Last Updated: September 7, 2025

Finauthority is committed to accurate, fair and evidence-based financial research.

Financial-company information can change rapidly. Regulatory permissions may be modified, legal entities may change, websites may move to new domains, companies may provide new evidence, users may challenge published information and genuine errors may occasionally occur.

For these reasons, Finauthority maintains a structured process for:

• correcting factual errors;
• updating outdated information;
• reviewing disputed regulatory information;
• handling complaints;
• providing appropriate rights of reply;
• reconsidering editorial decisions;
• reviewing disputed user content; and
• processing formal legal notices.

Our objective is simple:

Correct what is wrong.

Update what has changed.

Preserve what remains accurate.

Give affected parties a meaningful opportunity to respond.

A complaint does not automatically justify removal.

Likewise, editorial independence does not justify retaining information after reliable evidence shows that it is materially inaccurate.

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 researching financial companies and services internationally.

2. Purpose of This Policy

This Policy explains:

• how to report inaccurate information;
• how companies may submit regulatory updates;
• how complaints are assessed;
• how a right of reply may be exercised;
• what evidence we expect;
• when information may be corrected;
• when content may be removed;
• when historical information may remain available;
• how disputed reviews are handled;
• how moderation decisions may be reconsidered; and
• how formal legal notices should be submitted.

3. Our Core Principle

Finauthority does not consider criticism, disagreement or commercial inconvenience sufficient reasons to alter accurate information.

The central question is:

What does the reliable evidence show?

If reliable evidence demonstrates that material information is incorrect, we should correct it.

If reliable evidence confirms that challenged information remains accurate, we may retain it.

If the evidence is genuinely conflicting or incomplete, we may explain the uncertainty or mark the matter as under review.

4. Types of Requests

A submission may fall into one or more of the following categories.

Factual Correction

A claim that information published by Finauthority is factually inaccurate.

Regulatory Update

New information concerning a license, authorization, warning, regulator, legal entity or regulatory status.

Company Information Update

A request to update business information that has legitimately changed.

Complaint

A broader concern regarding Finauthority content, research, moderation or treatment.

Right of Reply

A request from an affected company or person to provide a relevant response to published information.

Review Dispute

A challenge concerning a user review or supporting evidence.

Moderation Appeal

A request to reconsider a decision affecting user-generated content.

Formal Legal Notice

A legally framed request alleging unlawful content or infringement of rights.

Privacy Request

A request relating primarily to personal data.

Different procedures may apply depending on the category.

5. Where to Submit a Factual Correction

Requests involving:

• company identity;
• legal entity;
• regulatory status;
• license details;
• ownership;
• company website;
• company address;
• regulatory warning;
• factual company information; or
• research conclusions based on those matters

should normally be sent to:

Company Review & Verification
check@finauthority.org

6. General Complaints

General complaints concerning Finauthority may be sent to:

kancelar@finauthority.org

Where the complaint concerns a company profile or financial research, it may be referred internally to:

check@finauthority.org

7. Legal Notices

Formal legal notices should be sent to:

legal@finauthority.org

Where possible, legal correspondence should clearly identify:

• the sender;
• authority to act;
• affected person or organization;
• exact URL;
• exact disputed content;
• legal basis of the request;
• relevant jurisdiction;
• requested remedy; and
• supporting documentation.

8. Privacy Requests

Requests primarily concerning personal data should be sent to:

privacy@finauthority.org

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

9. Who May Submit a Correction Request

A correction or complaint may be submitted by:

• the affected company;
• an authorized company representative;
• an affected individual;
• a user;
• a regulator;
• a public authority;
• a legal representative;
• another person with relevant information; or
• any person identifying a genuine factual error.

You do not need to represent the company concerned to point out an error.

10. Verification of Authority

Where a request is made on behalf of another person or organization, Finauthority may reasonably request evidence of authority.

This may include:

• official company email;
• letter of authorization;
• professional representation details;
• corporate records;
• legal representation information; or
• another reasonable method.

Verification is intended to prevent impersonation and unauthorized changes.

