Last Updated: September 7, 2025

Finauthority believes that genuine user experiences can provide valuable information about financial companies, particularly in areas that may not be visible through regulatory registers, corporate disclosures or company websites.

At the same time, financial reviews can significantly affect consumers, companies and reputations. Reviews may also be vulnerable to manipulation, fabricated experiences, coordinated campaigns, commercial incentives or unsupported serious allegations.

For these reasons, Finauthority does not treat every submitted review as an automatically verified fact.

Our review system is designed around five principles:

Real experiences over anonymous speculation.

Evidence over unsupported serious allegations.

Quality of reviews over quantity of reviews.

Equal scrutiny of positive and negative reviews.

Fairness to both users and financial companies.

This User Review and Evidence Policy explains how reviews are submitted, evaluated, verified, moderated, challenged and used within the Finauthority Platform.

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 operates from the Czech Republic while providing information about financial companies and services internationally.

2. Purpose of User Reviews

User reviews are intended to help other users understand genuine experiences with financial companies.

Relevant experiences may concern matters such as:

• account opening;
• customer support;
• deposits;
• withdrawals;
• payments;
• trading services;
• investment services;
• account verification;
• fees and commissions;
• platform functionality;
• complaints handling;
• communication;
• account closure;
• contractual terms;
• service quality; or
• other material aspects of the financial service.

Reviews should contribute useful information rather than simply increase or decrease a company’s rating.

3. Reviews Are User Contributions

Reviews generally reflect the experiences, opinions and statements of their respective authors.

Publication of a review does not automatically mean that Finauthority independently confirms every statement contained in it.

Where appropriate, Finauthority may:

• verify certain information;
• request supporting evidence;
• investigate authenticity;
• compare the review with other information;
• seek clarification;
• allow the company to respond;
• add verification labels;
• restrict publication; or
• remove content that violates this Policy.

4. Who May Submit a Review

Reviews should normally be submitted by individuals who have had a genuine and relevant interaction with the company being reviewed.

This may include:

• customers;
• former customers;
• prospective customers who reached a meaningful stage of interaction;
• users of a financial service;
• persons directly involved in a transaction; or
• other individuals with a legitimate first-hand basis for their review.

Finauthority may require an account to submit or publish a review.

Account creation and review submission are intended for persons aged 18 or older.

5. First-Hand Experience

As a general rule, reviews should describe a first-hand experience.

You should not submit a review merely because:

• you read something online;
• another person told you about the company;
• you disagree with the company’s business model;
• you dislike the industry;
• you saw negative comments on social media; or
• you want to influence the company’s rating.

Information obtained from third parties may instead be submitted to our research team where it is relevant to company verification.

Company research requests may be sent to:

check@finauthority.org

6. Genuine Experience Requirement

By submitting a review, you represent that the review is based on a genuine experience or other legitimate first-hand interaction that you are entitled to describe.

You must not knowingly fabricate:

• an account;
• transaction;
• deposit;
• withdrawal;
• communication;
• complaint;
• loss;
• profit;
• contractual relationship; or
• other relevant event.

Fabricated experiences may result in rejection or removal of the review and restriction of the associated account.

7. Reviews Must Be Relevant

Reviews should primarily concern the financial company or service listed on the relevant profile.

Content may be considered irrelevant where it consists mainly of:

• unrelated political opinions;
• personal attacks;
• unrelated disputes;
• advertising;
• spam;
• general statements about an industry;
• complaints about another company; or
• information that does not meaningfully relate to the reviewed service.

8. Personal Opinion Is Allowed

Users are entitled to express their personal opinion about a genuine experience.

Examples may include:

• “I found customer support slow.”
• “The platform was difficult for me to use.”
• “I was satisfied with the withdrawal process.”
• “The fees were higher than I expected.”

Personal opinions do not necessarily require documentary proof.

However, reviews must still comply with this Policy and must not disguise fabricated factual claims as opinion.

9. Factual Claims

A factual claim is a statement that can potentially be verified objectively.

Examples may include:

• “I deposited EUR 5,000.”
• “My withdrawal request was pending for 30 days.”
• “The company charged a EUR 250 fee.”
• “My account was closed on this date.”
• “The company represented itself as licensed by a particular regulator.”

