Last Updated: September 7, 2025

Finauthority is committed to maintaining a financial research and review platform where users and companies can exchange relevant information while respecting applicable law, individual rights and Platform integrity.

Financial-company discussions can involve significant allegations, disputes, regulatory concerns, financial losses and reputational consequences.

For this reason, Finauthority maintains procedures for identifying, reporting, reviewing, restricting and removing content where appropriate.

This Content Moderation and Notice-and-Action Policy explains:

• what content Finauthority may moderate;
• the difference between illegal content and content that violates Platform rules;
• how users can report potentially illegal content;
• what a valid notice should contain;
• how notices are assessed;
• how moderation decisions are made;
• how affected users are informed;
• how decisions may be challenged;
• how automated tools may assist moderation;
• how repeated abuse is handled;
• how reports from authorities and trusted sources are treated; and
• how Finauthority seeks to protect both freedom of expression and legitimate rights.

Our central principle is:

Content should not be removed merely because it is unfavorable. It should be restricted when the evidence, applicable law or legitimate Platform rules justify restriction.

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 concerning financial companies and services internationally.

2. Purpose of This Policy

This Policy governs content-moderation processes relating principally to information submitted, uploaded or communicated through Finauthority by users, company representatives and other third parties.

This may include:

• user reviews;
• ratings;
• comments;
• company responses;
• company-provided descriptions;
• uploaded documents;
• images;
• profile information;
• links;
• reports;
• account information;
• messages submitted through Platform functionality; and
• other user-generated content.

3. European Digital Services Framework

Where applicable to Finauthority’s activities, we take into account Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, the Digital Services Act, including relevant principles concerning:

• notice-and-action mechanisms;
• statements of reasons;
• transparency;
• complaints;
• appropriate human oversight;
• reporting of potentially illegal content; and
• protection against misuse.

The exact legal obligations applicable to Finauthority may depend on the nature, scale and functionality of the Platform.

Where a particular statutory obligation does not apply, Finauthority may nevertheless voluntarily apply comparable transparency and fairness principles where appropriate.

4. Illegal Content and Policy-Violating Content Are Different

Finauthority distinguishes between:

Illegal Content

Information or activity that violates applicable law.

and

Policy-Violating Content

Information that violates Finauthority’s contractual or community rules even if publication would not necessarily be unlawful.

These categories may overlap, but they are not identical.

5. Example of Policy-Violating but Not Necessarily Illegal Content

A user may submit the same promotional review fifty times.

The content may not necessarily be unlawful.

However, Finauthority may remove it as:

• spam;
• duplication;
• rating manipulation; or
• abuse of Platform functionality.

6. Example of Potentially Illegal Content

Content may raise legal concerns where it involves matters such as:

• credible threats;
• unlawful harassment;
• certain unlawful defamatory statements;
• illegal disclosure of personal data;
• copyright infringement;
• fraud;
• impersonation;
• unlawful financial promotion;
• illegal goods or services;
• child sexual abuse material;
• terrorist content;
• unlawful incitement;
• or another violation of applicable law.

The legal assessment depends on context and applicable jurisdiction.

7. Criticism Is Not Automatically Illegal

Negative information about a financial company is not automatically unlawful.

A company cannot establish illegality merely by stating that content:

• damages its reputation;
• is critical;
• reduces its rating;
• discourages customers;
• appears in search results; or
• describes a negative customer experience.

Legitimate criticism is permitted subject to applicable law and Finauthority policies.

8. Disagreement Is Not a Removal Ground

The fact that a company disputes:

• a review;
• opinion;
• rating;
• research finding; or
• user experience

does not automatically justify removal.

Where the dispute concerns factual accuracy, the appropriate procedure may instead be available under our Corrections, Complaints and Right of Reply Policy.

9. Finauthority Moderation Principles

Our moderation approach is guided by:

Legality

We respond appropriately to content that is unlawful.

Evidence

Serious actions should be based on relevant facts and information.

Proportionality

Where possible, restrictions should not go further than reasonably necessary.

Fairness

Affected parties should have an appropriate opportunity to explain their position.

Transparency

Important moderation decisions should be explainable.

Independence

Commercial interests should not determine moderation outcomes.