11. What a Correction Request Should Contain

A useful correction request should identify:

1. the Finauthority page or profile;
2. the exact statement believed to be incorrect;
3. why it is incorrect;
4. the correct information;
5. relevant dates;
6. authoritative supporting sources; and
7. any documents necessary to evaluate the request.

Clear and focused submissions generally allow more efficient review.

12. Evidence Is Important

Finauthority evaluates correction requests on evidence.

Useful evidence may include:

• current regulator records;
• licensing documents;
• official government registers;
• corporate records;
• court decisions;
• regulator correspondence;
• company legal documents;
• official contractual documents;
• official website disclosures;
• authenticated correspondence; or
• other reliable documentation.

A company statement alone may not be sufficient where independent verification is reasonably available.

13. Source Quality Matters

Not all sources carry the same evidentiary weight.

For important regulatory disputes, Finauthority generally gives greater weight to:

Primary Official Sources

Such as regulator or government records.

Primary Legal or Corporate Sources

Such as official company registers and formal documents.

Independently Verifiable Documentary Evidence

Where relevant and sufficiently reliable.

Reliable Secondary Sources

Where appropriate for context.

Unsupported promotional statements or anonymous claims normally carry less evidentiary weight.

14. Regulatory Corrections

Financial regulatory information receives particular scrutiny.

A company challenging its regulatory classification should, where applicable, provide information allowing us to verify:

• exact legal entity;
• regulator;
• license or reference number;
• current status;
• authorization category;
• permitted activities;
• relevant jurisdiction;
• trading name;
• associated website domain; and
• any material restrictions.

15. A License Document Alone May Not Be Sufficient

A document showing a genuine license may not establish that the license applies to the website or brand under review.

Finauthority may additionally verify:

• legal entity;
• domain;
• trading name;
• address;
• contact information;
• regulator-listed details; and
• scope of authorization.

This is particularly important in potential clone-firm or impersonation cases.

16. New Regulatory Information

Companies are encouraged to notify Finauthority when material regulatory information changes.

Examples include:

• new authorization;
• expanded permissions;
• surrender of a license;
• suspension;
• restriction;
• change of regulator;
• new legal entity;
• new approved domain;
• merger;
• acquisition; or
• resolution of a previous warning.

Relevant information may be submitted to:

check@finauthority.org

17. Updates Are Not Automatically Corrections

Information may have been accurate when originally published but later become outdated.

In such cases, the appropriate action may be an update, not a correction.

For example:

A company was unregulated in January but obtained authorization in June.

The original historical statement may remain accurate for January even though the current profile must be updated.

18. Historical Accuracy

Finauthority distinguishes between:

information that was wrong when published

and

information that was correct when published but later changed.

This distinction matters for transparent historical records.

19. Corrections of Material Errors

Where reliable evidence demonstrates that Finauthority published a material factual error, we may:

• amend the statement;
• update the company profile;
• correct regulatory status;
• recalculate a score;
• add relevant context;
• correct the legal entity;
• remove an incorrect warning association; or
• take another appropriate measure.

20. Material Correction Notices

Where a correction substantially changes the meaning of an article, company assessment or regulatory classification, Finauthority may publish a visible correction or update note.

A notice may explain:

• what was changed;
• when it was changed; and
• why the change was made.

Transparency is particularly important where the original error materially affected a company’s assessment.

21. Minor Corrections

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

Examples include:

• spelling;
• punctuation;
• formatting;
• broken links;
• typographical errors; or
• minor non-substantive wording.

22. Corrections Should Not Rewrite History

A correction should not normally create the misleading impression that an earlier event never occurred.

For example, if a regulator issued a warning that was later withdrawn, an accurate historical record may state:

• that the warning was issued;
• the date;
• that it was subsequently withdrawn; and
• the date of withdrawal.

Where relevant, both facts may remain important.

23. Deletion Is Not the Default Remedy

Not every dispute requires deletion.

Depending on the circumstances, a more accurate remedy may be:

• correction;
• clarification;
• contextual note;
• updated status;
• right of reply;
• partial redaction;
• reclassification;
• temporary review; or
• addition of newer information.

