Why the $200 Million JPMorgan Recordkeeping Fine Is a Game-Changer

At the end of 2021, J.P. Morgan Securities (JPMS) agreed to pay $200 million to resolve charges from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). It would pay the SEC $125 million and the CFTC $75 million. 

In the 1960s, marketing looked very different from what it is today. Billboards and magazine advertisements have been replaced by social media posts, emails, influencer marketing, and endorsements. Even hashtags and comments on social media posts can be used for marketing purposes. 

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is not afraid of issuing steep fines when it comes to non-compliance of SEA Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4 of Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (‘’Exchange Act’’ or ‘’SEA’’). We previously mentioned how FINRA fined 12 firms a total of $14.4 million for what it called “failing to protect records from alteration.” And while the technology exists to support brokerage firms in the securities industry (and one would expect non-compliance to slowly decrease), fines continue to be issued.

Investment firms and other financial institutions are subject to the strict recordkeeping and communication regulations laid out by both the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The goal of these regulations is to protect the industry and its customers—and both bodies are willing to impose hefty fines if they believe a firm has stepped out of line.

It’s crucial that financial services organizations adhere to official communications and recordkeeping rules. More than ever, the SEC (and other regulators) are scrutinizing how firms communicate with external stakeholders—and how they keep records of these communications. 

What happens when online harassment crosses the digital divide? For several years now, the practice of swatting has been on the rise, and featured in news stories the world over. What exactly does the practice entail? What are the legal consequences of swatting, and what kind of damage has been inflicted upon those who have fallen victim to it?

With its roots in hacker communities of the 1990s, today, doxxing remains a widespread cybersecurity issue. If anything, the problem is growing. 21% of Americans (more than 43 million individuals) report having personally experienced doxxing. An even greater number, 62%, personally knew someone who had been the victim of a doxxing attack.

An efficient and cooperative discovery stage can have a huge impact on the smooth progression of a legal case. As the examination of increasingly vast quantities of electronic documents becomes commonplace, an effective and dependable approach to this important element of modern litigation is essential.

How devastating can misinformation on social media be? According to a growing number of local governments, the answer is “very damaging indeed”. So much so that San Diego County declared health misinformation a public health crisis on August 31, 2021, a move that was soon followed by Jefferson County (WA), Clark County (NV) and Contra Costa County (CA) – and the list of counties joining them continues to grow.

The need for clear communication at all levels of government has never been greater. Governmental bodies must ensure transparency, trust and professionalism with their colleagues and, more importantly, with the public. Getting this right isn’t just a case of better public relations—it is a matter of compliance.