AI Washing in WealthTech: How to Tell the Real from the Relabeled

Advisor Perspectives welcomes guest contributions. The views presented here do not necessarily represent those of Advisor Perspectives.

The WealthTech ecosystem grew from roughly 100 vendors to more than 500 over the past decade. Walk into any industry conference, open any vendor pitch deck, or sit through any product demo this year, and you will hear the same claim: AI-powered. But what changed under the hood?

In most cases, less than the marketing suggests.

The WealthTech market has a serious AI-washing problem. The term borrows directly from a parallel wealth management executives already understand. Just as greenwashing described investment managers who marketed ESG commitments they could not substantiate, AI washing describes technology vendors who relabel rules-based automation as artificial intelligence.

The goal is the same in both cases: Capture buyers’ attention and justify premium pricing. The consequence is also the same, with buyers paying for a capability they never receive. As a result, trust in the category erodes for everyone, including the vendors doing serious work.

Understanding AI washing is not about becoming a machine-learning engineer. It is about building the vocabulary to ask better questions when a vendor sits across the table from you.

The Scale of the Problem

A Celent survey found that over 80% of WealthTech vendors rate AI copilot capabilities as being of "high importance" in their product road map.¹ The market pressure this creates is straightforward. After all, if your competitors claim AI, you claim it too, whether or not the underlying technology has changed. The result is a market flooded with AI claims of wildly varying credibility, and buyers who lack the technical background to distinguish between them.

Five Patterns of AI Washing

The first pattern is relabeling automation as AI. Compliance keyword flags, rules-based alert systems, and scheduled report generators are being repackaged with AI branding. Rules-based tools can be valuable, but they are not AI, no matter how detailed or comprehensive those rules may be.

The second pattern is bolting a chatbot onto a legacy platform. A natural language interface sitting on top of unchanged infrastructure is not an AI transformation of the underlying system. It is a presentation layer.

The third pattern is claiming proprietary AI while using third-party APIs. Many WealthTech vendors have wrapped commercially available large-language model APIs from OpenAI, Anthropic, or Google into their products and marketed the results as proprietary AI technology.

There is nothing inherently wrong with building on third-party models. The problem arises when vendors obscure this dependency and overstate the differentiation of their implementation. The SEC issued a cease-and-desist order to Presto Automation in an enforcement case with this exact pattern. The company attributed proprietary AI capabilities to a product that relied on third-party model access whose scope wasn't fully disclosed.²

The fourth pattern is demoing road-map features as production-ready. The controlled vendor demonstration is an optimized environment. Features shown in a demo may not yet exist in the version of the product your firm would receive at signing. They may be in development, in beta with a single client, or simply aspirational.

The fifth pattern is exploiting the knowledge gap. Most wealth management executives are not machine-learning engineers. Some vendors use technical terminology not to clarify, but to signal sophistication without inviting scrutiny. If you don’t know what follow-up question to ask, the vendor's answer to your first one is unverifiable.

The "Turn It Off" Test

The single most diagnostic question in any WealthTech AI evaluation is also the simplest: If you turned off the AI component, what would be left?

If the answer is "nothing — the platform wouldn't function," that tells you the AI is deeply integrated into the core workflow. If the answer is "everything works the same; it just generates reports in a different way," that tells you the AI is a layer on top of an existing system.

Neither answer is automatically good or bad. But the vendor's willingness and ability to answer the question directly reveals a great deal about the depth of their AI implementation and the honesty of their claims.

From there, push further. Can you show a side-by-side comparison of what the platform produces with the AI on versus with it off? What can the AI accomplish that a rules engine cannot? Where, specifically, is a human in the loop before an output reaches a client?

These questions are not adversarial. They are the basic evaluation discipline that every capital expenditure decision at your firm deserves.

Why This Is Now a Regulatory Problem

AI washing moved from a marketing ethics question to a regulatory enforcement category in March 2024, when the SEC settled with advisory firms Delphia and Global Predictions for $400,000 in combined penalties related to false and misleading statements about their AI capabilities.³ The enforcement arc since then has escalated sharply. Presto Automation became the first public company to face an SEC AI washing action in January 2025.⁴ The founder of Nate Inc. became the first person criminally charged in an AI washing case in April 2025, facing allegations of $42 million in investor fraud built on fabricated AI claims.⁵

The SEC’s creation of a dedicated Cyber and Emerging Technologies Unit in February 2025 institutionalized this enforcement focus.⁶ This is not a sequence of ad hoc actions. It is a pattern.

FINRA Regulatory Notice 24-09 made the vendor liability chain explicit: Existing supervision and content standards apply whether AI is developed in-house or sourced from a third-party vendor.7 If your firm markets "AI-powered" services to clients based on a vendor's representations, and those representations are inflated, your firm may share the regulatory exposure.

The Competitive Case for Getting This Right

The firms that build genuine AI evaluation capability now will win twice. First, they will make better technology decisions today, avoiding the productivity shortfalls that follow an AI purchase that underdelivers.

Second, they will build internal credibility for the next round of AI adoption, which is already on the horizon. But the room for error is limited. Consider that if you bobble the first stage of adoption, the advisors and operations staff who participate in that failed AI rollout will be the same people you need to champion the next initiative.

The WealthTech vendors doing serious AI work want buyers who can evaluate them rigorously. They know their technology can withstand scrutiny. The vendors who cannot answer the questions in this article know that, too.

Endnotes

¹ Celent. "WealthTech Trends in 2025: AI Partnerships and Strategic Fintech Moves." Celent, 2025, www.celent.com/en/insights/wealth-tech-trends-in-2025-ai-partnerships-and-strategic-fintech-moves. Accessed May 24, 2026.

² United States Securities and Exchange Commission. "In the Matter of Presto Automation, Inc." SEC.gov, January 14, 2025, www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2025/33-11352.pdf. Accessed May 24, 2026.

³ United States Securities and Exchange Commission. "SEC Charges Two Investment Advisers with Making False and Misleading Statements About Their Use of Artificial Intelligence." SEC.gov, March 18, 2024, www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024-36. Accessed May 24, 2026.

⁴ United States Securities and Exchange Commission. "In the Matter of Presto Automation, Inc."

⁵ United States Department of Justice. "Tech CEO Charged in Artificial Intelligence Investment Fraud Scheme." Justice.gov, April 9, 2025, www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/tech-ceo-charged-artificial-intelligence-investment-fraud-scheme. Accessed May 24, 2026.

⁶ United States Securities and Exchange Commission. "SEC Announces Cyber and Emerging Technologies Unit to Protect Retail Investors." SEC.gov, 20 February 20, 2025, www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2025-42. Accessed May 24, 2026.

⁷ Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. "Regulatory Notice 24-09: FINRA Reminds Members of Regulatory Obligations When Using Generative Artificial Intelligence and Large Language Models." FINRA.org, June 27, 2024, www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/24-09. Accessed May 24, 2026.

John O’Connell is founder and CEO of The Oasis Group, a leading consultancy for the wealth management industry that specializes in helping wealth management and technology firms solve their most complex challenges. The Oasis Group offers award-winning consulting services, industry-leading research, and compelling on-demand training for wealth management firms and the service providers who serve the wealth management industry.

A message from Advisor Perspectives and VettaFi: Discover something new! Click here to register for our upcoming webcasts.