24. When Removal May Be Appropriate

Removal may be appropriate where, for example:

• content is unlawful;
• information concerns the wrong company;
• the factual basis is fundamentally incorrect;
• material evidence was fabricated;
• publication violates applicable privacy rights;
• intellectual-property rights require removal;
• the content no longer has a legitimate basis for publication;
• a binding legal decision requires removal; or
• another compelling legal or editorial reason exists.

25. Unfavorable Information Is Not Automatically Inaccurate

Information is not inaccurate merely because it:

• damages reputation;
• lowers a rating;
• is commercially inconvenient;
• appears prominently in search engines;
• is negative;
• concerns historical misconduct; or
• causes users to reconsider a company.

The relevant question is whether publication is accurate, fair, lawful and appropriately contextualized.

26. Search-Engine Results

Finauthority does not fully control how third-party search engines:

• index pages;
• rank results;
• generate snippets;
• cache older versions; or
• update corrected information.

After Finauthority changes a page, third-party search engines may require additional time to reflect the update.

27. Cached and Archived Versions

Older copies of content may remain temporarily accessible through:

• search-engine caches;
• web archives;
• browser caches;
• third-party databases; or
• other external services.

Finauthority does not control independent third-party archives.

28. Complaints

A complaint may concern issues beyond a simple factual error.

Examples include concerns about:

• fairness;
• methodology;
• moderation;
• treatment of evidence;
• conflicts of interest;
• lack of response;
• misleading presentation;
• editorial conduct;
• company claiming;
• user reviews; or
• another Platform process.

29. Complaint Review Principles

Complaints should be assessed according to:

• evidence;
• applicable Finauthority policies;
• relevant context;
• fairness;
• consistency;
• proportionality;
• applicable law; and
• editorial independence.

30. Commercial Status Does Not Affect Complaints

A company does not receive preferential handling merely because it:

• advertises with Finauthority;
• purchases premium features;
• participates in an affiliate relationship;
• claims its profile; or
• has another commercial relationship with us.

Likewise, refusing to purchase services does not result in unfavorable complaint treatment.

31. No Pay-to-Correct

Finauthority does not charge a company simply to correct a demonstrated factual error.

A legitimate factual correction is not a premium service.

Companies cannot be required to purchase advertising or another commercial product before an error is corrected.

32. No Pay-to-Remove

Companies cannot purchase removal of accurate negative information.

Commercial arrangements do not include the right to:

• delete verified warnings;
• suppress legitimate criticism;
• erase documented history;
• remove eligible negative reviews; or
• change independent research conclusions.

33. Good-Faith Complaints

Finauthority welcomes complaints made in good faith.

A complaint does not need to be legally sophisticated.

The most useful complaints clearly identify:

• the problem;
• relevant content;
• reason for the concern; and
• supporting information.

34. Repeated or Abusive Complaints

Finauthority may take proportionate measures where complaint mechanisms are deliberately abused.

Examples may include:

• repeated identical submissions after final review without new evidence;
• impersonation;
• fabricated legal claims;
• threats;
• harassment;
• automated complaint flooding; or
• attempts to overwhelm our systems.

A company does not lose the ability to raise legitimate new evidence merely because a previous complaint was unsuccessful.

35. Volume Does Not Determine Outcome

Submitting a large number of emails does not increase the evidentiary strength of a claim.

Likewise, coordinated complaints from multiple parties do not automatically establish that content is inaccurate.

Evidence remains more important than volume.

36. Our Right of Reply Principle

Finauthority recognizes that companies and individuals materially affected by our reporting should have a meaningful opportunity to present relevant factual responses.

This is part of our commitment to fairness and editorial accountability.

37. What Right of Reply Means

A right of reply may allow an affected party to:

• correct or dispute a factual claim;
• provide additional context;
• explain its regulatory position;
• respond to a significant allegation;
• identify subsequent developments;
• describe steps taken to resolve an issue; or
• present another materially relevant position.