10. Content We May Moderate

Finauthority may moderate content that:

• violates applicable law;
• violates our Terms and Conditions;
• violates our User Review and Evidence Policy;
• infringes intellectual-property rights;
• contains unnecessary personal data;
• constitutes spam;
• manipulates ratings;
• impersonates another person or company;
• contains malicious links;
• contains threats;
• contains unlawful harassment;
• promotes fraud;
• is materially deceptive;
• is submitted through abusive automated systems; or
• otherwise creates a legitimate legal, security or Platform-integrity concern.

11. Types of Moderation Action

Depending on the circumstances, Finauthority may:

• take no action;
• request clarification;
• request supporting evidence;
• request an edit;
• add context;
• add a warning or label;
• redact specific information;
• remove a link;
• exclude content from rating calculations;
• restrict visibility;
• temporarily hide content;
• remove part of the content;
• remove the entire content;
• restrict an account;
• suspend an account;
• terminate an account; or
• take another proportionate measure.

12. Least Intrusive Appropriate Measure

Where reasonably possible, Finauthority may choose a narrower response instead of removing an entire submission.

For example, we may redact:

• a private telephone number;
• an account number;
• an unrelated personal name; or
• an unlawful portion of a longer review

while retaining the legitimate remainder.

13. Removal Is Sometimes Necessary

Partial measures may not be appropriate where:

• the entire submission is unlawful;
• the review is fabricated;
• the account is impersonating another person;
• content is primarily spam;
• the submission forms part of manipulation;
• serious security concerns exist; or
• another compelling reason requires full restriction.

14. Reporting Illegal Content

Any individual or organization may notify Finauthority of specific content they reasonably believe is illegal.

Formal reports concerning potentially illegal content should be sent to:

legal@finauthority.org

Where Finauthority provides an electronic Report Illegal Content or equivalent tool on the Platform, that mechanism may also be used.

15. Reporting Ordinary Policy Violations

Not every report requires a formal legal notice.

Users may report suspected:

• spam;
• fake reviews;
• duplicate content;
• rating manipulation;
• impersonation;
• harassment;
• inappropriate personal data;
• misleading profile information; or
• other Platform violations

through the relevant reporting functionality where available.

16. Company Research Issues

Concerns primarily involving:

• licensing;
• regulatory claims;
• company identity;
• legal entity;
• suspected clone firms;
• website legitimacy;
• regulatory warnings; or
• other financial-company verification issues

should generally be directed to:

check@finauthority.org

17. Privacy Issues

Reports concerning personal-data rights should generally be sent to:

privacy@finauthority.org

18. Intellectual-Property Issues

Copyright or other intellectual-property notices should generally be sent to:

legal@finauthority.org

and may be handled according to our Copyright and Intellectual Property Policy.

19. What a Notice of Alleged Illegal Content Should Identify

A useful notice should provide sufficiently precise information to enable meaningful assessment.

Where reasonably applicable, it should include:

1. an explanation of why the content is considered illegal;
2. the precise content concerned;
3. the relevant Finauthority URL;
4. additional information necessary to locate the content;
5. the applicable legal basis where known;
6. the complainant’s name and contact email where appropriate;
7. supporting documents or evidence; and
8. a good-faith confirmation that the information supplied is accurate and complete to the best of the notifier’s knowledge.

20. Exact Location of Content

Where possible, notices should identify a direct URL.

For example:

Finauthority.org/company/example/reviews

may be substantially more useful than:

“There is something illegal somewhere on your website.”

If several items are challenged, each should be identified as precisely as reasonably possible.

21. Identify the Specific Statement

Where only part of a page is alleged to be unlawful, the notifier should identify the relevant:

• sentence;
• review;
• paragraph;
• image;
• response;
• document; or
• other specific item.

This helps avoid unnecessary removal of lawful material.

22. Explain Why It Is Allegedly Illegal

Merely stating:

“This is illegal.”

or

“This is defamatory.”

may not provide enough information to assess the notice.

The notifier should explain the legal and factual basis sufficiently to permit meaningful review.

23. Jurisdiction May Matter

Because Finauthority operates internationally, the notifier should identify the relevant jurisdiction where this is material.

A statement may have different legal implications under different national laws.

24. Evidence Supporting a Notice

Depending on the issue, relevant evidence may include:

• court decisions;
• regulatory records;
• identity documents with unnecessary data redacted;
• company records;
• contractual documentation;
• copyright ownership information;
• correspondence;
• screenshots;
• official decisions; or
• another reliable source.

