Last Updated: September 7, 2025

Finauthority exists to help users make better-informed assessments of financial companies through independent research, structured regulatory information, evidence-based user feedback and transparent editorial analysis.

Trust in financial information must be earned.

For this reason, Finauthority maintains editorial standards designed to ensure that our research is conducted carefully, impartially and independently from the commercial interests of companies appearing on the Platform.

This policy explains:

• how Finauthority conducts editorial research;
• how we select and evaluate sources;
• how we distinguish facts, allegations and opinions;
• how commercial relationships are separated from editorial conclusions;
• how conflicts of interest are managed;
• how companies may respond to our findings;
• how errors are corrected;
• how user evidence is handled; and
• the principles our researchers and editors are expected to follow.

1. About Finauthority

Finauthority is an independent financial company directory, research and review platform operated by:

Legal entity: FinAuthority

Registered office: Národní 135/14, Prague, Hlavní mesto Praha 110 00, Czech Republic

Country of registration: Czech Republic

Website: Finauthority.org

General enquiries: kancelar@finauthority.org

Privacy enquiries: privacy@finauthority.org

Legal enquiries: legal@finauthority.org

Company Review & Verification: check@finauthority.org

Finauthority is operated from the Czech Republic and conducts research concerning financial companies and services internationally.

2. Our Editorial Mission

Our editorial mission is to make information about financial companies easier to research, understand and verify.

We aim to provide users with clear information concerning matters such as:

• company identity;
• legal entities;
• regulatory status;
• financial licenses;
• jurisdictions;
• regulators and supervisory authorities;
• official warnings;
• company ownership;
• services offered;
• transparency;
• relevant risk factors;
• user experiences; and
• material changes affecting a financial brand.

We do not seek to promote or attack financial companies.

Our purpose is to document and analyze them as accurately and fairly as reasonably possible.

3. Independence

Editorial independence is a fundamental principle of Finauthority.

Research conclusions should be determined by:

• evidence;
• authoritative sources;
• documented facts;
• relevant context;
• professional judgment; and
• our published methodology.

They should not be determined by:

• advertising relationships;
• affiliate commissions;
• premium-profile payments;
• sponsorship;
• pressure from financial companies;
• threats of withdrawing commercial relationships;
• pressure from users;
• popularity of a brand; or
• personal preferences of researchers.

4. More Than 15 Years of Professional Experience

Finauthority’s editorial and research approach is informed by more than 15 years of professional experience accumulated within our team.

This experience contributes to our ability to:

• assess financial-company disclosures;
• distinguish meaningful regulatory information from promotional claims;
• evaluate documentary evidence;
• recognize inconsistencies between corporate and regulatory information;
• analyze communication patterns;
• identify potentially misleading claims;
• understand how financial brands present themselves to consumers; and
• place individual findings within a wider financial and regulatory context.

Experience does not replace evidence.

Every material conclusion should still be supported by appropriate research and documentation.

5. Accuracy Before Speed

Finauthority values accuracy more than being first.

Where information is incomplete, contradictory or difficult to verify, we may delay publication, qualify our wording or state that a claim could not be independently confirmed.

We prefer:

“We could not independently verify this claim”

to presenting an uncertain conclusion as a fact.

We prefer:

“The regulator’s records identified the following entity”

to relying solely on a company’s promotional statement.

Speed should not justify lowering our verification standards.

6. Evidence Before Assumption

Finauthority does not intend to classify a financial company based solely on suspicion, reputation, anonymous accusations or online discussion.

Material assessments should be based on evidence appropriate to the claim.

Depending on the issue, evidence may include:

• regulatory records;
• corporate registers;
• official warnings;
• legal documents;
• licensing information;
• company terms and conditions;
• archived webpages;
• correspondence;
• transaction evidence;
• public records;
• company responses; and
• other reliable material.

Where evidence remains insufficient, our wording should reflect that uncertainty.

7. Primary Sources First

Whenever reasonably possible, Finauthority gives priority to primary and authoritative sources.

These may include:

• financial regulators;
• supervisory authorities;
• central banks;
• securities commissions;
• government databases;
• corporate registries;
• courts;
• official company documents;
• official company websites;
• official legal notices; and
• other authoritative public records.

