The status of the 1975 “Fiduciary Rule,” which established the definition of a fiduciary for providing advice to defined contribution (DC) plan participants, has fluctuated over the past 15 years with four different proposals, six rounds of litigation, and now the latest action by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) in March 2026, which turns the clock back to the 1975 version of the rule.

Background of the Fiduciary Rule Changes

Broadly speaking, a party that provides “investment advice” and receives direct or indirect compensation is considered a fiduciary under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Before the current “Fiduciary Rule Revisions Era,” starting in 2010, plan sponsors and advisers relied on the 1975 version of the rule, which exempted parties from the fiduciary standards if the advice was provided on a one-time or occasional basis, or if the relationship did not include “a mutual agreement, arrangement, or understanding” that the advice would serve as “a primary basis for investment decisions.”

In 1975, when the original Fiduciary Rule was put in place, the most common retirement benefit was a defined benefit (DB) plan, and any risks to the benefit were managed by the plan sponsor, supported by expert advisers. Since that time, DC plans have become the main retirement benefit and make up the majority of Americans’ savings. In stark contrast to the DB plan, the risk of poor investment performance or inadequate savings in a DC plan is borne by participants.

In response to the changing environment and reflecting the shifting political priorities of the executive branch, each of the last four presidential administrations has sought to update the definition of an “investment advice fiduciary.” The various updates throughout the Fiduciary Rule Revisions Era have sought to expand the protections for participants and took an expansive view of the implications of such advice. The rules established an expert standard of care (the duty of prudence), required that the adviser put the DC plan participant first (the duty of loyalty), and sought to avoid conflicts of interest.

The proposed changes over this period of time have spurred a swath of retirement litigation and executive actions to constrain or redefine what the rule should protect. And now in 2026, the DOL has vacated all previous iterations of the Fiduciary Rule and restored the 1975 version for determining whether a person is an investment advice fiduciary. By vacating the rule rather than drafting a new rule or amending any existing regulations, the DOL circumvented any notice-and-comment process.

This back-and-forth has created confusion for plan sponsors and participants. At the same time, it’s raised awareness about the different types of advice participants might receive—whether it’s investment recommendations, managed account services, rollover guidance, or other financial help—and whether that advice is impartial or strictly in the participant’s best interest.

Bottom Line

Plan sponsors are more aware of the potential for conflict of interest and the importance of monitoring the outcomes of advice, but with the return to the 1975 rule, they now lack any ERISA-specific framework to manage risk and provide oversight. In lieu of this guidance, plan sponsors should review agreements with service providers in order to shore up the base requirements, any limitations, establish agreements on reporting and oversight, and clarify indemnification.

Plan sponsors can also review participant calls with those service providers on a regular basis, in order to verify compliance. This may include calls where a participant either takes a high-dollar pre-retirement distribution or rollover to an IRA to understand how the advice is provided and confirm that the provider is managing conflicts of interest. Plan sponsors may also wish to confirm the revenue a provider receives from rollovers out of the plan, when directed to a proprietary IRA product.