25. Contact Information

Contact information allows Finauthority to:

• acknowledge the report;
• request clarification;
• communicate the decision; and
• provide information about available redress.

Where law permits notices without identification in particular circumstances, Finauthority will respect applicable requirements.

26. Reports Concerning Child Sexual Abuse

Reports involving suspected child sexual abuse material or sexual exploitation of children receive particularly serious treatment.

Persons reporting such material should not unnecessarily redistribute or reproduce illegal imagery when reporting it.

Where required or appropriate, Finauthority may preserve necessary information and refer the matter to competent authorities.

27. Immediate Danger

Where content indicates an imminent threat to life or physical safety, users should contact the appropriate emergency or law-enforcement authorities directly.

Finauthority is not an emergency-response service.

28. Receipt of Notices

Where appropriate and technically possible, Finauthority may acknowledge receipt of a sufficiently identified notice electronically.

Acknowledgment of receipt does not mean that we agree that the content is illegal.

29. Initial Assessment

After receiving a notice, we may assess:

• whether the content can be located;
• whether the notice is sufficiently specific;
• whether additional information is required;
• whether the issue concerns illegality or a Platform rule;
• the apparent seriousness of the matter;
• whether immediate protective action may be necessary; and
• whether another internal procedure is more appropriate.

30. Insufficient Notices

Where a notice lacks enough information to permit meaningful review, Finauthority may request clarification.

For example, additional information may be needed where:

• no URL is supplied;
• disputed content is not identified;
• the legal basis is unclear;
• multiple unrelated allegations are combined;
• identity or authority cannot be established; or
• supporting information is missing.

31. We Do Not Require Legal Expertise

A notifier does not need to be a lawyer.

A notice may still be useful if it clearly explains:

• what content is involved;
• what is wrong;
• why the notifier believes it is unlawful; and
• what evidence supports the claim.

32. Notices Are Assessed Objectively

Finauthority aims to process notices in a:

• timely;
• diligent;
• objective;
• non-arbitrary; and
• proportionate

manner.

33. A Notice Does Not Automatically Require Removal

Receiving a report does not automatically establish illegality.

Possible outcomes include:

• no action;
• request for more information;
• partial restriction;
• content modification;
• temporary restriction;
• full removal; or
• referral to another process.

34. Manifestly Clear Cases

Where a notice and available evidence make illegality sufficiently clear, Finauthority may take appropriate action without unnecessarily prolonging the process.

35. Complex Cases

Some disputes require more careful assessment.

This may apply where:

• facts are contested;
• several jurisdictions are involved;
• legal interpretation is complex;
• the content concerns public records;
• evidence conflicts;
• freedom of expression is materially implicated; or
• serious reputational allegations are involved.

36. Seeking Information From the Content Author

Where appropriate, Finauthority may contact the person who submitted the challenged content.

We may ask them to:

• clarify;
• provide evidence;
• remove private information;
• explain context; or
• respond to contradictory evidence.

37. Seeking Information From a Company

Where a review concerns a financial company, Finauthority may also consider information supplied by that company.

Company submissions do not automatically override user evidence.

38. Both Sides May Be Considered

For factual disputes, Finauthority may consider:

• user evidence;
• company evidence;
• regulator records;
• public documents;
• original content;
• contextual information; and
• applicable law.

39. No Automatic Presumption

We do not automatically presume:

• the company is correct;
• the user is correct;
• the notifier is correct;
• the content author is correct.

The available evidence is assessed on its merits.

40. Moderation Based on Platform Rules

Finauthority may restrict content because it violates our rules even where we do not make a determination that the content is illegal.

Examples include:

• spam;
• duplicate reviews;
• promotional content;
• review manipulation;
• irrelevant material; or
• repeated abuse.

41. Moderation Based on Alleged Illegality

Where content is restricted because of legal concerns, Finauthority may identify the relevant legal basis or category where appropriate.

42. Statements of Reasons

Where required by applicable law or appropriate under Finauthority procedures, persons affected by significant moderation decisions may receive a clear explanation of the decision.

43. What a Statement of Reasons May Include

Depending on the circumstances, an explanation may include:

• content affected;
• action taken;
• facts and circumstances considered;
• whether the action followed a user notice;
• relevant Platform rule;
• relevant legal ground where applicable;
• whether automated tools materially contributed;
• geographic scope of the restriction where relevant;
• duration of the restriction where relevant; and
• available methods of challenge.