Finauthority may request evidence for factual claims, particularly where they materially affect the assessment of the company.

10. Serious Allegations

Certain allegations require a higher level of care.

Examples include allegations of:

• fraud;
• theft;
• misappropriation;
• unauthorized transactions;
• forged documents;
• deliberate regulatory deception;
• identity theft;
• criminal activity;
• manipulation of client funds;
• refusal to return substantial customer funds; or
• other serious misconduct.

Finauthority may require meaningful supporting evidence before publishing such allegations in categorical terms.

Where evidence remains incomplete, wording may be limited, qualified or attributed to the reviewer.

11. Evidence-Based Review System

Finauthority aims to encourage reviews that can be meaningfully evaluated.

Where relevant, reviewers may submit supporting evidence.

Examples include:

• transaction confirmations;
• deposit receipts;
• withdrawal requests;
• payment confirmations;
• company correspondence;
• emails;
• chat records;
• account notices;
• contracts;
• invoices;
• screenshots;
• complaint correspondence;
• regulator correspondence;
• account statements; or
• other relevant documents.

The type of evidence required depends on the claim.

12. Evidence Is Not Required for Every Review

Finauthority does not require documentary evidence for every opinion or ordinary service review.

A genuine user may not retain documentation for every interaction.

Evidence becomes more important where:

• the allegation is serious;
• the amount involved is significant;
• the company disputes the facts;
• the review contains detailed factual claims;
• suspicious review activity is detected;
• the review may materially influence a company assessment; or
• additional verification is reasonably necessary.

13. Proportional Verification

Our verification process is intended to be proportionate.

For example, a statement such as:

“Customer support was slow.”

does not normally require bank records.

A statement such as:

“The company took EUR 40,000 from my account without authorization.”

may reasonably require stronger supporting evidence.

The seriousness of the claim influences the level of verification expected.

14. Evidence Does Not Need to Be Public

Documents submitted to support a review are generally intended for internal verification and moderation purposes.

Supporting evidence is not automatically published with a review.

Finauthority may verify relevant information without revealing:

• complete bank statements;
• private correspondence;
• account numbers;
• personal identification documents;
• transaction credentials; or
• other sensitive information.

15. Protect Sensitive Information

Reviewers should remove or obscure unnecessary sensitive information before submitting evidence.

Do not unnecessarily provide:

• full payment-card numbers;
• card security codes;
• online-banking passwords;
• account passwords;
• authentication codes;
• cryptocurrency private keys;
• cryptocurrency seed phrases;
• complete government identification numbers;
• security questions;
• complete bank credentials; or
• unrelated third-party personal information.

Finauthority will never need your password, cryptocurrency private key or seed phrase to verify a review.

16. Evidence Verification

Where evidence is submitted, Finauthority may assess:

• relevance;
• internal consistency;
• dates;
• transaction references;
• correspondence history;
• document context;
• relationship to the reviewed company;
• consistency with the review;
• obvious signs of alteration;
• corroborating information; and
• other relevant factors.

Evidence review does not necessarily involve forensic authentication of every document.

17. Evidence Reviewed Label

A review may be labeled:

Evidence Reviewed

where Finauthority has examined supporting material that reasonably relates to material aspects of the review.

This label means that evidence was reviewed.

It does not mean that:

• every allegation has been conclusively proven;
• every document has been independently authenticated;
• a regulator confirmed the complaint;
• a court established the facts;
• the company accepts the allegation; or
• Finauthority guarantees the reviewer’s interpretation.

18. Evidence Submitted Label

A review may be labeled:

Evidence Submitted

where supporting information was provided but the evidence has not yet received sufficient review for a stronger verification label.

This label should not be interpreted as confirmation of the underlying allegations.

19. Identity Verified Label

A review may be labeled:

Identity Verified

where Finauthority has completed an appropriate verification step concerning the identity of the reviewer.

Identity verification does not automatically prove the review itself.

Identity and transaction verification are separate questions.

20. Verified Experience

Where Finauthority can reasonably establish both:

• the reviewer’s relevant relationship with the company; and
• sufficient evidence of the material interaction,

we may use a label such as:

Verified Experience

This indicates a higher level of verification than an ordinary user review.

It still does not constitute a judicial finding concerning disputed allegations.

