstances. Most sectors, whether they are financial services, energy, government, or something else, will come with a complex regulatory and statutory framework within which the regulated population has to operate. That complexity can make it easier for misinformation to take hold, allowing for credible-sounding arguments to be made, even though they have no merit.
All of which makes it incredibly challenging to produce a simple and effective explainer for consumers. This is why cross-sector collaboration is a must. For example, financial services firms are doing extensive work on consumer understanding of late, as they improve their compliance with the Consumer Duty. The research and testing being carried out by these firms could be crucial in identifying the most effective ways to debunk myths. At the same time, emerging misinformation may be cropping up in other sectors or in conversations with consumer bodies, so intelligence-sharing is key to being able to swiftly provide accurate and clear information to consumers.
Getting accountability right: The increasing level of misinformation we now see is inextricably linked with the growth in social media use, where inaccuracies, falsehoods and misinterpretations can spread globally in minutes long before they are debunked. Recent research by Lowell and Money Wellness found that almost two-thirds of debt advice on social media is misleading and 98% of it unreliable.
And yet, it appears to frequently spread unimpeded.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has stepped up its work to tackle online misinformation, taking action in the last 12 months against several ‘finfluencers’. But it has also stated publicly that, even though it has a reasonable suite of powers, it remains limited in what it can do to have information taken down from platforms.
There appears to be little appetite among the social media platforms to improve their approach to misinformation and to address the consumer harm that comes from it. The proposals in our paper are explicitly proportionate and targeted at demonstrable harm; they focus on content that advocates tactics known to produce worse legal and financial outcomes for consumers, or that relies on factual or legal assertions that are plainly incorrect. Where platforms adopt transparent criteria, independent oversight, and right‑of‑appeal mechanisms, enforcement can be fair and consistent.
But until the providers are accountable for the spread of misinformation across their platform and required to take more effective action, the problem is likely to persist.
Closing the gaps: The UK has a number of increasingly complex regulatory systems, whether you are operating in financial services, energy, government or any other sector. Underpinning those regulatory systems will be a range of legislation, building out the complexity further. The majority of those laws and regulations will be critical in ensuring sectors function effectively and firms behave appropriately. But, in every sector, there are also some that were well-intentioned when they were introduced but have perhaps been drafted poorly or no longer serve their original purpose, and as a result, they have unintended consequences for firms.
These kinds of laws and regulations often create opportunities for misinformation strategies to thrive. In our paper, we’ve highlighted a few of the gaps that would benefit from reform. For example, the right of access under data protection law is eminently sensible – individuals should be able to know what information an organisation holds about them and what they are doing with it. But with few meaningful safeguards on how and when an individual can exercise that right, and how an organisation can respond, it has increasingly become a tool to delay and frustrate organisations. With several sources of misinformation telling individuals to pursue claims or complaints about meritless allegations of non-compliance, this has a knock-on effect for firms, the courts and the ICO, as they are forced to waste time and resource on dealing with them, with the legislation leaving no room for manoeuvre.
The Government should look at proportionate reform that retains the right of access but affords the necessary safeguards to prevent it being misused in the ways it currently is.
Financial misinformation thrives in the gaps – between laws and guidance; between platforms and regulators; and between a consumer’s urgent need and the pages they first find online. Closing those gaps is something we must work on together.
If stakeholders act on the recommendations we have set out, we can reduce harm, improve outcomes, and turn the tables on bad actors who profit from misinformation.
Read the full CSA paper: *Misinformation: Addressing and preventing consumer harm* (November 2025 https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.csa-uk.com/resource/resmgr/docs/csa-reports/csa-misinformation-report.pdf
- Review the summary page and actions for policymakers and platforms. https://www.csa-uk.com/page/financial-misinformation-report
- See our press announcement for the call to action and headline recommendations. https://www.csa-uk.com/news/714943/How-misinformation-is-harming-consumers–new-report.htm
*Daniel Spenceley is Head of Policy at the Credit Services Association, the UK’s national trade body for the collections and debt purchase sector. The CSA represents over 250 member companies serving major financial institutions, utilities, and government departments, and advocates for fair, clear, and effective collections that support consumer outcomes.