44. Clear and Specific Reasons

Where an explanation is required, Finauthority aims to avoid meaningless statements such as:

“Your content violated our rules.”

Where reasonably possible, the relevant rule and problem should be identified more specifically.

45. Exceptions to Detailed Explanations

Detailed disclosure may be restricted where necessary because of:

• legal obligations;
• security;
• fraud prevention;
• protection of another person;
• protection of confidential information;
• child safety;
• competent-authority requirements; or
• another compelling reason.

46. Automated Moderation

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

• spam;
• duplicate content;
• fake reviews;
• malicious links;
• abuse;
• prohibited words;
• suspicious accounts;
• coordinated behavior;
• impersonation indicators; or
• other integrity concerns.

47. Automated Signals Are Not Absolute Proof

A technical signal does not automatically establish that:

• a review is fake;
• a user is malicious;
• content is illegal;
• an account belongs to a competitor; or
• a company engaged in manipulation.

Automated results should be interpreted in context.

48. Human Oversight

Material moderation decisions involving serious allegations, disputed evidence or significant consequences should receive appropriate human review.

49. Fully Automated Decisions

Where Finauthority uses automated decisions in circumstances governed by applicable law, appropriate safeguards will be implemented where required.

50. Temporary Automated Protection

Automated systems may temporarily block or quarantine content for security purposes.

Examples include:

• malware;
• obvious spam;
• mass bot submissions;
• malicious links; or
• severe abuse.

A temporary technical restriction does not necessarily represent a final editorial determination.

51. Appeals

Users or companies affected by eligible moderation decisions may request reconsideration where Finauthority provides such a mechanism or where applicable law requires one.

A request for reconsideration should identify:

• decision being challenged;
• reason the decision is believed to be incorrect;
• relevant factual context; and
• any additional evidence.

52. Appeals Should Be Free of Commercial Influence

A user should not need to purchase a service in order to challenge an eligible moderation decision.

A company’s advertising or premium status should not determine appeal outcomes.

53. Human Review of Appeals

Where appropriate, appeals should be examined by appropriately qualified personnel and not decided solely through an automated system.

54. Different Reviewer Where Appropriate

For significant disputes, Finauthority may have a different team member review the original decision.

This can help reduce confirmation bias.

55. Possible Appeal Outcomes

An appeal may result in:

• original decision confirmed;
• content restored;
• content partially restored;
• restriction reduced;
• additional restriction;
• content edited;
• additional context added;
• review reopened; or
• another appropriate outcome.

56. Restoration of Content

Where an appeal demonstrates that content was wrongly restricted, Finauthority may restore it where appropriate.

57. Correction of Moderation Errors

Finauthority should be willing to correct material moderation errors.

Maintaining an incorrect decision merely to avoid admitting error is inconsistent with our standards.

58. Internal Complaint System

Where applicable under the Digital Services Act or otherwise provided by Finauthority, eligible recipients may access an electronic internal complaint process concerning qualifying moderation decisions.

59. DSA Rights Where Applicable

Where statutory Digital Services Act rights apply, nothing in this Policy is intended to reduce those rights.

This may include applicable rights relating to:

• internal complaint mechanisms;
• out-of-court dispute settlement;
• supervisory complaints; or
• judicial remedies.

60. Out-of-Court Dispute Settlement

Where the relevant DSA provisions apply, eligible users may have the right to seek certified out-of-court dispute settlement concerning certain moderation decisions.

Finauthority will provide relevant information where required.

61. Courts Remain Available

Internal moderation procedures do not prevent affected persons from using courts or other legally available remedies.

62. Digital Services Coordinator

The designated Digital Services Coordinator in the Czech Republic is the Czech Telecommunications Office — Český telekomunikační úřad (ČTÚ).

Where applicable, users may have rights to submit complaints concerning compliance with the Digital Services Act to the competent Digital Services Coordinator.

63. The Coordinator Does Not Decide Every Content Dispute

The role of the Digital Services Coordinator should not be confused with the role of a court determining whether every individual statement on the internet is lawful.

Different authorities and courts may have different responsibilities depending on the issue involved.

