A Recap of FINRA Securities Fraud Cases in 2025

Each year, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority publishes data on the previous year’s cases. This year’s data on FINRA securities fraud cases shows how cases are handled across the industry. For investors who have experienced losses, these statistics provide valuable context. This data highlights the most frequently alleged misconduct and its types, and how disputes are typically resolved through FINRA arbitration.

This 2025 FINRA case recap examines securities fraud cases as reflected in arbitration filings and enforcement activity. It also explains how this data applies to investors evaluating whether broker misconduct contributed to their losses and whether legal action is appropriate.

FINRA’s Role in Securities Fraud Cases

FINRA is the primary self-regulatory organization overseeing brokerage firms and registered representatives in the United States. While FINRA is not a court, it plays a central role in regulating broker conduct and administering investor-firm disputes.

FINRA becomes involved in securities fraud matters in two primary ways. First, through enforcement actions, FINRA investigates potential violations of securities laws and FINRA rules and imposes disciplinary sanctions where appropriate. Second, through FINRA Dispute Resolution Services, FINRA administers arbitration and mediation proceedings for disputes involving investors, firms, and registered representatives.

Most investor securities fraud cases are resolved through FINRA arbitration rather than civil litigation. FINRA’s annual statistics provide important insight into how many claims were pursued and resolved in practice.

The information discussed in this post is based on FINRA’s publicly available Dispute Resolution Services statistics and enforcement materials.

Securities Fraud Cases Filed in 2025

FINRA’s Dispute Resolution Services statistics show that thousands of arbitration and mediation cases were filed in 2025. Customer-initiated cases accounted for the majority of filings, consistent with prior years.

Although FINRA does not categorize filings as “securities fraud cases,” many customer arbitration claims involve allegations commonly associated with securities fraud. These include misrepresentation or omission of material facts, unsuitable investment recommendations, and failures to supervise brokers.

In 2025, total case filings increased modestly compared to 2024, though they remained below the elevated levels reported in 2023. Arbitration continued to be the primary forum for resolving investor disputes, while mediation accounted for a smaller share of cases.

These filing trends indicate that investor concerns regarding broker conduct remain prevalent and that FINRA arbitration continues to serve as the primary mechanism for addressing securities fraud claims.

Customer Cases Versus Intra-Industry Disputes

FINRA’s statistics distinguish between customer cases and intra-industry disputes. Customer cases are filed by investors alleging harm caused by brokerage firms or registered representatives. Intra-industry disputes typically involve employment or compensation issues between firms and industry professionals.

In 2025, customer cases significantly outnumbered intra-industry disputes. This distinction is important because securities fraud allegations almost exclusively arise in customer arbitration proceedings.

For investors reviewing FINRA’s data, the prevalence of customer cases underscores that many individuals pursue arbitration when they believe broker misconduct contributed to their losses.

Need help fighting broker fraud? Kurta Law has a long history of securing settlements for our clients. Contact us here for a free case review.  

Common Allegations in Securities Fraud Cases

FINRA’s arbitration and enforcement data consistently identify a core set of allegations that appear in many securities fraud cases. In 2025, these included misrepresentation or omission of material information, unsuitable investment recommendations, failure to supervise brokers or registered representatives, breach of fiduciary duty, unauthorized trading, negligence, and breach of contract.

These allegations frequently overlap. A case involving unsuitable investment recommendations may also include claims that risks were not properly disclosed or that the firm failed to supervise the broker’s conduct. FINRA’s data reflects that securities fraud cases often involve patterns of conduct rather than isolated errors.

FINRA Enforcement Actions in 2025

In addition to arbitration cases filed by investors, FINRA continued to pursue enforcement actions against brokerage firms and registered representatives in 2025.

FINRA’s enforcement reporting shows that the total number of disciplinary actions declined compared to the prior year. At the same time, enforcement activity continued to focus on recurring compliance issues, including supervision failures, recordkeeping deficiencies, and adherence to Regulation Best Interest.

Smaller and mid-sized firms represented a notable share of enforcement actions, reflecting ongoing regulatory scrutiny of supervisory systems and internal controls.

While FINRA enforcement actions may result in fines, suspensions, or bars, they do not automatically compensate investors for losses. However, enforcement findings can be relevant in securities fraud cases pursued through FINRA arbitration, particularly when the same conduct is at issue (finra.org/rules-guidance/oversight-enforcement/enforcement).

Regulation Best Interest and Securities Fraud Claims

Regulation Best Interest continues to influence both enforcement priorities and securities fraud claims. FINRA’s oversight of Reg BI compliance has increased scrutiny of how brokers formulate and document investment recommendations.

In 2025, FINRA enforcement materials reflected continued attention to Reg BI-related issues, particularly where recommendations appeared inconsistent with an investor’s financial profile or stated objectives. While not every Reg BI violation results in a securities fraud claim, these matters often overlap with allegations of unsuitable recommendations and inadequate disclosure.

For investors, Reg BI enforcement activity provides additional context when assessing whether broker conduct may support a securities fraud case.

How FINRA Arbitration Works for Securities Fraud Cases

Most investors seeking recovery for securities fraud pursue claims through FINRA arbitration rather than court litigation. FINRA arbitration is a binding process governed by specific procedural rules.

FINRA’s 2025 statistics show that arbitration cases frequently take more than a year to resolve, particularly when they proceed to a full evidentiary hearing. Cases resolved through settlement or dispositive motions generally conclude more quickly, though timelines vary by complexity.

A substantial number of securities fraud cases settle. Settlements may occur at various stages of the proceeding, including after discovery or during the hearing process.

Outcomes in Securities Fraud Arbitration Cases

FINRA does not publish detailed recovery amounts for individual securities fraud cases, but it provides insight into case resolution. Outcomes include settlements, awards in favor of investors, awards in favor of respondents, and dismissals.

Settlement activity highlights how many securities fraud cases end in negotiation rather than final awards. Outcomes depend on the specific facts, the strength of the evidence, and the legal theories asserted.

Understanding these patterns can help investors approach the arbitration process with realistic expectations.

What the 2025 Data Indicates for Investors

The 2025 FINRA data highlights several trends relevant to investors evaluating potential securities fraud cases. Allegations of broker misconduct remain common, particularly those involving suitability and disclosure issues. FINRA arbitration remains the primary avenue for investor recovery. Enforcement actions alone rarely result in compensation, making private arbitration claims an important tool for addressing losses.

The data also shows that securities fraud cases often involve multiple alleged violations, which can affect both liability analysis and potential recovery.

When to Consult a Securities Fraud Attorney

FINRA’s 2025 statistics demonstrate that securities fraud cases are a recurring part of the regulatory landscape. Investors impacted by broker misconduct, unsuitable recommendations, or misleading information should consult a securities fraud attorney experienced in FINRA arbitration.

An attorney can assess whether a claim falls within FINRA’s dispute resolution framework, explain potential recovery options, and outline the procedural considerations involved in arbitration.

Talk to Kurta Law if You Lost Money Due to Broker Misconduct

If you believe your broker misrepresented your investments, made unsuitable recommendations, or engaged in other broker misconduct, Jonathan Kurta, securities lawyer, can help. Our securities fraud attorneys regularly represent investors in FINRA arbitration and offer free case evaluations.

You pay no legal fees unless we recover compensation for you. Contact Kurta Law today here or call (877)600-0098.