Secondary sources may provide useful context but generally should not override clear information from an authoritative primary source without good reason.

8. Source Hierarchy

Sources do not automatically carry equal evidentiary weight.

As a general principle, Finauthority may consider the following hierarchy when assessing important claims:

Level 1 — Primary Official Sources

Examples include:

• regulator databases;
• government registers;
• court decisions;
• official enforcement notices;
• official public records.

Level 2 — Primary Company Sources

Examples include:

• legal documents;
• official company websites;
• regulatory disclosures;
• contractual documents;
• official correspondence.

Level 3 — Independently Verifiable Evidence

Examples include:

• transaction documents;
• correspondence;
• screenshots supported by context;
• archived webpages;
• documentary evidence submitted by users.

Level 4 — Reliable Secondary Sources

Examples include:

• established news organizations;
• specialist financial publications;
• credible research databases.

Level 5 — Unverified Claims and Open-Source Discussion

Examples include:

• anonymous posts;
• forums;
• social-media claims;
• unsupported reviews;
• promotional materials without independent verification.

Lower-level sources may still be relevant but should normally require stronger corroboration before supporting serious factual conclusions.

9. Company Websites Are Sources, Not Proof

Information published by a financial company about itself can be relevant but should not automatically be treated as independently verified.

For example, a company may claim that it is:

• regulated;
• licensed;
• authorized;
• award-winning;
• insured;
• internationally supervised; or
• affiliated with another organization.

Where such claims are material, Finauthority may seek independent confirmation.

Company statements may therefore be described as:

Company States

According to the Company

Company-Provided Information

rather than presented automatically as verified fact.

10. Regulatory Claims Require Particular Care

Claims concerning financial regulation can materially influence consumer decisions.

Finauthority therefore treats regulatory claims as requiring a high level of verification.

Where reasonably possible, we may check:

• regulator name;
• legal entity;
• license number;
• authorization category;
• current status;
• permitted activities;
• approved trading names;
• website domains;
• jurisdiction; and
• relevant restrictions.

A license belonging to one entity should not automatically be attributed to another entity merely because the two companies appear related.

11. Facts, Allegations and Opinions

Finauthority aims to distinguish clearly between different types of information.

Verified Fact

Information supported by sufficiently reliable evidence.

Company Claim

Information asserted by the company but not necessarily independently confirmed.

User Allegation

A claim made by a user that may or may not have been independently established.

Official Finding

A finding, warning or decision issued by a competent authority.

Editorial Assessment

An analytical conclusion reached by Finauthority based on available evidence.

Opinion

A subjective evaluation that should be identifiable as such.

These categories should not be presented interchangeably.

12. Serious Allegations

Allegations involving matters such as:

• fraud;
• theft;
• misappropriation;
• criminal conduct;
• deliberate deception;
• money laundering;
• regulatory evasion; or
• other serious wrongdoing

require particular editorial care.

Where appropriate, we may:

• seek stronger supporting evidence;
• examine official sources;
• contact the company;
• distinguish allegation from established fact;
• identify any relevant regulator action; and
• avoid categorical wording unsupported by available evidence.

Finauthority does not determine criminal guilt.

13. “Scam” and Similar Terminology

Terms such as scam, fraudulent, criminal or equivalent descriptions should not be used casually.

Where an authoritative regulator, court or competent authority has used particular terminology, Finauthority may accurately report that fact with appropriate attribution.

Where no such determination exists, we may instead use factual descriptions such as:

• Regulatory Warning;
• License Not Verified;
• Unauthorized According to Regulator;
• Potential Clone Firm;
• Significant Warning Signs;
• Unverified Regulatory Claims;
• High-Risk Indicators; or
• Under Review.

Our terminology should reflect the strength of the evidence.

14. Fairness

Finauthority aims to treat financial companies fairly regardless of whether our findings are positive, neutral or negative.

Fairness does not require false balance.

Where reliable evidence strongly supports a conclusion, we are not required to weaken that conclusion merely because a company disagrees.