21. User Review Label

Reviews without additional verification may be displayed as:

User Review

This means that the review passed the applicable moderation process but has not necessarily received documentary verification.

Users should interpret verification labels accordingly.

22. Company Response Label

Where the company responds to a review, the response may be marked:

Company Response

This label identifies the source of the response.

It does not mean that Finauthority agrees with the company.

23. Review Under Investigation

Where material questions arise concerning a review, Finauthority may temporarily label it:

Review Under Investigation

This may occur where:

• authenticity is disputed;
• new evidence has been submitted;
• suspicious activity has been detected;
• a company provides contradictory documentation;
• serious allegations require additional review; or
• legal issues require assessment.

24. Review Verification Labels Are Process Labels

Verification labels describe steps taken by Finauthority.

They should not be interpreted as absolute guarantees.

Our aim is to communicate how much verification has occurred, rather than create an artificial binary division between “true” and “false”.

25. Positive Reviews Are Subject to the Same Rules

Finauthority applies review-integrity rules to positive and negative reviews.

Positive reviews may be examined where they appear:

• fabricated;
• purchased;
• coordinated;
• written by employees without disclosure;
• created through multiple accounts;
• generated automatically;
• unusually repetitive;
• commercially incentivized; or
• otherwise misleading.

A positive review is not presumed genuine merely because it benefits the company.

26. Negative Reviews Are Subject to the Same Rules

Negative reviews may be examined where they appear:

• fabricated;
• malicious;
• coordinated;
• submitted by competitors;
• unsupported despite serious factual allegations;
• created through multiple accounts;
• manipulated; or
• unrelated to a genuine experience.

Negative sentiment does not exempt a review from verification standards.

27. No Review Buying

Finauthority prohibits buying or selling reviews intended to manipulate ratings.

Companies, users or third parties must not:

• pay for positive reviews;
• pay for negative reviews about competitors;
• offer refunds conditional on a positive review;
• offer rewards conditional on a five-star rating;
• compensate reviewers for predetermined sentiment; or
• commission fabricated customer experiences.

28. Incentivized Reviews

A company may in some circumstances legitimately invite genuine customers to provide reviews.

However, invitations should not be selectively targeted only at customers expected to provide positive feedback.

Where an incentive is offered for submitting a review, it must not depend on whether the review is positive or negative and must be disclosed where required.

Finauthority may label incentivized reviews where appropriate.

29. Review Gating

Finauthority does not support practices designed to systematically filter dissatisfied users away from public review channels while directing only satisfied users to submit public reviews.

Such practices can distort the overall picture presented to consumers.

30. Employees and Company Representatives

Employees, directors, owners, contractors and representatives of a financial company should not submit reviews that create the impression of being independent customer reviews.

Where such persons genuinely use the company’s service and submit a review, their relationship must be disclosed clearly.

Undisclosed insider reviews may be removed.

31. Former Employees

Former employees may possess relevant information but should not ordinarily submit employment disputes as customer reviews.

Where former employees wish to provide information relevant to Finauthority’s research, they may contact:

check@finauthority.org

Such information may be assessed as a research source rather than a consumer review.

32. Competitors

Competitors must not submit deceptive reviews intended to damage another company.

Where Finauthority identifies evidence that a review was submitted by:

• a direct competitor;
• its employee;
• contractor;
• agent; or
• another person acting on its behalf

without transparent disclosure, the review may be rejected or removed.

33. Agencies and Reputation Management Companies

Marketing agencies, reputation-management services, public-relations companies and similar third parties must not create customer reviews on behalf of companies or users unless clearly authorized and appropriately disclosed.

Mass review creation or reputation manipulation may result in account restrictions and exclusion of affected reviews.

34. Multiple Accounts

Users should not create multiple accounts for the purpose of:

• submitting repeated reviews;
• artificially increasing review volume;
• increasing or decreasing a rating;
• evading moderation;
• supporting their own review; or
• creating the appearance of multiple independent experiences.

Reviews connected to such manipulation may be removed from public display and rating calculations.

35. One Experience, Multiple Reviews

Where several reviews clearly concern the same underlying experience, Finauthority may consolidate or limit them to prevent artificial amplification.

A user may update an existing review where circumstances materially change.