64. Orders From Competent Authorities

Finauthority will assess and respond appropriately to legally valid orders received from competent judicial or administrative authorities.

This may include orders concerning:

• illegal content;
• information about users;
• preservation of data;
• disclosure obligations; or
• other legally authorized measures.

65. Verification of Official Requests

Finauthority may verify:

• identity of requesting authority;
• authenticity of request;
• legal basis;
• jurisdiction;
• scope;
• required action;
• deadlines; and
• other relevant elements.

66. Overbroad Requests

Where legally permitted, Finauthority may seek clarification or challenge requests that appear:

• invalid;
• disproportionate;
• outside jurisdiction;
• insufficiently specific; or
• otherwise legally defective.

67. Serious Criminal-Offence Indicators

Where Finauthority becomes aware of information giving rise to a legally relevant suspicion of a serious criminal offence involving a threat to life or safety, we may take steps required by applicable law, including notification to appropriate authorities where legally required.

68. Preservation of Evidence

Where necessary for:

• legal compliance;
• security;
• dispute resolution;
• regulatory matters;
• investigation of manipulation; or
• defense of legal claims,

Finauthority may preserve relevant records even after public content is restricted.

69. Removal Does Not Necessarily Mean Deletion From All Systems

Content removed from public display may remain temporarily in restricted systems where retention is justified for legitimate purposes.

Personal-data retention remains governed by our Privacy Policy.

70. Trusted Flaggers

Where Digital Services Act provisions concerning officially designated trusted flaggers apply, qualifying notices from such entities will receive the treatment required by applicable law.

Trusted-flagger status is not something a company can simply claim for itself.

71. Official Trusted-Flagger Status

Where relevant, Finauthority may verify trusted-flagger status through appropriate official information.

72. Trusted Does Not Mean Automatically Correct

Priority treatment of qualifying notices does not require Finauthority to assume that every allegation is legally correct without assessment.

73. Reports From Regulators

Notices or communications from financial regulators concerning:

• unauthorized companies;
• clone firms;
• misleading promotions;
• fraudulent websites;
• illegal financial services; or
• related matters

may receive particular attention due to their authoritative nature.

74. Regulatory Notice and Content Moderation Are Separate

A regulator warning about a financial company may affect Finauthority’s independent company profile without necessarily requiring removal of every user comment concerning that company.

75. False Reports

Users must not knowingly submit materially false notices for the purpose of:

• silencing legitimate criticism;
• harassing reviewers;
• suppressing competition;
• manipulating ratings;
• overwhelming Finauthority; or
• obtaining another improper advantage.

76. Repeated Manifestly Unfounded Notices

Where permitted by applicable law and Platform rules, Finauthority may take proportionate measures against users who repeatedly submit clearly abusive or manifestly unfounded reports.

77. Prior Warning

Where appropriate, repeated-abuse measures may follow a warning explaining the problematic conduct and potential consequences.

78. Factors in Assessing Reporting Abuse

Finauthority may consider:

• number of unfounded notices;
• proportion of abusive notices;
• seriousness of misuse;
• apparent intention;
• history of previous warnings;
• use of automated submissions; and
• other relevant circumstances.

79. Legitimate Mistakes Are Not Abuse

A person does not abuse the reporting system simply because Finauthority ultimately disagrees with a good-faith notice.

Users must remain free to raise genuine concerns.

80. Repeated Illegal or Prohibited Content

Finauthority may take proportionate action against users who repeatedly submit content that is illegal or seriously violates Platform rules.

Possible measures may include:

• warnings;
• enhanced review;
• temporary restrictions;
• suspension; or
• account termination.

81. Account Restrictions

When determining account-level action, Finauthority may consider:

• seriousness;
• frequency;
• intent;
• effect on others;
• prior warnings;
• attempts to evade moderation; and
• whether less restrictive measures are sufficient.

82. Circumvention

Users must not evade moderation by:

• creating new accounts;
• repeatedly reposting removed content;
• slightly altering prohibited content;
• using automated accounts; or
• directing third parties to reproduce prohibited material.

83. Review Manipulation

Moderation systems may be used against coordinated attempts to manipulate financial-company ratings.

This is governed in greater detail by our User Review and Evidence Policy.

84. Company Manipulation

Companies may not use notice mechanisms as a disguised reputation-management tool to systematically suppress legitimate negative reviews.