38. Right of Reply Is Not Editorial Control

A right of reply does not allow a company to:

• rewrite Finauthority’s article;
• dictate our conclusions;
• delete accurate information;
• select which reviews remain visible;
• prevent publication of relevant regulatory warnings;
• require publication of marketing copy; or
• determine its own Finauthority Score.

39. Appropriate Scope of a Reply

A proposed reply should normally be:

• relevant;
• proportionate;
• factual;
• clearly attributable;
• focused on the disputed subject; and
• free of unlawful or abusive content.

A reply need not reproduce an entire corporate press release if only a narrow factual issue is disputed.

40. Company Statements

Where appropriate, Finauthority may publish or summarize a response using labels such as:

Company Response

Company Statement

Right of Reply

Company Disputes This Finding

or another clear description.

41. Editing Company Replies

Finauthority may reasonably edit a company reply for:

• length;
• relevance;
• formatting;
• personal-data protection;
• legal compliance;
• removal of promotional material;
• removal of unrelated accusations; or
• clarity.

We should not edit a reply in a way that materially changes its intended meaning.

42. Linking to a Full Statement

Where a company submits a response too long for reasonable inclusion, Finauthority may:

• publish a relevant extract;
• summarize its position accurately; and/or
• link to an appropriate public full statement.

43. Reply Does Not Equal Agreement

Publication of a company response does not mean that Finauthority agrees with it.

Likewise, publication of Finauthority’s original analysis does not prevent the company from publicly disagreeing with us.

44. Finauthority May Respond to a Reply

Where necessary for accuracy or context, Finauthority may publish a concise editorial note explaining:

• what evidence was considered;
• which points remain disputed;
• which facts are independently verified; or
• why our conclusion remains unchanged.

45. Pre-Publication Right to Comment

For significant original investigations or serious allegations, Finauthority may seek comment from the affected company before publication where appropriate.

The decision may depend on:

• seriousness;
• urgency;
• evidence;
• public interest;
• existing public responses;
• accessibility of the company; and
• legal or safety considerations.

46. No Indefinite Publication Delay

A request for comment does not give a company an unlimited right to delay publication.

Where sufficient evidence exists and a reasonable opportunity to respond has been provided where appropriate, publication may proceed.

A later response can still be considered.

47. Review Disputes

Companies may challenge user reviews they reasonably believe are:

• fabricated;
• associated with the wrong company;
• defamatory or otherwise unlawful;
• generated by competitors;
• manipulated;
• submitted by undisclosed insiders;
• based on nonexistent transactions;
• abusive; or
• otherwise contrary to our User Review and Evidence Policy.

48. A Negative Review Is Not Enough for Removal

A review should not be removed simply because it:

• criticizes the company;
• assigns one star;
• describes a poor experience;
• disputes company conduct;
• reduces the aggregate rating; or
• appears in search-engine results.

The review must be assessed under the same standards as other content.

49. Evidence in Review Disputes

Where a company challenges a factual review, it may provide evidence such as:

• account records;
• transaction records;
• correspondence;
• complaint resolution records;
• contractual information; or
• other documentation relevant to the dispute.

Finauthority may compare this evidence with information provided by the reviewer.

50. Confidential Company Evidence

Documents supplied by a company for dispute resolution are not automatically published.

Finauthority may use them to:

• verify facts;
• moderate a review;
• request clarification;
• add context; or
• resolve a dispute.

51. Reviewer Opportunity to Respond

Where appropriate, Finauthority may ask the reviewer to respond to material contradictory evidence submitted by a company.

The reviewer may be asked to:

• clarify;
• provide additional evidence;
• amend the review; or
• confirm relevant details.

52. Possible Outcomes of a Review Dispute

Following review, Finauthority may:

• retain the review unchanged;
• add a company response;
• add contextual information;
• request edits;
• redact personal information;
• qualify disputed statements;
• add a verification label;
• remove part of the review;
• remove the entire review;
• exclude it from rating calculations; or
• continue investigating.

