Massive SEC Fines for Companies Using Text and Instant Messaging

Regulators worldwide are focusing on the widespread use of text and instant messaging within businesses. This should be a wake-up call for all businesses (not just those subject to specific regulatory regimes).

Massive SEC Fines for Companies Using Text and Instant MessagingMassive SEC Fines for Companies Using Text and Instant Messaging
Category
Insight | General
Insight
|
General
Published Date
20
October 2022
Reading Time

On 27 September 2022, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced more than US$1.1 billion in fines for 15 dealer/brokerage firms in relation to their record-keeping. Specifically, the firms’ staff had routinely used text and instant messaging on personal devices for work purposes. Following the SEC’s lead, the UK Financial Conduct Authority last week questioned several UK banks about their staff’s use of WhatsApp and similar apps.

The SEC’s investigation relates to specific record-keeping rules for certain regulated entities (similar rules apply in New Zealand to entities holding a ‘financial advice provider’ licence by the Financial Markets Authority).

However, the same concerns also apply more broadly, given the increasing use of text and instant messaging technology in business. Start-ups and technology-focused businesses (in particular), make extensive use of instant messaging, simply because it's easy and familiar. Many of these businesses have no formal document retention policies or practices. However, they may wish to consider: (i) how widespread and necessary the use of text or instant messaging is within their business; and (ii) whether it would be useful to document a policy that clarifies the kinds of communications that ought to be in email form and/or downloaded and retained for future use.

Unfortunately, there is no one rule that defines the kind of information that businesses should retain and for how long, but there are some rules that apply to all businesses, and some guiding principles.

How long should ‘core’ records be retained?

Most business records need to be retained for seven years:

  • Companies: A New Zealand company must retain certain company records (including its constitution, minutes of directors’ meetings, certificates, annual reports and financial statements) for seven years (Companies Act 1993, s 189).
  • Tax: As a rule of thumb, a taxpayer must keep for seven years the documents necessary to support its tax position (s 22(2) of the Tax Administration Act 1994 (TAA)). Various other specific rules may also apply.
  • Employment: Wages and time records for employees must also be maintained in respect of the preceding six years (i.e., seven years in total) (Employment Relations Act 2000, s 130).

Otherwise, unless a specific rule or regulation requires the retention of documents, a business is theoretically free to adopt whatever document retention policy best suits its needs. Businesses that collect personal information will also need to consider Privacy Principle 10 which provides that they “shall not keep that information for longer than is required for the purposes for which the information may lawfully be used”.

When should non ‘core’ documents be retained and for how long?

Almost all New Zealand businesses will have obligations to retain certain ‘core’ company and financial records for seven years, as explained above. Some of these documents could be contained in text messages. For example, there is no reason why a unanimous resolution of a company’s board of directors could not take place by exchange of text messages (so long as a “tangible” record is kept of all the messages comprising the resolution). Equally, businesses subject to specific record-keeping regulations need to ensure that the specific records are retained no matter their original format. As the SEC example shows, the move towards instant messaging is no excuse for non-compliance.

But what about other non-‘core’ documents, such as Whatsapp messages exchanged within a business or with a counterparty or customer? These documents might not fall within the category of ‘core’ company records, but they could still be critical to a business’ success or failure in the event of a dispute or regulatory investigation. For example:

  • A Whatsapp message from a firm to a customer could be relied on by a customer to prove a ‘misrepresentation’ under the Fair Trading Act. If the firm does not retain its copies of the exchange, then it may be unable to defend itself.
  • Instant messages between competitors could be relied on by the Commerce Commission to prove anti-competitive conduct. Furthermore, any party deleting evidence of such conduct faces the possibility that another party to that correspondence has not done so, and may provide the evidence to the regulator in exchange for leniency.
  • Messages recording a taxpayer’s reasons for purchasing property might be relevant evidence in a tax dispute if the property is on-sold for a profit. If those messages are not retained, there may be a lack of corroborating evidence when seeking to prove to Inland Revenue that the property was not acquired for the purpose of re-sale.

In this respect, the limitation periods for common legal claims in New Zealand include:

  • Contact or tort: The general rule is that “money claims” (i.e., most simple contract or tort claims) must be brought within six years of the date of the act or omission on which the claim is based (Limitation Act 2010, s 11(1)).
  • Fair Trading Act: Orders under s 43 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 (including orders for damages) must generally be brought within three years of the date on which the loss or damage, or the likelihood of loss or damage, was discovered or ought reasonably to have been discovered.
  • Tax: The Commissioner of Inland Revenue has in general four years from the date of an income tax assessment to increase the assessment (TAA, s 107A), in which case a taxpayer can initiate the tax challenge procedure in the TAA. A taxpayer has the burden of proof in challenge proceedings and therefore must itself provide any evidence it seeks to rely on.  
  • Other regulatory investigations: The limitation periods for regulatory prosecutions can vary greatly (up to ten years in some cases).

These examples demonstrate how retention of instant messages can be critical to a business. Clearly, not all text or instant messages need to be retained by a business. In many cases, it may be better for certain instant messages to automatically delete, or for a policy to stipulate how records should be made for particular purposes. However, it is now essential that businesses consider how to approach their retention of text and instant messages.

Services in this insight

There are no services for this current insight. Take a look at our services page for more information on our different offerings.

Services in this insight

There are no services for this current insight. Take a look at our services page for more information on our different offerings.

Services in this insight

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore.