85. Competitor Manipulation

Competitors may not use Finauthority reporting systems to submit fabricated legal notices against each other.

86. Legal Representatives

Law firms and other authorized representatives may submit notices on behalf of clients.

Finauthority may request evidence of authority where appropriate.

87. A Lawyer’s Letter Is Not Automatically a Court Order

Correspondence from a lawyer can raise legitimate legal issues and will be considered seriously.

However, a private legal demand is not automatically equivalent to:

• a judgment;
• regulatory order; or
• binding governmental direction.

88. Defamation Complaints

Complaints alleging defamation should identify:

• exact statement;
• why it is factually inaccurate or legally actionable;
• relevant factual evidence;
• relevant jurisdiction where material; and
• requested remedy.

Broad demands to remove an entire profile may not be justified where only one statement is disputed.

89. Opinion Versus Factual Assertion

In assessing disputed content, Finauthority may consider whether the statement is:

• factual;
• opinion;
• user allegation;
• rhetorical language;
• quotation;
• regulator finding; or
• Finauthority editorial assessment.

Different types of statements may require different treatment.

90. Serious Accusations

Content alleging:

• fraud;
• theft;
• criminality;
• money laundering;
• forged licenses;
• intentional theft of customer money; or
• similar serious wrongdoing

may receive enhanced moderation scrutiny.

Supporting evidence may be requested.

91. Regulatory Wording

Where an authoritative regulator has issued a warning, Finauthority may report what the authority said with appropriate attribution.

A company cannot require us to pretend an authentic public warning does not exist merely because it disputes the regulator.

92. Changed Regulatory Circumstances

Where a warning is subsequently:

• withdrawn;
• corrected;
• superseded; or
• found to concern another company,

Finauthority should update relevant content accordingly.

93. Personal Data

Content containing unnecessary personal data may be redacted even where the remainder of the content is lawful.

Examples include:

• full account numbers;
• identification numbers;
• private phone numbers;
• home addresses;
• payment credentials; or
• unrelated personal information.

94. Doxxing

Content designed primarily to expose private identifying information for harassment, intimidation or abuse may be restricted.

95. Financial Credentials

Finauthority may immediately remove or redact:

• card security codes;
• passwords;
• private keys;
• cryptocurrency seed phrases;
• authentication codes; or
• equivalent security credentials.

Users should never submit these items.

96. Intellectual Property

Finauthority respects legitimate intellectual-property rights.

However, copyright claims should not be used deceptively to suppress criticism merely because a review mentions or depicts a company.

Specific intellectual-property procedures are described in our Copyright and Intellectual Property Policy.

97. Impersonation

Finauthority may restrict accounts or content impersonating:

• financial companies;
• regulators;
• employees;
• reviewers;
• government bodies;
• Finauthority staff; or
• other persons.

98. Misleading Official Appearance

Users and companies must not present content in a way likely to mislead others into believing that it represents an official:

• Finauthority finding;
• regulator decision;
• government notice;
• certificate; or
• approval

when it does not.

99. Malware and Cybersecurity

Finauthority may remove links, files or content associated with:

• malware;
• phishing;
• credential theft;
• malicious downloads;
• fraudulent login pages; or
• other cybersecurity threats.

100. Scam Promotion

Content that appears designed to recruit users into fraudulent financial schemes may be restricted.

This does not mean that every criticism or discussion of a suspected scam must be removed.

Educational reporting and research may remain legitimate.

101. Financial Promotion

User-generated content that functions as unauthorized or unlawful financial promotion may be reviewed and restricted where appropriate.

Finauthority itself does not provide personalized investment advice through ordinary company profiles.

102. Spam

Examples of spam may include:

• repeated commercial solicitation;
• unrelated referral links;
• mass identical comments;
• automated submissions;
• irrelevant promotional messages; or
• deceptive traffic-generation content.

103. Harassment and Threats

Finauthority may restrict content containing:

• credible threats;
• persistent targeted harassment;
• intimidation;
• unlawful discriminatory abuse; or
• other prohibited abusive conduct.

104. Strong Criticism Remains Permitted

Users are not required to be positive or polite about a poor financial experience.

Strong criticism may remain permitted where it does not cross into prohibited conduct.

105. Evidence Submitted for Moderation

Evidence provided privately during a moderation dispute is not automatically made public.

