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).

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
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?
Are you legal?
Power Up 2022
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
I'm back, baby
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
Hudson Gavin Martin was delighted to once again author the New Zealand chapter of Lexology In Depth: Space Law.
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.
IPP3A is almost here, and agencies that collect personal information indirectly need to prepare.







.jpg)