53. No Automatic Presumption for Either Side

Finauthority does not automatically presume that:

• the user is correct because they are a consumer;
• the company is correct because it has official records;
• a negative review is genuine;
• a positive review is genuine;
• a corporate statement is accurate; or
• an accusation is false merely because it is denied.

The evidence is evaluated in context.

54. Right to Challenge a Finauthority Score

Companies may challenge factual inputs underlying a Finauthority Score.

For example, a company may demonstrate that:

• a license was omitted;
• an outdated warning was mischaracterized;
• the wrong legal entity was used;
• ownership information changed;
• a factual transparency criterion was incorrectly assessed; or
• another material input is wrong.

55. Companies Cannot Negotiate Scores

A challenge must concern evidence or methodology.

Finauthority does not negotiate ratings as commercial compromises.

A company cannot say:

“We disagree with 62/100 and would accept 80/100.”

The score must follow the published methodology.

56. Score Recalculation

Where a verified correction materially changes a scoring input, Finauthority may recalculate the score.

A revised score may be:

• higher;
• lower; or
• unchanged,

depending on the effect of the new evidence.

57. Regulatory Warning Disputes

Where a company disputes association with a regulatory warning, Finauthority may examine:

• exact name;
• domain;
• legal entity;
• telephone number;
• address;
• regulator reference;
• dates;
• archived content; and
• other identifying evidence.

Warnings should not be attributed to unrelated companies merely because names are similar.

58. Withdrawn or Amended Regulatory Warnings

Where an authority withdraws, amends or supersedes a warning, Finauthority should update the current profile appropriately.

Historical information may remain where relevant, but the current status should be made clear.

59. Official Decisions Take Priority

Where a competent regulator, court or other public authority issues a binding or authoritative decision materially affecting our content, Finauthority will assess and update the relevant information as required.

60. Allegations and Final Findings

Where an article accurately stated that an allegation existed, the later rejection of that allegation does not necessarily make the original historical report false.

However, fairness may require us to update the article to include the later outcome.

61. Complaints About Editorial Fairness

A company or user may complain that content is technically accurate but presented in a materially misleading manner.

We may consider issues such as:

• omitted context;
• misleading headline;
• outdated prominence;
• failure to mention resolution;
• confusion between legal entities;
• inappropriate attribution; or
• disproportionate presentation.

Accuracy includes context, not merely isolated words.

62. Headlines

Where a headline materially overstates the evidence, correcting only the body text may not be sufficient.

Finauthority may also revise:

• headline;
• page title;
• summary;
• risk label;
• search description; or
• other prominent presentation.

63. Complaints About SEO Visibility

Finauthority does not normally remove accurate information solely because it ranks highly in search results.

However, where content is materially outdated or misleading, updating the page may also improve the accuracy of information presented by search engines.

64. Appeals

Where a complainant materially disagrees with our first decision, they may request reconsideration.

A reconsideration request should ideally include:

• the original complaint;
• our decision;
• specific reason the decision is challenged; and
• any new evidence.

65. New Evidence Matters

An appeal that merely repeats the original complaint may result in the same conclusion.

New reliable evidence can justify a different result.

66. Independent Internal Review

Where appropriate, a reconsideration may be examined by a different member of the Finauthority team.

This helps reduce the risk of simply defending an earlier decision.

67. Possible Appeal Outcomes

An appeal may result in:

• confirmation of the original decision;
• additional correction;
• restoration of content;
• further restriction;
• reclassification;
• additional context;
• renewed investigation; or
• another appropriate outcome.

68. Moderation Decisions

Where Finauthority removes or restricts user-generated content, we may provide a clear explanation of the relevant reason where required or appropriate.

The explanation may identify:

• the restriction;
• relevant facts;
• applicable Platform rule;
• applicable legal concern; and
• available review procedure.

69. Internal Complaints Concerning Moderation

Where applicable under law or Finauthority procedures, affected users may have access to an internal mechanism to challenge qualifying moderation decisions.

Such review should be conducted fairly and should not rely solely on automated systems where human assessment is appropriate.