106. Evidence Access

Private evidence may be accessible only to personnel who reasonably require it for:

• moderation;
• research;
• privacy;
• legal assessment;
• security; or
• dispute handling.

107. Advertisers Cannot Buy Access to Evidence

A company cannot purchase confidential user evidence through:

• advertising;
• premium profile status;
• affiliate relationships;
• claiming; or
• another commercial arrangement.

108. Commercial Independence

Moderation decisions must not depend on whether the affected company:

• pays Finauthority;
• advertises;
• participates in an affiliate program;
• uses a Premium Profile; or
• has no commercial relationship with us.

109. No Pay-to-Remove

A financial company cannot pay Finauthority to remove legitimate criticism that otherwise complies with our policies.

110. No Pay-to-Publish

Likewise, competitors or users cannot pay Finauthority to publish fabricated negative material about another company.

111. Complaints About Moderation

General complaints concerning Finauthority’s moderation process may be sent to:

kancelar@finauthority.org

Formal legal issues should be sent to:

legal@finauthority.org

112. Transparency Records

Finauthority may maintain records concerning moderation actions for purposes such as:

• accountability;
• legal compliance;
• consistency;
• appeal handling;
• security;
• abuse prevention; and
• transparency reporting.

113. DSA Transparency Requirements

Where applicable, Finauthority will comply with relevant Digital Services Act transparency obligations concerning moderation decisions and reporting.

Some obligations under the DSA vary depending on the type and size of intermediary service.

114. Transparency Database

Where Finauthority is legally required to submit qualifying statements of reasons to the European Commission’s DSA Transparency Database, it will take reasonable steps to fulfill that requirement.

Personal data should not be intentionally included in public transparency submissions where prohibited.

115. Small and Micro-Enterprise Rules

Certain Digital Services Act obligations applicable specifically to online platforms contain exemptions or modified requirements for qualifying micro and small enterprises.

Nothing in this Policy should be interpreted as Finauthority claiming a statutory classification that has not been established.

Regardless of statutory exemptions, we may voluntarily maintain fair internal moderation procedures.

116. Changes in Platform Size or Functionality

As Finauthority grows, its legal obligations may change.

We may update our procedures if:

• user numbers materially increase;
• Platform functionality changes;
• new user-generated-content features are introduced;
• marketplace functionality is introduced;
• regulatory classification changes; or
• applicable legal requirements evolve.

117. Moderation Staff

Persons responsible for material moderation should receive appropriate guidance concerning:

• Finauthority policies;
• review integrity;
• evidence;
• regulatory context;
• privacy;
• freedom of expression;
• legal notices; and
• consistent decision-making.

118. Moderation Quality

Finauthority may periodically review moderation practices to identify:

• inconsistent decisions;
• recurring abuse;
• incorrect automated signals;
• unnecessary restrictions;
• emerging manipulation methods; or
• areas where policies require clarification.

119. Language and Translation

Finauthority may receive content and notices in different languages.

Translation tools may assist our review.

Material decisions should not rely exclusively on an obviously ambiguous automated translation where reasonable clarification is available.

120. International Content

Because Finauthority operates internationally, content may implicate laws of several jurisdictions.

We may consider:

• Czech law;
• applicable European Union law;
• location of relevant parties;
• location of services;
• specific legal rights involved;
• applicable mandatory foreign law; and
• jurisdiction of competent authorities.

121. No Global Removal Automatically

A legal restriction applicable in one jurisdiction does not necessarily require worldwide removal.

Where relevant, Finauthority may consider geographic limitation where that is lawful, technically feasible and proportionate.

122. Court Judgments

Where a competent court issues a binding judgment relevant to content appearing on Finauthority, we will assess and comply with applicable legal obligations.

123. Changes After a Decision

A moderation decision may be reconsidered where:

• new evidence appears;
• a court rules;
• a regulator acts;
• a warning is withdrawn;
• facts change;
• a previous decision is found to be incorrect; or
• applicable law changes.

124. Historical Moderation Information

Where appropriate, Finauthority may retain internal information about previous moderation decisions even when content is restored.

This can help identify repeated manipulation or inconsistent enforcement.

125. No Permanent Stigma From an Incorrect Decision

Where content is restored after a successful appeal, the user should not automatically be treated as an offender merely because the original moderation decision was incorrect.

