Most compliance tools route your draft to a person and record the approval. Safe to Publish reads the content itself: paste a LinkedIn post, newsletter, or pitch deck and, in about 30 seconds, get back every clause an SEC examiner could cite, with the exact rule section, staff FAQ, or risk alert behind each flag.
Marketing review software should read the draft and tell you what an examiner would flag. Not just file the approval after a human already did the work.
Six things a pre-publication review tool has to get right before it belongs anywhere near your marketing.
Every flag links to the Rule 206(4)-1 section, the IM staff FAQ, or the Risk Alert behind it. Flags that cannot cite an authority are dropped before you see them, so there are no invented section numbers.
Findings sort into Critical, Watch, and Suggest, so you can tell what must change before you publish from what is a judgment call your firm may choose to leave.
Each flag comes with a compliant rewrite you can accept, edit, or ignore. The tool proposes the language. Your firm decides what actually ships.
Testimonials, endorsements, and hypothetical performance generate the required disclosure language, so the material terms travel with the piece from the start.
Every review is signed, timestamped, and retained (up to 7 years on the Practice and Firm plans), and exports as a PDF exhibit if a deficiency letter ever lands.
LinkedIn posts, newsletters, pitch decks, RFP language, website copy. Up to 40,000 characters per review on the Firm plan.
Safe to Publish runs at the point of drafting. Write the piece the way you always do, run it through review before it leaves the building, then publish with the cited findings resolved and the audit log saved. No copy gets stuck for days in an approval queue waiting on one reviewer.
It sits in front of whatever you already use. If you have a full compliance suite for code of ethics, Form ADV, and archiving, keep it. This is the pre-publication read on the content itself that those tools do not do, and the audit log it produces becomes the evidence layer for the marketing piece.
Plenty of small RIAs send each draft to a Marketing Rule consultant and wait. That works, but it bottlenecks every same-day LinkedIn post and bills per piece. Here is the trade in plain terms.
Want the rule itself in plain English first? Read the full Rule 206(4)-1 guide →
(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 performanceFAQ 8Predecessor performance — conditionsFAQ 12Testimonial compensation & conflict disclosureFAQ 14Social-media channel scope for disclosuresFAQ 17Third-party rating date & periodFAQ 23Portable performanceFAQ 28Form ADV Part 2A cross-referencesDec '25Additional observations — testimonial, third-party rating, hyperlinked disclosure deficienciesSep '23Initial observations — Marketing Rule compliance gapsJun '23Examinations focused on the Marketing RulePlans run $49 to $299 a month and cover the whole SEC Marketing Rule corpus: Rule 206(4)-1, all 41 IM staff FAQs, and every Marketing Rule risk alert, plus the audit log that travels with each review.
Every plan starts with a 14-day trial capped at 10 reviews, no card required. See the full plan comparison →
14-day free trial. No card required. Up to 10 reviews to decide if it earns its keep.
Start free trial →