However, fairness generally requires that we:

• accurately represent the evidence;
• avoid unnecessary exaggeration;
• distinguish allegations from facts;
• include relevant context;
• correct material errors;
• consider reliable contrary evidence; and
• provide appropriate opportunities for response where warranted.

15. Impartiality

Finauthority does not maintain predetermined positive or negative classifications for companies based solely on:

• country of origin;
• company size;
• popularity;
• political connections;
• advertising status;
• corporate ownership; or
• whether a company has contacted Finauthority.

The same core research principles should apply to companies regardless of commercial relationship or public profile.

16. Regulatory Status Is Not a Moral Judgment

A company being regulated does not automatically mean that it is excellent.

A company being unregulated does not automatically mean that it is fraudulent.

A company being offshore does not automatically establish misconduct.

A company receiving complaints does not automatically prove every complaint.

Our editorial work should explain relevant distinctions instead of using regulatory labels as simplistic judgments.

17. Independent Research Versus Company-Provided Content

Finauthority distinguishes between information independently researched by our team and information supplied by a company.

Where appropriate, content may be labeled:

Provided by the Company

Verified by Finauthority

Verification Pending

Not Independently Verified

Editorial Assessment

Claiming a company profile does not convert company-provided information into independent Finauthority research.

18. Commercial and Editorial Separation

Finauthority may generate revenue through commercial activities.

These may include:

• advertising;
• sponsored placements;
• affiliate relationships;
• premium profile tools;
• enhanced company features;
• business services; or
• other commercial arrangements.

Commercial relationships should be kept appropriately separate from independent editorial decision-making.

Commercial staff or considerations should not dictate:

• regulatory classification;
• license verification;
• official-warning coverage;
• factual corrections;
• independent ratings;
• user-review moderation; or
• research conclusions.

19. No Pay-for-Rating

A financial company cannot purchase a favorable independent rating.

Payment to Finauthority does not entitle a company to:

• a higher score;
• a favorable regulatory status;
• removal of documented risks;
• removal of legitimate criticism;
• suppression of official warnings;
• a positive editorial conclusion; or
• preferential factual treatment.

Where paid visibility exists, it should be clearly distinguished from independent assessment.

20. Sponsored Content

Where Finauthority publishes sponsored content or paid promotional material, it should be clearly identifiable.

Appropriate labels may include:

Sponsored

Advertisement

Promoted

Paid Partnership

or another sufficiently clear disclosure.

Sponsored material should not be presented in a way that causes users reasonably to believe that it is independent editorial research when it is not.

21. Affiliate Relationships

Finauthority may receive compensation where a user follows certain commercial links or completes qualifying actions.

Where an affiliate relationship exists, it should be disclosed appropriately.

Affiliate compensation does not convert a company into a recommended or regulator-approved provider.

Editorial assessments should remain independent from affiliate revenue.

22. Conflicts of Interest

A conflict of interest may arise where an individual participating in Finauthority research has a personal, financial, professional or other relationship that could reasonably affect their impartiality.

Potential conflicts may include:

• financial interests in a company being reviewed;
• close personal relationships with management;
• employment or recent employment by the company;
• consulting relationships;
• substantial gifts or benefits;
• significant unresolved personal disputes; or
• other circumstances capable of reasonably calling independence into question.

23. Managing Conflicts of Interest

Where a meaningful conflict of interest is identified, appropriate measures may include:

• disclosure;
• reassignment of the research;
• secondary editorial review;
• exclusion from a particular decision;
• independent fact checking; or
• another proportionate safeguard.

Significant conflicts should not simply be ignored.

24. Gifts and Benefits

Researchers and editors should not accept gifts, payments or benefits intended to influence Finauthority coverage.

Nominal promotional material that cannot reasonably influence editorial judgment may be treated differently, but substantial gifts or financial benefits connected to editorial treatment should be refused or appropriately managed.

25. Pressure From Companies

Financial companies may disagree strongly with our findings.

Finauthority may receive:

• requests for correction;
• legal complaints;
• threats of litigation;
• requests to remove reviews;
• commercial pressure;
• threats to terminate partnerships; or
• demands for favorable treatment.

Such pressure does not by itself justify altering accurate information.

We should change content when the evidence justifies a change.

26. Pressure From Users

Editorial independence also applies to pressure from users.

