SEC Marketing Rule · 206(4)-1

The Marketing Rule first pass — before you call the consultant.

You're Googling a Marketing Rule consultant because someone has to clear that LinkedIn post. Safe to Publish gives you the cited first-pass review in about 30 seconds — so the human you hire spends their billed hour on the hard calls, not the textbook flags.

Start free trial →

Corpus updated Dec 16, 2025·No card required·AES-256 at rest · TLS 1.3 in transit

$300–500

Consultant hourly rate

1–5 days

Typical review turnaround

~30s

First-pass review here

$49/mo

Solo plan · 30 reviews/mo

“

Not a consultant. Not a replacement for one. Safe to Publish is the first-pass review that absorbs the textbook flags before the human you trust ever opens the draft.

Consultant alone vs. software-first workflow

The same Marketing Rule review, with the slow part removed.

We don't compete with your outside Marketing Rule consultant. We make their hour worth more.

Consultant only

Every LinkedIn post is a $200 question.

Per-piece billing at $300–500/hour. The math falls apart on a 280-character post or a Tuesday newsletter.
1–5 day turnaround. The content calendar bends to the consultant's queue, not the firm's schedule.
Audit trail is email threads and tracked-changes Word docs. Examiner asks for evidence of a Marketing Rule program — you spend Saturday assembling a binder.
Textbook flags (guarantee, missing testimonial disclosure, gross-only performance) burn the same billed minute as a genuinely close call.

Safe to Publish + your consultant

Software does the textbook pass. Humans do the judgment.

~30-second first pass against the full corpus — Rule 206(4)-1, 41 IM staff FAQs, every risk alert. Cited, not paraphrased.
Flat $49–299/month for 30–400 reviews depending on plan. Per-review cost lands between $0.75 and $1.65— vs. a consultant's $50–$200 per piece.
Signed audit log on every review, retained 7 years, exportable as a PDF exhibit on demand.
Consultant inherits a cleaned draft + a cited findings list. Their hour goes to the close calls, not the textbook ones.

Honest scope

When the consultant still earns the billed hour.

Three places where software is the wrong tool. We'll say so out loud.

Novel rule interpretation

Your private-fund AUM appears in a public testimonial. The IM Division hasn't published a FAQ on the exact pattern yet. That call needs a human who has read every No-Action letter — not a citation engine.

Live SEC exam or inquiry

If staff has already opened a deficiency letter on your marketing program, the response is a legal exercise, not a content review. Hire counsel. We can hand them the audit log; they take it from there.

Form ADV alignment

Your performance disclosures need to mirror the methodology in your Form ADV Part 2A. Cross-document reconciliation is consulting work — not a per-draft review. We stay in our lane.

What every flag cites

Grounded in the rule text — not a model's recollection of it.

Rule 206(4)-1 21 sections

(a)(1)Untrue statements of material fact
(a)(2)Unsubstantiated claims · reasonable basis
(a)(4)Benefits without fair treatment of risks
(b)(1)Testimonial & endorsement disclosures
(d)(1)Gross vs. net-of-fees performance
(d)(6)Hypothetical / backtested performance

Staff FAQs 41 items

FAQ 8Predecessor performance — conditions
FAQ 12Testimonial compensation & conflict disclosure
FAQ 14Social-media channel scope for disclosures
FAQ 17Third-party rating date & period
FAQ 23Portable performance
FAQ 28Form ADV Part 2A cross-references

Risk Alerts 3 alerts

Dec '25Additional observations — testimonial, third-party rating, hyperlinked disclosure deficiencies
Sep '23Initial observations — Marketing Rule compliance gaps
Jun '23Examinations focused on the Marketing Rule

Hand your consultant a cleaned draft, not a blank one.

14-day free trial. No card required. Up to 10 reviews to decide if it earns its keep.

Start free trial →