For example, a user may update a review after:

• a withdrawal is processed;
• a complaint is resolved;
• the company provides compensation;
• new problems arise; or
• relevant additional information becomes available.

36. Duplicate Content

Reviews consisting largely of identical or near-identical text submitted across multiple company profiles or accounts may be treated as suspicious.

Duplicate content may be restricted where it appears intended to manipulate ratings or search visibility rather than describe genuine individual experiences.

37. Automated Reviews

Reviews generated or submitted automatically for the purpose of manipulating ratings are prohibited.

This includes:

• bots;
• scripts;
• mass-submission software;
• automated account creation; or
• other artificial review-generation systems.

The use of a writing tool to help a genuine reviewer improve grammar or clarity does not by itself make a review inauthentic.

The underlying experience must still be genuine.

38. Coordinated Review Campaigns

Finauthority may investigate unusual review activity suggesting coordination.

Potential indicators may include:

• sudden bursts of similar reviews;
• identical language;
• related accounts;
• common technical signals;
• repeated talking points;
• unusual geographic patterns;
• synchronized submissions; or
• evidence of external organization.

No single indicator automatically proves coordination.

We assess patterns in context.

39. Review Bombing

A large number of reviews submitted primarily in response to an unrelated controversy may not reflect genuine customer experiences.

Where appropriate, Finauthority may temporarily restrict, investigate or exclude review activity that appears to constitute review bombing.

40. Promotional Reviews

Reviews must not primarily function as advertisements.

Content may be restricted if it mainly contains:

• referral links;
• promotional codes;
• affiliate links;
• advertisements;
• contact solicitations;
• unrelated commercial offers; or
• repeated promotional claims.

41. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should disclose material conflicts that could reasonably influence how their review is interpreted.

Examples include:

• employment by the company;
• ownership interest;
• agency relationship;
• affiliate relationship;
• payment for reviewing;
• direct competitive relationship; or
• other significant commercial involvement.

42. Personal Attacks

Reviews may criticize companies, products and conduct.

They should not primarily consist of:

• threats;
• harassment;
• discriminatory abuse;
• degrading personal attacks;
• incitement to violence; or
• other unlawful abusive content.

Strong criticism can be legitimate.

Abuse is not necessary to communicate a negative experience.

43. Allegations Against Individuals

Where a review identifies an individual employee, executive or other person and makes serious allegations, Finauthority may apply additional scrutiny.

We may:

• redact unnecessary names;
• request evidence;
• focus the publication on company conduct;
• qualify allegations; or
• remove irrelevant personal information.

The objective is to preserve relevant information while avoiding unnecessary harm.

44. Personal Data in Reviews

Users should not publish unnecessary personal information about themselves or others.

Reviews should avoid including:

• home addresses;
• private telephone numbers;
• identification-document numbers;
• complete bank-account numbers;
• payment-card information;
• passwords;
• personal email addresses of unrelated persons;
• private family information; or
• other irrelevant personal data.

Finauthority may redact such information.

45. Confidential Information

Users should not knowingly publish confidential or proprietary information where they have no lawful basis to disclose it.

Where confidential information is genuinely relevant to serious financial concerns, users may instead provide it privately to our research team for assessment.

46. Evidence Involving Third Parties

Evidence may contain information about persons other than the reviewer.

Before submission, users should remove unnecessary third-party information where reasonably possible.

Finauthority may redact or restrict access to such information.

Further details are available in our Privacy Policy.

47. Evidence Retention

Evidence may be retained for as long as reasonably necessary for purposes including:

• review verification;
• moderation;
• dispute resolution;
• complaint handling;
• preventing repeated abuse;
• defending legal claims; or
• compliance with applicable law.

Evidence should not be retained indefinitely where there is no continuing legitimate reason.

48. Evidence Access

Access to non-public review evidence should be limited to persons who reasonably require access for purposes such as:

• moderation;
• research;
• dispute handling;
• legal review;
• privacy compliance; or
• security.

Paid company status does not provide access to private evidence.

49. Evidence Is Not Sold

Finauthority does not sell private review evidence to financial companies, advertisers or other commercial parties.

A company cannot purchase access to confidential documentation merely because it:

• advertises with Finauthority;
• purchases premium services;
• claims its profile; or
• enters into another commercial relationship.