70. Notice-and-Action Requests

Reports alleging illegal user-generated content may fall under our separate:

Content Moderation and Notice-and-Action Policy

A correction complaint and a notice alleging illegal content are not necessarily the same process.

71. A Complaint Is Not Automatically a Legal Notice

Statements such as:

“This review is defamatory.”

or

“Our lawyer says you must remove this.”

do not automatically establish illegality.

A formal legal complaint should identify the disputed content and provide enough legal and factual basis for meaningful assessment.

72. Legal Threats Do Not Determine Accuracy

Finauthority takes legitimate legal concerns seriously.

However, the size of a company’s legal team or intensity of a legal threat does not determine whether information is true.

Legal concerns are evaluated on their merits.

73. Court Orders and Binding Decisions

Finauthority will comply with binding legal obligations applicable to it.

Where we receive a court order or another legally binding direction, we may:

• remove content;
• restrict content;
• preserve information;
• disclose information where legally required; or
• take another necessary action.

74. Requests From Regulators and Public Authorities

Relevant communications from financial regulators and competent public authorities receive appropriate attention.

Where an authority provides information showing that a regulatory classification is inaccurate, we will assess and update the content accordingly.

75. Impersonation

Requests submitted by someone falsely claiming to represent a company, regulator, lawyer or affected person may be rejected.

Finauthority may take reasonable steps to verify identity or authority.

76. False Documents

Submitting fabricated or materially altered evidence may result in:

• rejection of the request;
• account restrictions;
• preservation of relevant evidence;
• reconsideration of related submissions; or
• other appropriate action.

Where required by law, information may also be provided to competent authorities.

77. Confidentiality of Complaints

Complaints are not automatically public.

However, information from a complaint may be used where necessary to:

• investigate the matter;
• correct content;
• contact another affected party;
• obtain legal advice;
• respond publicly;
• defend legal claims; or
• comply with applicable law.

Personal data is handled according to our Privacy Policy.

78. Publication of Company Responses

A company submitting a right of reply should assume that the substantive response may be published.

If certain information is confidential, this should be clearly identified and justified.

Finauthority cannot guarantee confidentiality for material intended specifically as a public response.

79. Off-the-Record Communications

A communication is not automatically “off the record” merely because the sender labels it that way after sending it.

Any confidentiality arrangement should be agreed appropriately.

80. Privacy and Corrections

Requests to remove personal data are evaluated separately from ordinary factual correction requests where appropriate.

The right to erasure under data-protection law is not absolute and may be subject to exceptions and competing rights.

Privacy requests should be directed to:

privacy@finauthority.org

81. Intellectual-Property Complaints

Copyright, trademark or other intellectual-property concerns may be directed to:

legal@finauthority.org

They may also be handled under our:

Copyright and Intellectual Property Policy

82. No Guaranteed Outcome

Submitting a complaint does not guarantee:

• correction;
• deletion;
• score increase;
• review removal;
• publication of a full company statement; or
• another predetermined outcome.

The result depends on the facts, evidence, applicable policies and law.

83. No Guaranteed Exact Response Time

Finauthority aims to handle legitimate requests without undue delay.

The time required may vary depending on:

• seriousness;
• complexity;
• quality of evidence;
• need for external verification;
• regulator availability;
• number of parties involved;
• legal issues;
• translation requirements; and
• whether additional information is required.

Urgent legal or security matters may receive priority.

Any mandatory response periods imposed by applicable law remain unaffected.

84. Requests Requiring Additional Information

Where a request cannot reasonably be assessed without further information, Finauthority may ask the complainant to provide it.

A lack of sufficient information may delay or prevent a substantive decision.

85. Closing a Complaint

A complaint may be considered resolved where:

• the requested correction is made;
• an appropriate update is published;
• a reply is added;
• the request is rejected with reasons;
• an appeal is completed;
• the complainant withdraws the request; or
• no further action is justified on available evidence.

86. Reopening a Matter

A closed matter may be reconsidered where material new evidence becomes available.

Finality does not require Finauthority to ignore reliable information discovered later.