There are no services for this current insight. Take a look at our services page for more information on our different offerings.
Previous Article
Next Article

From Hertzian waves to hyperlinks – What the BSA’s online decision means for your business

Space Law in New Zealand — Signals from the ground

Cyber security changes flagged for New Zealand

The four Cs of successful fintech partnerships

New rule 3A introduced to the Biometric Processing Privacy Code

IPP3A is nearly in force – What agencies need to know

OPC shifts public enquiries online – What agencies should do now

AI as a confidante? Legal privilege and the ever-increasing use of AI

New Therapeutic and Health Advertising Code – What you need to know

Building blocks of trade mark law: New Zealand approach to "use as a trade mark" now compatible with Australia

Consumer law update 2025

Open banking launches in New Zealand

Is fair something to fear? The Government announces beefed-up Fair Trading Act

Is it fair? Lessons from Bartz v Anthropic and Kadrey v Meta

Open banking almost live

Why New Zealand businesses should care about the EU Data Act

Product labelling changes flagged for New Zealand

Biometric Processing Privacy Code 2025 introduced to New Zealand

Open banking regulations released for consultation

Ten tips for buy-side M&A success

A recipe for disaster – Is caramel a copyright work?

Becoming a Globally Renowned Fintech Nation (and how regulation can light the path)

Important changes made to the Privacy Act

New Zealand may ban social media for young users

Customer and Product Data Act update – Open banking officially on the way

Tips from the trenches – Your AI policy cheat sheet

Significant regulatory reform proposed for New Zealand media

Security guidance released for emerging tech companies

Customer and Product Data Bill – Select Committee reports back

Consumer law update 2024

New Zealand’s Artist Resale Royalty is ready to go

The shape of coffee – “Moccona” vs “Vittoria”

New Zealand’s Copyright Act gets a sense of humour

WIPO’s traditional knowledge treaty is adopted

Doing business in the Middle East

AI and advertising – What producers need to know

Seven contract clauses every freelancer needs

Baby Reindeer – When truth is stranger than fiction?

Our comments on the Biometric Processing Privacy Code

Therapeutic Products Act to be repealed this year

Is End-to-End to end?

Geographical indications – Changes uncorked by the EU-NZ Fair Trade Agreement

Lawyers and Generative AI – New NZ Law Society guidance released

Facing the future – A biometrics code of practice for New Zealand?

Deepfakes and style mimicking – Should New Zealand adopt a right of publicity?

Five Eyes release the Five Principles to Secure Innovation

The copyright conundrum with generative AI

Innovate at the speed of trust – Privacy Commissioner releases new guidance on artificial intelligence tools

Political advertising on social media: sludge or copyright quagmire?

Privacy Amendment Bill introduced to Parliament

New Data Privacy Framework: Meta gets a lifeline

The long and winding road to royalties

Implications of the Supreme Court’s “new debt” approach in Mainzeal

EU gets closer to AI laws

UK Supreme Court puts Quincecare ‘duty’ back in its box

A Deep Dive into The Customer and Product Data Bill

Searching for a shield: Meta’s €1.2 billion fine and international transfers in the age of Big Data

New NZ-UK Free Trade Agreement signals tech, media and IP law changes

Ditch the fax! Tips for building a tech-savvy law firm

The Incorporated Societies Act 2022 – what you need to know for your society

Common myths about copyright online

Artificial artist, or artificial plagiarist?

Big boost to gaming

Is your product “AI powered”?

The latest on New Zealand’s Consumer Data Right

Space Law in New Zealand

You Cannot Defame the Dead or Can You? Tikanga Māori and NZ Defamation Law

Open Banking is coming – through the Consumer Data Right

Massive SEC Fines for Companies Using Text and Instant Messaging

One Act to Rule Them All

A Legal Guide to Kicking SaaS

Potential changes to the Privacy Act 2020

NZ's Social Media "Code of Practice" Launched

Are you being unfair?

A new Companies Office levy is one step closer

Has Paramount Pictures gone maverick?

From Russia with love: The ‘other’ Russian conflict targeting intellectual property owners

Retail Payment System Act 2022 now in force

Paying the price for getting privacy wrong

Can AI be an inventor?

Finfluencer Crackdown

TIN Fintech Insights Report Launch

Britain seeks to regulate 'Big Tech'

Disclosure of personal information - how to, not don't do

The Spice May Flow, But The Copyright Doesn’t

Sound Recording Ownership (Taylor's Version)

The Lowdown (and Lockdown) on Summer Clerkships

Building Blocks of Trust

Firm News | Legal Rankings

Buy Now, Regulate Soon

Ten simple things

Funding the Future

Cyber Security for Start-ups

Fit for purchase

The Screen Industry Workers Bill

UK/New Zealand Trade Deal Takes Flight

Palmer v Alalääkkölä

Other articles you
might like

Space Law in New Zealand — Signals from the ground
28
April 2026

Hudson Gavin Martin was delighted to once again author the New Zealand chapter of Lexology In Depth: Space Law.

Lisa Paz

Senior Associate

Cyber security changes flagged for New Zealand
13
April 2026

The Government’s new Cyber Security Strategy 2026–2030 and Action Plan 2026–2027 signal a renewed push to strengthen New Zealand’s resilience to digital threats.

Luiz Buck

Senior Associate

Simon Martin

Partner

IPP3A is nearly in force – What agencies need to know
31
March 2026

IPP3A is almost here, and agencies that collect personal information indirectly need to prepare.

Kyra Vince

Special Counsel – Knowledge

Anchali Anandanayagam

Partner