50. Disclosure to the Reviewed Company

Evidence submitted to Finauthority is not automatically provided to the company being reviewed.

Where necessary to allow a meaningful response, we may:

• summarize relevant evidence;
• identify relevant dates or transaction details;
• disclose a redacted extract;
• ask the reviewer’s permission to disclose more information; or
• communicate the substance of the allegation.

The appropriate approach depends on privacy, fairness, legal obligations and the nature of the dispute.

51. Legally Required Disclosure

Finauthority may disclose evidence where required by:

• a valid court order;
• binding legal process;
• competent public authority;
• applicable law; or
• another lawful requirement.

Where legally permissible, we may assess the scope, validity, necessity and proportionality of requests before disclosing information.

52. Company Right of Reply

Companies may respond to reviews in accordance with our Platform rules.

A company response may:

• explain its position;
• provide context;
• state that it disputes the review;
• explain company policy;
• identify steps taken to resolve the complaint; or
• provide other relevant information.

The company does not have the right to rewrite the user’s review.

53. Company Responses Must Protect Privacy

Company responses must not expose unnecessary personal information about the reviewer.

Companies should not publicly disclose:

• full account numbers;
• private addresses;
• identification numbers;
• private financial records;
• payment-card information;
• sensitive personal information; or
• other confidential details.

Finauthority may redact or remove such information.

54. Company Disagreement Does Not Automatically Remove a Review

A review will not be removed merely because:

• the company disagrees with it;
• the review is negative;
• it lowers the company’s rating;
• management considers it unfair;
• the company is a commercial partner;
• the company has claimed its profile; or
• legal language is used in a removal demand.

A company challenging a factual review should provide relevant evidence where reasonably available.

55. Reviewer Disagreement Does Not Automatically Reject a Company Response

The same principle applies in the other direction.

A reviewer cannot require removal of a legitimate company response merely because they disagree with it.

Both parties may present their respective positions within the rules of the Platform.

56. When Finauthority May Contact the Reviewer

We may contact a reviewer where:

• additional evidence is needed;
• an allegation requires clarification;
• a company disputes material facts;
• suspected manipulation is detected;
• information appears inconsistent;
• personal data requires attention; or
• another legitimate moderation issue arises.

Failure to respond may affect the review where verification is necessary.

57. Failure to Provide Requested Evidence

If Finauthority reasonably requests evidence concerning a serious factual allegation and the reviewer cannot or does not provide it, we may:

• publish a more limited version;
• qualify the claim;
• remove the unsupported allegation;
• exclude the review from certain verification labels;
• temporarily withhold publication; or
• reject the review where necessary.

We do not assume that inability to provide evidence automatically means the reviewer is dishonest.

58. Review Editing

Finauthority may permit reviewers to edit or update reviews.

Material edits may trigger renewed moderation.

Where appropriate, the Platform may indicate that a review has been edited.

A reviewer should not use editing functionality to replace a previously legitimate review with prohibited content.

59. Finauthority Editorial Editing

Finauthority does not normally rewrite reviews to change their meaning.

We may, however, make or request limited changes necessary to:

• remove personal data;
• remove prohibited content;
• correct formatting;
• remove referral links;
• redact account details;
• address legal concerns; or
• improve clarity without altering substantive meaning.

Where substantial changes are required, we may ask the reviewer to revise the submission.

60. Reasons a Review May Be Rejected or Removed

A review may be rejected, restricted or removed where we reasonably conclude that it:

• is fabricated;
• does not reflect a genuine relevant experience;
• contains serious unsupported allegations that cannot responsibly be published;
• violates privacy;
• contains unlawful content;
• infringes intellectual property rights;
• contains threats or harassment;
• constitutes spam;
• is promotional;
• is duplicated;
• forms part of rating manipulation;
• is submitted by an undisclosed conflicted party;
• identifies the wrong company;
• contains malicious software or unsafe links; or
• otherwise violates Finauthority policies.

61. Partial Removal

Where only part of a review violates this Policy, Finauthority may remove or redact the problematic portion rather than remove the entire review.

This approach may be appropriate where the remaining content describes a legitimate user experience.

