A directive from the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy is raising questions about how far professional oversight bodies can go in shaping public criticism, after the organization told a continuing professional education provider to stop making “unfavorable” comments about NASBA or risk losing its ability to provide CPE credit.
The April 16 letter, sent to Blake Oliver, co-founder of Earmark CPE and co-host of The Accounting Podcast, followed a March presentation at the AICPA LEAD Symposium, an event hosted by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. During that session, Oliver demonstrated how artificial intelligence tools could convert podcast or internal training content into self-study CPE courses for certified public accountants.
In their letter to Oliver, which was obtained by CFO.com, NASBA wrote that his presentation described using AI to convert existing content into CPE courses as identifying a “loophole” in CPE standards, and that he called parts of the required course development process “wrong” and “backwards.” The letter also states that he referred to required assessments as a “box that has to be checked” rather than a substantive compliance element.
Criticism triggers compliance action
NASBA’s letter goes on to say that the remarks and approach “appear to violate the terms” of Earmark’s sponsor agreement, which requires programs to be conducted in a manner that “reflects favorably on NASBA.”
The letter then issued a directive that Earmark must “immediately cease making any unfavorable, unprofessional, or inappropriate comments about NASBA” and take corrective action to prevent recurrence. The letter also warned that failure to comply “may result in the termination of the sponsor agreement… and removal of the sponsor from the National Registry of CPE Sponsors,” which would affect Earmark’s ability to provide qualifying CPE credits.
In his written response to NASBA obtained by CFO.com, Oliver, who also shared his side of the situation on LinkedIn, said the session was intended to demonstrate “a legitimate, compliant pathway to CPE creation,” adding that AI can make course development more accessible without bypassing NASBA standards.
A compliance issue with real enforcement consequences
NASBA’s directive connects expectations around conduct to its enforcement authority. Participation in its framework allows providers to offer qualifying CPE credits, making compliance central to operating in the CPE market.
The structure also creates a meaningful incentive to align with NASBA’s direction, particularly for providers of audio and video content such as Earmark, where the ability to offer CPE credit can expand audience reach, deepen engagement and provide access to a decision-making CPA audience.
The sponsor agreement language cited in the letter requires programs and related operations to be conducted in a way that “reflects favorably on NASBA.” That sits alongside the directive to cease “unfavorable” comments, linking how providers talk about the standards to their ability to remain in compliance.
NASBA declined to comment on the substance of the matter to CFO.com, but did say “as a national standards-setting body, NASBA addresses sponsor compliance matters directly with the sponsors involved, not through public commentary,” in response to inquiry on the matter.
How critique impacts compliance expectations
In his letter to NASBA, Oliver acknowledged that “more precise language would have served me better,” while maintaining that the approach presented was aligned with the intent of the standards. He described his comments about course development as “a pedagogical observation, not a criticism of NASBA or the Standards,” and said his reference to assessments as a “checkbox” reflected broader industry practices rather than a dismissal of substantive testing.
He also addressed the scope of the directive, writing that he is “fully committed” to operating within professional and ethical standards, and asked for clarification on how terms such as “unfavorable” and “inappropriate” are defined. Without that clarity, he wrote, it is difficult to determine whether “a substantive professional critique, offered responsibly and in an appropriate forum,” would be considered a violation.
Oliver added that he shared the letter with his audience in the interest of transparency and described the issues raised, including CPE quality, course development and professional discourse, as ones he believes the profession benefits from discussing openly.
The exchange offers a look at how the CPE system reinforces itself, and how its standards are perceived across the profession.