A high volume of complaints against a company does not automatically require Finauthority to classify that company as fraudulent.

Likewise, a coordinated positive campaign does not automatically justify a high rating.

Popularity, outrage and volume are not substitutes for evidence.

27. User Reviews

User reviews are valuable because they can reveal experiences and patterns not visible in corporate or regulatory records.

However, financial reviews can also be manipulated.

Finauthority therefore aims to evaluate review quality rather than simply count submissions.

Our review system may consider:

• authenticity;
• relevance;
• supporting evidence;
• account behavior;
• duplicate submissions;
• coordinated patterns;
• potential conflicts;
• company responses; and
• other contextual signals.

28. Evidence-Based Reviews

Where a user makes material factual allegations, Finauthority may request evidence.

Depending on the case, evidence may include:

• transaction confirmations;
• deposit records;
• withdrawal requests;
• company correspondence;
• account notices;
• contracts;
• screenshots;
• payment records;
• complaint correspondence; or
• regulatory communications.

The purpose is not to make reviewing unnecessarily difficult.

The purpose is to distinguish genuine experiences from fabricated or manipulated claims where reasonably possible.

29. Evidence Reviewed Does Not Mean Everything Proven

Where a review carries an Evidence Reviewed label, it means our team examined information relevant to assessing the review.

It does not necessarily mean that:

• every claim was conclusively proven;
• every document was independently authenticated;
• a regulator confirmed the complaint;
• a court established the facts; or
• the company agrees with the reviewer.

Verification labels must be used carefully and explained transparently.

30. Fake and Manipulated Reviews

Finauthority does not permit deliberate manipulation of ratings or reviews.

This includes:

• fabricated reviews;
• purchased positive reviews;
• purchased negative reviews;
• coordinated attacks;
• undisclosed employee reviews;
• deceptive competitor reviews;
• multiple accounts operated to manipulate ratings;
• automated review submissions;
• incentives conditioned on a predetermined rating; and
• campaigns intended to artificially distort public perception.

Where reasonable evidence of manipulation exists, we may remove, restrict or investigate the relevant content or accounts.

31. Negative Reviews Are Not Automatically Removed

A company cannot obtain removal of a review merely because:

• it is negative;
• it reduces the company’s rating;
• management disputes the user’s interpretation;
• the company threatens legal action;
• the company is a commercial partner; or
• the company has claimed its profile.

Reviews may be restricted or removed where justified by evidence, law or our published policies.

32. Positive Reviews Are Also Subject to Scrutiny

Our integrity standards apply equally to positive and negative reviews.

Positive reviews may be investigated where they appear:

• fabricated;
• incentivized without disclosure;
• generated by employees;
• automated;
• duplicated;
• commercially coordinated; or
• otherwise misleading.

Review integrity means protecting companies from false accusations and protecting users from artificial praise.

33. Right of Reply

Companies should have a meaningful opportunity to respond to information affecting them where appropriate.

A response mechanism may allow a company to:

• clarify facts;
• submit documents;
• challenge regulatory information;
• respond to reviews;
• explain changes;
• provide updated licensing information; or
• raise a correction request.

The existence of a right of reply does not grant the company editorial control.

34. Pre-Publication Contact

For significant original investigations or serious allegations, Finauthority may contact the affected company before publication where appropriate and practical.

The decision to seek pre-publication comment may depend on:

• seriousness of the allegation;
• quality of available evidence;
• urgency;
• public availability of the information;
• whether the company has already publicly addressed the matter; and
• legal or safety considerations.

Failure of a company to respond does not necessarily prevent publication.

35. Reasonable Time to Respond

Where pre-publication comment is sought, we aim to provide a reasonable opportunity to respond in the circumstances.

What is reasonable may depend on:

• complexity;
• urgency;
• volume of questions;
• accessibility of the company; and
• whether publication concerns rapidly developing events.

Finauthority does not guarantee indefinite delays while waiting for a response.

36. Corrections

Accuracy requires willingness to correct mistakes.

Where reliable evidence demonstrates that Finauthority published a material factual error, we should correct it.