62. Temporary Restrictions

A review may be temporarily hidden or restricted while:

• evidence is assessed;
• identity is verified;
• legal concerns are reviewed;
• a company response is examined;
• suspicious activity is investigated; or
• the correct company profile is determined.

Temporary restriction does not necessarily mean that the review was false.

63. Statements of Reasons

Where required by applicable law or appropriate under our moderation practices, Finauthority may provide the affected user with a clear explanation of why content was:

• rejected;
• removed;
• restricted;
• demonetized where applicable;
• excluded from rating calculations; or
• otherwise moderated.

The explanation may identify the relevant Platform rule or legal basis.

64. Appeals

Users whose reviews are removed or materially restricted may be able to request reconsideration.

An appeal should explain:

• why the decision is believed to be incorrect;
• relevant facts;
• additional evidence; and
• any important context not previously considered.

Appeals should be submitted through the available Platform procedure or the relevant contact channel.

65. Internal Reconsideration

Where appropriate, an appealed decision may be reviewed by a different member of the Finauthority team.

The review may consider:

• original content;
• moderation reason;
• supporting evidence;
• company response;
• user appeal;
• relevant Platform policies; and
• applicable legal requirements.

A previous decision may be confirmed, modified or reversed.

66. Repeated Abuse

Accounts that repeatedly violate review-integrity rules may be subject to measures such as:

• warnings;
• additional verification;
• review restrictions;
• exclusion from rating calculations;
• temporary suspension; or
• account termination.

Measures should be proportionate to the seriousness and frequency of the conduct.

67. Review Fraud Investigations

Where Finauthority identifies potential organized review manipulation, we may investigate related:

• accounts;
• submission patterns;
• reviews;
• technical signals;
• commercial relationships; and
• available evidence.

We may exclude affected reviews from ratings during the investigation.

68. Review Rating Calculation

Only reviews eligible under Finauthority’s moderation rules should contribute to the public User Rating.

Reviews may be excluded where they are:

• fraudulent;
• duplicated;
• spam;
• coordinated manipulation;
• associated with prohibited conflicts;
• removed for policy violations; or
• otherwise ineligible.

69. User Rating Is Separate From the Finauthority Score

The aggregate User Rating represents eligible user feedback.

The Finauthority Score is an independent editorial assessment calculated under our Research and Rating Methodology.

The two must remain separate.

A company may therefore have:

• a high User Rating and lower Finauthority Score;
• a low User Rating and stronger regulatory assessment; or
• another combination reflecting different information.

70. Reviews Cannot Override Regulatory Facts

User reviews cannot change an objective regulatory fact.

For example:

• positive reviews cannot turn an unverified license into a verified license;
• negative reviews cannot cancel a valid authorization;
• review volume cannot override an official regulatory warning; and
• popularity cannot replace regulatory verification.

Regulatory status is determined separately under our Research and Rating Methodology.

71. Reviews May Inform Editorial Research

Patterns of credible user experiences may contribute to Finauthority’s broader research.

We may consider matters such as:

• repeated withdrawal complaints;
• recurring fee disputes;
• unusual account restrictions;
• common customer-support issues;
• repeated positive experiences;
• successful complaint resolution; or
• other significant patterns.

User feedback is considered alongside regulatory, corporate and documentary evidence.

72. A Single Review Does Not Automatically Determine a Company Assessment

One review may identify an important issue, particularly where strongly documented.

However, Finauthority does not generally change an overall company assessment simply because one user submits an unsupported accusation.

Evidence, seriousness and context matter.

73. Multiple Reviews Do Not Automatically Establish Fact

A large number of similar reviews may be relevant but does not automatically establish the truth of every allegation.

Review campaigns can be coordinated.

For this reason, Finauthority evaluates:

• authenticity;
• independence;
• evidence;
• timing;
• similarity;
• technical patterns; and
• other relevant context.

74. Reviews From Different Jurisdictions

Financial-company experiences may differ depending on:

• legal entity;
• country;
• regulatory regime;
• product;
• account type;
• branch;
• customer classification; or
• website domain.

Where possible, reviewers should identify the relevant company entity, jurisdiction or website involved.

This helps prevent an experience with one group entity from being incorrectly attributed to another.

75. Historical Reviews

Older reviews may remain useful for understanding a company’s history.

However, users should consider the date of each review.