126. Good-Faith Reporting

Finauthority encourages genuine reporting of:

• illegal content;
• fake reviews;
• impersonation;
• security threats;
• regulatory deception;
• privacy violations; and
• other legitimate concerns.

Users should not avoid reporting merely because they are uncertain of the final legal characterization.

127. Confidentiality of Reports

Reports are not automatically published.

Information may nevertheless be shared where necessary for:

• investigation;
• response;
• legal compliance;
• protection of rights;
• consultation with advisers;
• authority cooperation; or
• another lawful purpose.

128. Reporter Identity

Finauthority does not automatically disclose reporter identity publicly.

Any disclosure of personal data must have an appropriate legal basis.

129. Anonymous Reporting

Finauthority may consider sufficiently detailed anonymous reports where appropriate.

However, inability to contact the reporter may make complex matters more difficult to investigate.

Statutory notice requirements may require particular information in certain circumstances.

130. Whistleblowers

Individuals with relevant information concerning a financial company may submit material to:

check@finauthority.org

Whistleblower information may initiate research but is not automatically treated as proven fact.

131. Do Not Send Security Secrets

No report should contain:

• passwords;
• full card security codes;
• cryptocurrency private keys;
• seed phrases;
• authentication tokens; or
• other credentials that could compromise financial assets or accounts.

132. Formal Notice Contact

Formal notices alleging illegal content should be sent to:

legal@finauthority.org

133. Company Research Contact

For regulatory, licensing, identity and legitimacy research:

check@finauthority.org

134. Privacy Contact

For personal-data concerns:

privacy@finauthority.org

135. General Contact

For general Platform questions:

kancelar@finauthority.org

136. Postal Contact

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

Website: Finauthority.org

137. Changes to This Policy

Finauthority may update this Content Moderation and Notice-and-Action Policy to reflect:

• Platform development;
• new moderation tools;
• changes to review functionality;
• Digital Services Act developments;
• changes in applicable law;
• new abuse patterns;
• regulator guidance;
• internal experience; or
• improvements to appeals and transparency procedures.

The latest revision date will appear at the beginning of this Policy.

138. Related Finauthority Policies

This Content Moderation and Notice-and-Action 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
• User Review and Evidence Policy
• Corrections, Complaints and Right of Reply Policy
• Advertising & Affiliate Disclosure
• Company Profile and Claiming Policy
• Copyright and Intellectual Property Policy

139. Our Moderation Commitment

Finauthority’s moderation principles can be summarized as follows:

Illegal Content Can Be Reported

Any person should have a practical mechanism for identifying specific content they reasonably believe is unlawful.

Reports Must Be Specific

The stronger the requested action, the more important it is to identify the content and explain the basis of the complaint.

Criticism Is Not Automatically Illegal

Negative reviews and unfavorable information do not disappear merely because a company objects.

A Legal Threat Is Not a Court Order

Private demands are evaluated seriously, but they do not automatically establish illegality.

The Smallest Appropriate Restriction Is Preferred

Where redaction or partial removal is sufficient, complete deletion may not be necessary.

Important Decisions Should Be Explainable

Users should be able to understand why significant moderation action was taken where appropriate or legally required.

Appeals Matter

A moderation system should be capable of correcting its own mistakes.

Automation Assists — Humans Decide Important Cases

Technical tools can identify risks but should not become unquestionable judges of complex disputes.

Paying Companies Receive No Moderation Privilege

Advertising, affiliate relationships, Premium Profiles and claimed profiles do not buy review removal.

Reporters Cannot Weaponize the System

Repeated malicious or manifestly unfounded notices may themselves constitute abuse.

Companies and Users Are Evaluated Under the Same Principles

Neither corporate power nor anonymous accusation determines the outcome.

Evidence Matters More Than Pressure

The appropriate response follows the facts, applicable law and legitimate Platform rules.

Finauthority Is Not a Court

Our moderation decisions determine whether content remains on our Platform. They do not determine criminal or civil guilt.

New Evidence Can Change a Decision

If the factual or legal basis changes, our moderation decision should be capable of changing as well.

The goal of Finauthority moderation is not to eliminate criticism.

The goal is to maintain a platform where financial information, genuine experiences and legitimate disagreement can remain visible while unlawful, fabricated, abusive and manipulative content can be addressed through a transparent and proportionate process.