Depending on significance, correction may involve:

• editing the relevant information;
• updating a company profile;
• changing regulatory status;
• adding explanatory context;
• publishing a correction notice; or
• documenting a material update.

Corrections should not be treated as editorial failure when they reflect responsible updating of information.

37. Silent Minor Corrections

Minor errors that do not materially affect meaning may be corrected without a formal correction notice.

Examples may include:

• typographical errors;
• formatting;
• spelling;
• minor grammatical issues; or
• non-substantive link updates.

Material changes should be handled more transparently.

38. Material Corrections

Where a correction substantially changes the meaning of an article, rating or regulatory conclusion, Finauthority may include an update or correction note explaining the nature of the change.

The goal is accountability rather than concealment.

39. Updating Company Profiles

Financial-company information can change frequently.

Profiles may therefore be updated when:

• a new license is issued;
• authorization expires;
• a regulator publishes a warning;
• ownership changes;
• a company changes legal entity;
• a domain changes;
• new reliable documents become available;
• a company corrects outdated information; or
• our researchers identify relevant developments.

Where available, Last Reviewed and Last Regulatory Check dates can help users understand the timing of our research.

40. Removal Versus Correction

Inaccurate information does not always require deletion of an entire article or profile.

Where appropriate, correction, clarification or updating may provide a more accurate historical record.

Deletion may be appropriate where:

• publication is unlawful;
• content was associated with the wrong entity;
• the factual basis was fundamentally invalid;
• retention is no longer justified; or
• another compelling reason applies.

These decisions should be made on the merits of the individual case.

41. Historical Information

Finauthority may retain historically relevant information where lawful and appropriate.

For example, it may be relevant that a company:

• previously operated under another name;
• previously held a particular license;
• was previously subject to a regulatory warning;
• changed ownership;
• changed domain; or
• previously made a regulatory claim.

Historical facts should be clearly distinguished from current status.

42. Attribution

Where information originates from another source, Finauthority should provide appropriate attribution where reasonably necessary.

Particularly important sources may include:

• regulators;
• government authorities;
• courts;
• official registers;
• company documents;
• established media; and
• specialist research sources.

Attribution helps users distinguish our own findings from information originating elsewhere.

43. Linking to Primary Sources

Where practical, Finauthority may provide links to original regulatory records or other authoritative sources.

This allows users to independently verify important information.

External links may change or become unavailable over time.

The original authority remains responsible for its own records.

44. Quotations and Copyright

Editorial research should respect applicable copyright and intellectual-property rules.

We generally prefer:

• concise quotation;
• attribution;
• summary;
• analysis; and
• linking to the original source

rather than reproducing substantial third-party material unnecessarily.

Further information is available in our Copyright and Intellectual Property Policy.

45. Images and Logos

Company logos, regulator marks, screenshots and other third-party visual material may be used where lawful and relevant for:

• identification;
• analysis;
• reporting;
• comparison;
• explanation; or
• other legitimate editorial purposes.

Their use does not automatically imply endorsement or affiliation.

46. Automated and AI-Assisted Tools

Finauthority may use technological, automated or AI-assisted tools to support parts of its workflow where appropriate.

Such tools may assist with functions such as:

• organizing information;
• identifying potential duplicates;
• detecting review patterns;
• translation;
• document comparison;
• identifying possible inconsistencies;
• research support; or
• technical moderation.

Automated tools should not be treated as an unquestionable source of truth.

Material regulatory classifications and significant editorial conclusions should remain subject to appropriate human editorial judgment and verification.

47. Human Responsibility

Responsibility for Finauthority’s editorial standards remains with Finauthority.

The use of software, databases, algorithms or automated assistance does not remove our responsibility to:

• check important information;
• evaluate evidence;
• correct errors;
• apply our methodology; and
• make reasonable editorial decisions.

48. Translation

Because Finauthority researches companies internationally, sources may exist in multiple languages.

Where translated material is used, we aim to preserve the substantive meaning of the original source.

Machine-assisted translation may be used as a research aid, but important conclusions should not rely solely on an ambiguous translation where clarification is reasonably available.

49. Anonymous and Confidential Sources

Finauthority may occasionally receive information from sources who request confidentiality.

Anonymous information may help initiate research but should not automatically be sufficient for serious factual conclusions.