87. Correction Records

Finauthority may retain internal records relating to material corrections and disputes.

Records may help demonstrate:

• what was challenged;
• evidence considered;
• decision reached;
• changes made; and
• timing of relevant actions.

Such records support accountability and consistency.

88. Public Correction History

For particularly significant changes, Finauthority may maintain visible update notes or historical information.

This can help users understand how a company profile evolved over time.

89. Editorial Independence

Correction procedures are part of editorial independence.

True independence means being willing both to:

• resist unjustified pressure; and
• acknowledge genuine mistakes.

Refusing every complaint is not independence.

Changing accurate information because of commercial pressure is also not independence.

90. Fair Treatment of Companies

Finauthority recognizes that inaccurate financial information can harm legitimate companies.

For that reason, we take credible correction requests seriously.

Companies should have a practical means to provide authoritative evidence and correct errors.

91. Fair Treatment of Users

Finauthority also recognizes that consumers must be able to describe legitimate negative experiences without having truthful criticism removed merely because a company objects.

Review disputes therefore require balanced consideration of both sides.

92. No Presumption Based on Company Size

Large financial institutions and small companies are subject to the same core correction principles.

Corporate size, reputation or legal resources do not create a stronger entitlement to favorable treatment.

93. No Presumption Based on Regulation

A regulated company can still be the subject of legitimate criticism.

An unregulated company may still successfully challenge a factual error.

Regulatory status does not determine who wins a correction dispute.

94. International Companies

Because Finauthority researches companies worldwide, disputes may involve several jurisdictions.

Where legal requirements differ, Finauthority may consider:

• location of the operator;
• location of the affected person;
• applicable mandatory law;
• nature of publication;
• relevant court or regulator; and
• other appropriate jurisdictional factors.

95. Translations

Where a complaint concerns content translated from another language, Finauthority may review the original source to determine whether a translation affected meaning.

Material translation errors should be corrected.

96. Automated and AI-Assisted Tools

Finauthority may use automated or AI-assisted tools to support:

• document comparison;
• duplicate detection;
• organization of submissions;
• translation;
• identification of potentially relevant records; or
• administrative processing.

Such tools do not replace appropriate human judgment for significant correction, complaint or right-of-reply decisions.

97. Human Review

Material disputes involving:

• serious allegations;
• regulatory status;
• legal notices;
• substantial evidence;
• review authenticity; or
• significant reputational consequences

should receive appropriate human assessment.

98. Contact Summary

Company Research, Corrections and Regulatory Verification

check@finauthority.org

Use this address for:

• incorrect company information;
• licensing updates;
• regulatory status;
• company identity;
• official warnings;
• factual profile corrections;
• company-verification requests.

General Complaints

kancelar@finauthority.org

Privacy

privacy@finauthority.org

Formal Legal Notices

legal@finauthority.org

99. Postal Contact

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

Website: Finauthority.org

100. Related Finauthority Policies

This Corrections, Complaints and Right of Reply 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
• 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. Our Corrections Commitment

Finauthority’s approach to corrections and complaints can be summarized in ten principles:

Accuracy Over Pride

If we are wrong, we should correct the information.

Evidence Over Pressure

A correction is determined by evidence, not by the power of the complainant.

Context Matters

Technically correct information can still require clarification if its presentation is materially misleading.

Updates Are Different From Errors

Information that became outdated should be updated without falsely suggesting that it was always wrong.

Right of Reply Without Editorial Control

Companies may respond, but they cannot dictate independent conclusions.

No Pay-to-Correct

Correcting a genuine factual error is not a commercial service.

No Pay-to-Remove

Accurate negative information cannot be purchased out of the record.

Users and Companies Are Both Heard

Neither side automatically wins a dispute.

Important Corrections Should Be Transparent

Material changes may be accompanied by visible correction or update notes.

New Evidence Can Change Our Conclusion

Our assessments should follow the best available evidence, even when that requires changing an earlier decision.

Finauthority’s objective is not to defend every word it has ever published.

Our objective is to maintain the most accurate, transparent and useful financial-company information reasonably possible.