Global Predictions Isn’t Really an AI Case
Global Predictions, Inc. is a San Francisco-based investment adviser that provides non-discretionary investment advice to retail clients through an app called PortfolioPilot. The SEC is mad at Global Predictions and on Monday made it settle to an administrative order over a number of issues. The Commission is calling it an artificial intelligence case, but it’s mostly not.
The order does highlight Global Predictions’ own description of PortfolioPilot in its Form ADV up front, but then the app exits and makes no other appearances.
Misrepresentations
What the SEC does do is allege[i] that Global Predictions made misrepresentations in many different forums. Some of those misrepresentations were even about AI:
Artificial Intelligence
Its technology incorporated “[e]xpert AI driven forecasts” and it was the “first regulated AI financial advisor.” (It didn’t and it wasn’t.)
Performance Claims
It published a graphic of its user interface including hypothetical performance without noting that it was fueled by hypothetical, and not real, data.
It said, “[i]n the latest measure, the models are outperforming IMF forecasts by 34%, and the platform keeps improving,” without disclosing when the analysis was conducted or what the 34% figure referred to.
It said it “outperforms major economic benchmarks like the IMF World Economic Outlook,” without disclosing what other “major economic benchmarks” were used.
It advertised hypothetical performance to the general public, rather than to a particular intended audience.
It published testimonials without describing material conflicts of interest on the part of those giving the testimonials. Three of them, for example, had business relationships with or were related to Global’s CEO.
Things It Just Didn’t Do
It offered tax-loss harvesting services that could save users “thousands of dollars”. (It did not offer tax-loss harvesting services.)
It claimed to have more than $6 billion of assets, but didn’t report any regulatory assets under management on its Form ADV.
Advisory Contract
Also, the SEC says Global Predictions’ advisory contract with retail clients contained terms that violated its fiduciary duty.
It provided that it could change the terms of the contract unilaterally without advance notice to clients, who had to constantly patrol Global’s website and review the contract themselves for any changes.
It claimed that Global Predictions, a registered investment adviser, somehow “do[es] not give financial or investment advice . . .”
The contract included liability disclaimer language, commonly referred to as a hedge clause that purported to relieve Global Predictions from liability for “any claim or demand” regardless of the theory of liability. Pretty neat trick if you could pull it off!
Upshot
Global Predictions is paying a $175,000 civil penalty and settling to negligence-based charges of misrepresentations under Advisers Act Section 206(2), the Amended Marketing Rule (Rule 206(4)-1), and the Compliance Rule (Rule 206(4)-7. The case is being packaged with In re Delphia (USA) Inc. as a mini-AI sweep, but the weight of the allegations really focuses on the Amended Marketing Rule. On that score, the order includes some specific statements by Global Predictions that can be used as guidance. Anyway, we’re now 18 months past the compliance date for that rule, so at some point soon maybe we’ll stop calling it “amended”.
In re Global Predictions, Inc., Admin. Proc. File No. 3-21895 (Mar. 18, 2024)
[i] This is a settled case and wasn’t litigated, so what follows are just allegations, not facts.