Where confidential sources are relied upon, we may consider:

• credibility;
• proximity to the events;
• available corroboration;
• motive;
• documentary support; and
• potential consequences of publication.

Source confidentiality may be protected where appropriate and lawful.

50. Whistleblowers

Individuals may provide information concerning financial companies where they reasonably believe it is relevant to our research.

Finauthority encourages whistleblowers and other sources to avoid unnecessarily transmitting:

• passwords;
• private keys;
• cryptocurrency seed phrases;
• complete payment-card credentials;
• unlawfully obtained personal information; or
• documents unrelated to the matter being reported.

The fact that information is supplied by a whistleblower does not eliminate the need for verification.

51. Confidential Documents

Documents provided confidentially are not automatically published.

Where relevant, Finauthority may instead:

• verify information contained in the document;
• describe the substance;
• redact sensitive details;
• seek independent confirmation; or
• retain the material solely as supporting evidence.

Privacy, confidentiality, public interest and editorial relevance should all be considered.

52. Personal Data

Editorial research involving identifiable individuals must also comply with applicable data-protection principles.

Information should not be published merely because it can be found somewhere online.

We may consider:

• relevance;
• professional role;
• public availability;
• accuracy;
• necessity;
• proportionality;
• privacy impact; and
• legitimate public interest.

Further information is available in our Privacy Policy.

53. Avoiding Unnecessary Harm

Accurate financial reporting can sometimes have negative consequences for a company or individual.

Finauthority does not promise to avoid publishing unfavorable facts.

However, unnecessary harm should be avoided where it provides no meaningful informational value.

Examples include publishing:

• irrelevant private details;
• unrelated family information;
• unnecessary personal contact information;
• sensational details without relevance; or
• unsupported personal accusations.

54. Headlines and Titles

Headlines should accurately reflect the underlying content.

We seek to avoid misleading clickbait or headlines that state stronger conclusions than the evidence supports.

A headline should not describe a company categorically as fraudulent when the underlying article merely identifies unverified concerns.

55. Search Engine Optimization

Finauthority may optimize content so that users can find useful financial research through search engines.

SEO considerations may affect:

• page structure;
• headings;
• descriptions;
• terminology;
• internal links; and
• presentation.

SEO should not determine factual conclusions.

We will not intentionally exaggerate allegations merely to attract search traffic.

56. Editorial Updates for SEO

Updating older content to improve clarity, structure or search visibility is permitted.

However, SEO updates should not remove important historical context, regulatory warnings or material negative information merely because such information is commercially inconvenient.

57. Ratings Methodology

Where Finauthority assigns ratings or risk indicators, the criteria should be described transparently in our Research and Rating Methodology.

Ratings should not be secretly changed to favor advertisers or commercial partners.

Material changes to rating methodology should be documented appropriately.

58. Consistency

Similar situations should generally be evaluated using similar editorial standards.

Absolute uniformity may not always be possible because:

• jurisdictions differ;
• regulation differs;
• evidence quality differs;
• financial products differ; and
• individual circumstances vary.

Where different treatment is justified, the reason should relate to the facts rather than commercial preference.

59. Editorial Review

Significant or sensitive content may be subjected to additional editorial review.

This may be appropriate for:

• major regulatory allegations;
• serious accusations;
• high-profile companies;
• complex ownership structures;
• disputed investigations;
• substantial conflicts of evidence; or
• potentially significant legal risk.

Additional review is intended to improve accuracy, not to protect powerful companies from legitimate scrutiny.

60. Complaints About Editorial Content

Anyone who believes Finauthority has published materially inaccurate or unfair information may submit a complaint.

For general factual and company-verification issues:

check@finauthority.org

For formal legal matters:

legal@finauthority.org

Please identify:

• the relevant URL;
• disputed statement;
• reason you believe it is inaccurate;
• correct information; and
• supporting evidence or authoritative sources.

Unsupported demands for removal may not be sufficient.

61. Complaints Are Evaluated on Evidence

Finauthority does not determine correction requests according to:

• size of the company;
• legal budget;
• advertising spend;
• number of complaints submitted;
• public pressure; or
• threats.