A company may subsequently:

• change ownership;
• change legal entity;
• resolve operational problems;
• lose authorization;
• obtain new authorization; or
• substantially change its services.

Historical reviews do not necessarily describe current operations.

76. Resolved Complaints

Reviewers are encouraged to update their review if a complaint is subsequently resolved.

A resolved complaint should not automatically be deleted.

The resolution itself can provide valuable information about how the company handles customer problems.

Where appropriate, the review may indicate:

Issue Resolved

or another similar status.

77. Company Resolution Attempts

A company may contact the reviewer through appropriate channels to resolve a legitimate dispute.

However, companies must not condition resolution on:

• deleting a truthful review;
• replacing it with a positive review;
• providing a five-star rating;
• making a false public statement; or
• concealing a material issue.

Finauthority may investigate evidence of review coercion.

78. Threats and Intimidation

Neither reviewers nor companies may use the Platform to threaten or intimidate the other party.

This includes threats intended to force:

• withdrawal of a legitimate complaint;
• publication of a positive review;
• deletion of an accurate response;
• transfer of money;
• disclosure of private information; or
• other improper conduct.

79. Extortion and Review Blackmail

Users must not threaten to publish or maintain a negative review solely to obtain money, refunds or benefits to which they are not reasonably entitled.

Legitimate complaints and settlement negotiations are not automatically extortion.

However, fabricated review threats used to demand payment are prohibited.

80. Confidential Settlements

Where a dispute has been settled privately, Finauthority may consider any lawful confidentiality obligations brought to our attention.

Private contractual arrangements do not automatically bind Finauthority if we are not a party to them.

Any request to remove or restrict content will be assessed on its own legal and factual basis.

81. Legal Notices Concerning Reviews

Formal legal notices concerning review content should be sent to:

legal@finauthority.org

The notice should identify:

• the review;
• relevant URL;
• disputed statement;
• legal basis of the complaint;
• relevant jurisdiction;
• requested action; and
• supporting information.

Legal notices do not automatically result in removal.

82. Report Inaccurate or Manipulated Reviews

Companies and users may report suspected:

• fake reviews;
• review manipulation;
• impersonation;
• conflicts of interest;
• duplicate reviews;
• coordinated campaigns;
• prohibited content; or
• other integrity concerns.

Reports should include relevant evidence where reasonably available.

83. Company Review and Verification

Where review information raises broader questions concerning a financial company’s legitimacy, regulation or corporate identity, the matter may also be referred to our research process.

Relevant information may be sent to:

Company Review & Verification
check@finauthority.org

This process is separate from ordinary review moderation.

84. Privacy Requests

Privacy-related concerns involving reviews or supporting evidence should be sent to:

privacy@finauthority.org

Requests are handled in accordance with our Privacy Policy and applicable data-protection law.

85. Freedom of Expression and Reputation

Finauthority seeks to balance legitimate expression and consumer information with the rights of companies and individuals.

This means that we do not remove legitimate criticism simply because it is unfavorable.

It also means that we do not treat freedom of expression as permission to publish knowingly fabricated accusations.

86. Neutrality of Moderation

A company does not receive more favorable review moderation because it:

• advertises on Finauthority;
• purchases a premium profile;
• participates in an affiliate program;
• claims its listing; or
• has another commercial relationship with Finauthority.

Likewise, reviewers do not receive preferential treatment because their allegations support an existing Finauthority assessment.

87. No Pay-to-Remove Reviews

Financial companies cannot purchase removal of legitimate reviews.

Paid services do not include the right to:

• delete negative reviews;
• hide verified complaints;
• change user ratings;
• remove supporting evidence from consideration; or
• determine moderation outcomes.

88. No Pay-to-Publish Accusations

Users, competitors or other parties cannot pay Finauthority to publish fabricated or predetermined negative reviews about a company.

Editorial and moderation decisions must remain evidence-based.

89. Finauthority Staff Reviews

Members of the Finauthority team should not submit ordinary anonymous customer reviews of companies they are professionally researching without appropriate disclosure.

Where staff have genuine relevant experiences, those experiences should be handled transparently and separately from independent research where appropriate.

90. Review Invitations by Finauthority

Finauthority may invite users to share genuine experiences.

Such invitations should not be limited exclusively to users expected to provide positive reviews.

We may invite reviews for purposes such as:

• improving coverage;
• collecting feedback on newly listed brands;
• obtaining experiences related to a particular service; or
• filling information gaps.

Invitation does not guarantee publication.

91. No Guaranteed Publication

Submitting a review does not create an automatic right to publication.

Reviews must meet our eligibility, moderation and integrity requirements.

Finauthority may decline to publish a review where publication would violate this Policy, applicable law or legitimate Platform requirements.

92. No Guaranteed Verification

Submitting evidence does not guarantee that a review will receive a particular verification label.

Evidence may be:

• incomplete;
• unrelated;
• insufficient;
• contradictory;
• difficult to authenticate; or
• incapable of establishing the claimed facts.

Our verification label reflects our assessment of the material actually available.

93. No Guaranteed Outcome

Neither a user nor a company can require Finauthority to reach a predetermined conclusion.

Our role is to evaluate the available information.

A reviewer cannot demand that Finauthority classify a company as fraudulent.

A company cannot demand that Finauthority classify a reviewer as dishonest.

94. Automated and AI-Assisted Review Integrity Tools

Finauthority may use automated or AI-assisted tools to help identify:

• spam;
• duplicate content;
• suspicious activity;
• coordinated review patterns;
• prohibited content;
• unusual account behavior; or
• other integrity signals.

Such tools assist moderation.

They do not automatically establish that a review is genuine or fraudulent.

95. Human Review

Material moderation decisions, particularly those concerning serious allegations or disputed evidence, should remain subject to appropriate human judgment.

Human reviewers may consider:

• context;
• evidence;
• company response;
• user explanation;
• technical indicators;
• regulatory information; and
• relevant Platform policies.

96. Review Moderation Is Not a Judicial Process

Finauthority’s review-moderation process is not a court or regulatory proceeding.

Our decisions determine how content is treated on the Finauthority Platform.

They do not establish:

• criminal liability;
• civil liability;
• regulatory violations;
• contractual liability; or
• legal guilt.

Competent authorities and courts retain their respective legal powers.

97. Cooperation With Authorities

Where legally required, Finauthority may cooperate with competent authorities concerning unlawful content or relevant investigations.

Such cooperation will be handled in accordance with applicable law and our Privacy Policy.

98. Changes to This Policy

Finauthority may update this User Review and Evidence Policy to reflect:

• changes to Platform functionality;
• new verification tools;
• legal developments;
• changes in moderation practices;
• emerging review-manipulation techniques;
• regulatory guidance; or
• improvements to our evidence-review process.

The current version will display its latest revision date.

99. Contact Information

For general enquiries:

kancelar@finauthority.org

For company research, regulatory questions and financial-brand verification:

check@finauthority.org

For privacy matters:

privacy@finauthority.org

For legal notices:

legal@finauthority.org

Official postal correspondence:

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

Website: Finauthority.org

100. Related Finauthority Policies

This User Review and Evidence Policy should be read together with:

• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Financial and Regulatory Disclaimer
• Editorial Standards and Independence
• Research and Rating Methodology
• 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

101. Review Integrity Summary

Finauthority’s review principles can be summarized simply:

Genuine Experiences Only

Reviews should come from people with a real basis for describing the company.

Evidence for Serious Claims

The stronger the factual allegation, the stronger the verification we may reasonably request.

Positive and Negative Reviews Are Equal

Both are subject to the same authenticity standards.

Companies Have a Right to Respond

But they do not control independent reviews.

Reviews Cannot Be Bought

Neither positive nor negative ratings may be commercially manufactured.

Evidence Remains Protected

Supporting documents are not automatically made public or sold to companies.

User Ratings Do Not Determine Regulation

A company’s regulatory status is assessed independently.

No Review Is Automatically a Fact

Verification labels communicate the level of review we have performed.

No Company Can Pay to Remove Legitimate Criticism

Commercial relationships do not determine moderation outcomes.

No User Can Force a Predetermined Conclusion

Finauthority follows the evidence.

Our objective is not to create the largest possible collection of reviews.

Our objective is to create a more reliable collection of financial experiences in which users, companies and readers can understand what information has been submitted, what has been verified and what remains an allegation or opinion.