The relevant question is whether the challenged information is accurate, lawful, fair and supported by appropriate evidence.

62. Appeals and Reconsideration

Where a meaningful editorial or moderation dispute remains unresolved, Finauthority may provide an internal reconsideration process where appropriate.

A different member of the team may review:

• the original decision;
• supporting evidence;
• company response;
• reviewer response;
• relevant policies; and
• new information.

Further details are provided in our Corrections, Complaints and Right of Reply Policy and Content Moderation and Notice-and-Action Policy.

63. Transparency About Uncertainty

Financial research frequently involves incomplete information.

Finauthority considers transparency about uncertainty to be a strength, not a weakness.

Where appropriate, we may use wording such as:

• We could not independently verify this claim.
• Available records do not establish the connection.
• The regulator’s database does not currently show the claimed authorization.
• Additional information is required.
• The company disputes this finding.
• The matter remains under review.

Users should be able to distinguish certainty from inference.

64. Independence From Regulators

Finauthority may rely heavily on regulatory information but remains independent from regulators.

We may:

• summarize warnings;
• link to registers;
• explain regulatory structures;
• compare licensing regimes; and
• analyze public regulatory information.

This does not mean that the relevant authority approves Finauthority’s analysis.

65. Independence From Listed Companies

A company does not need to approve the creation of an informational profile before Finauthority researches it, subject to applicable law.

Likewise, claiming a profile does not provide editorial ownership over independent Finauthority research.

66. Independence From Reviewers

Finauthority is also independent from individual reviewers.

A reviewer does not control our classification of a company simply because they suffered a negative experience.

User evidence may contribute to our research but must be evaluated alongside other relevant information.

67. Our Standard of Trust

Finauthority does not ask users to trust us merely because we describe ourselves as independent.

Our credibility should come from our practices:

• identifying our operator;
• publishing our methodology;
• citing reliable sources;
• distinguishing claims from facts;
• disclosing commercial relationships;
• correcting errors;
• allowing responses;
• protecting review integrity;
• explaining uncertainty; and
• applying the same standards regardless of commercial interest.

68. Editorial Contact

Questions concerning Finauthority’s research standards, financial-company analysis or requests for company verification may be directed to:

Company Review & Verification: check@finauthority.org

General enquiries:

kancelar@finauthority.org

Formal legal enquiries:

legal@finauthority.org

Privacy enquiries:

privacy@finauthority.org

69. Postal Contact

FinAuthority
Národní 135/14
Prague, Hlavní mesto Praha 110 00
Czech Republic

Website: Finauthority.org

70. Changes to These Editorial Standards

Finauthority may update these standards as:

• the Platform develops;
• our methodology evolves;
• financial regulation changes;
• new types of content are introduced;
• new technologies are adopted; or
• relevant legal requirements change.

Material changes should not be used retroactively to conceal previous commercial influence or manipulate historical editorial records.

The current version will display its latest revision date.

71. Related Finauthority Policies

This Editorial Standards and Independence Policy should be read together with:

• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Financial and Regulatory Disclaimer
• Research and Rating Methodology
• User Review and Evidence Policy
• Corrections, Complaints and Right of Reply Policy
• Advertising, Affiliate and Conflict of Interest Disclosure
• Company Profile and Claiming Policy
• Content Moderation and Notice-and-Action Policy
• Copyright and Intellectual Property Policy

72. Our Editorial Commitment

Finauthority’s editorial commitment can be summarized in five principles:

Evidence Before Assumption

Material conclusions should be supported by appropriate evidence.

Accuracy Before Speed

Being correct matters more than being first.

Independence Before Revenue

Commercial relationships must not determine regulatory or editorial conclusions.

Fairness Without False Balance

Companies should be treated fairly, but established facts should not be diluted merely to avoid criticism.

Transparency Before Certainty

Where something cannot be independently verified, we should say so.

No financial company can purchase a favorable regulatory conclusion from Finauthority.

No advertiser can legitimately demand suppression of verified information as a condition of payment.

No user review should be treated as established fact simply because it is published.

No financial company should be condemned merely because allegations exist.

Our goal is to give users the clearest possible picture of the evidence available at the time of our research.