How to respond when traders call your brokerage a scam online

Search any broker’s name and, as Trading Trust Index, a Unita Media platform, puts it, “you will find the word ‘scam’ somewhere”[1]. It turns up in angry reviews, forum threads and video comments, on copycat sites, in regulator warnings that turn out to be about impersonators, and next to old fines and lawsuits. Prospects read it before opening an account, partners during due diligence. AI assistants can draw on all of it when someone asks whether your firm is safe.

Most brokers either ignore it, which leaves the worst version of events unanswered, or respond badly: legal threats, demands for deletion, a sudden wave of five-star reviews. Each of those can make the story bigger.

What works is calmer: work out what each claim actually is, answer it with evidence, and make that evidence easy to find. This is a general overview, not legal advice.

Sort the claims before you answer them

“Scam” is, in Trading Trust Index’s words, “a word that tells you how someone feels, not what happened”[1]. Its explainer on warnings, allegations and rulings separates six kinds of finding[1]:

• Regulator warning. A public warning, most often that a firm is offering services without the authorisation it needs[1]. On the register of the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), a published warning about an unauthorised firm appears when someone searches for that firm[2]. A warning is serious, but it is not a court ruling, and warnings are sometimes withdrawn[1].
• Clone warning. A warning about impersonators who copy a genuine firm’s name, reference number or website. It names the genuine firm because that firm is the victim[1].
• Enforcement action. A fine, a restriction, the suspension or withdrawal of a licence, or a settlement, which may be ongoing, concluded, settled, under appeal or overturned[1]. The FCA’s register holds a firm’s full regulatory record, including historic fines[2].
• Legal finding. A court or tribunal ruling, which is final only when it can no longer be appealed or has been upheld on appeal[1].
• Allegation. A claim not yet proven or decided, made in a lawsuit, a news report or a public statement[1].
• Complaint record. A documented outcome from an independent body, such as an ombudsman decision[1].

A one-star review that says “scam” is usually none of these. It is one client’s account, and deserves an answer on those terms.

Each needs a different response. An active warning about your own firm calls for a conversation with the regulator before any public statement; a clone warning, client alerts; a ruling under appeal, precise wording, never “we were cleared”; an allegation, your side of the story on the record.

When the scam is someone pretending to be you

The FCA says clone firms often use the name and address of a genuine firm or copy its firm reference number, and may copy its website with small changes, such as the phone number, or use lookalike email addresses or ones from Outlook or Gmail[3]. They may even claim the firm’s details on the FCA’s register are out of date, which the FCA calls unlikely because it updates them, on average, every 24 hours[3].

Someone who loses money to a clone may well blame the genuine firm in public, so make the difference easy to see.

• Find clones early. Watch for new domains and accounts using your name or licence number, and for client queries about contact details you do not recognise.
• Report them. Send the regulator the domains, numbers and screenshots, and ask whether it will publish a warning. The FCA asks anyone who thinks a fraudster has contacted them to report it, by phone or through its contact form[3].
• Publish what is genuine. The Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC) keeps a public list of the website domains approved for each Cyprus investment firm; on 15 October 2026 it listed 248 firms[4]. Trading Trust Index’s guide to checking a broker’s regulatory claim tells readers that a website not on the approved list for the licence it quotes “is a reason to stop”[5].
• Keep your register entry right. On the FCA’s register, contact details are provided and confirmed by the firm itself, and most authorised firms must update or confirm them at least once a year[2]. Clients are told to check that the details they have been given match[3].
• Point clients to the regulator, not to yourself. The same guide advises never using contact details or links supplied by a firm to check whether that firm is genuine[5]. So a “how to recognise us” page should link to your register entry, list every official domain, app and phone number, and say what you will never ask clients to do.

Name the legal entity too: “a trading brand is not a legal person,” the guide notes[5].

Give complaints a route that works

A client who cannot find your complaints process will find a forum instead. In the EU, joint guidelines from the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) and the European Banking Authority (EBA) expect firms to publish their complaints process in an easily accessible way, such as on their website, including how to complain, indicative timelines and whether an ombudsman or other dispute resolution is available[6]. Firms should communicate “in plain language, which is clearly understood”, respond without unnecessary delay or within national time limits, and explain any delay[6]. A final decision that does not fully satisfy the client should include “a thorough explanation of the firm’s position” and set out the options for taking it further[6].

In the UK, the Financial Ombudsman Service says a business has up to eight weeks to consider most complaints, and the client then has six months from the final response to go to the ombudsman, whose service is free[7].

Which body applies depends on the legal entity that holds the client’s account, not on the brand, as Trading Trust Index’s guide to complaints points out. It lists, among others, the UK ombudsman, Australia’s complaints authority, the Financial Ombudsman in Cyprus and the FIN-NET network for cross-border cases in the European Economic Area[8]. Spell out the route for each of your entities.

When someone complains in public, reply with a named contact and the route, then move the detail to a private channel. And watch the replies underneath: the same guide, citing the FCA, warns that fraudsters approach people who have lost money and offer to recover it for an upfront fee[8]. A short public note that you never charge to resolve a complaint protects clients and shows good faith.

Answer reviews in public, and never buy the ending

Reply to critical reviews in public, briefly and factually: acknowledge the problem, give the complaints route and come back when it is resolved. A hypothetical example: “We are sorry for the delay. Please email our complaints team with your account number so we can trace this withdrawal. If you are unhappy with our answer, you can take it to the ombudsman.”

What not to do is now written into law. In the EU, the Omnibus Directive amended the rules on unfair commercial practices to bar traders from submitting false consumer reviews, or commissioning others to do so, to promote their products[9]. It also targets manipulating reviews, “such as publishing only positive reviews and deleting the negative ones”[9]. In the US, the Federal Trade Commission’s rule, announced in August 2024, bans fake reviews, incentives conditioned on a review’s sentiment, and using “unfounded or groundless legal threats, physical threats, intimidation, or certain false public accusations” to stop or remove negative reviews[10]. Our guide to proving trust online and what regulators and search engines now expect covers these rules, and the UK’s, in detail.

Some content may be illegal, not just unfair, such as a fake page using your name to take deposits. In the EU, the Digital Services Act requires hosting services to let anyone report content they consider illegal, through a mechanism that is “easy to access and user-friendly”[11]. A notice should explain why the content is illegal, give its exact URL and confirm that it is accurate and complete; the provider must confirm receipt, tell you its decision and handle notices in a “timely, diligent, non-arbitrary and objective manner”[11].

Use those routes with evidence, never against honest criticism. A demand to delete a genuine bad review can become the next story.

Let an independent record do the labelling

A search results page puts a clone warning, an old settled fine and an anonymous forum post side by side, often without dates or context. An independent assessment can label each item for what it is. Trading Trust Index’s guide to reading its assessments shows what such a record contains[12]:

• findings dated and labelled as a regulator warning, an enforcement action, a legal finding (final, under appeal or overturned), an allegation, a complaint record or a clone warning;
• allegations, complaint records and clone warnings shown for context, never changing the score;
• a confidence level of high, moderate or low, and a flag on any assessment more than a year old;
• the firm’s published response, earlier assessments kept exactly as published, and every correction logged with its date.

It also states that “No findings recorded” means none are on its record, not that none exist, and that no firm can buy a score or the removal of a substantiated finding[12].

For a prospect, that turns “scam?” into a dated history. It helps with AI assistants too: a labelled, sourced record is better material for their summaries than a forum thread. Our evidence review of how AI answer engines decide which sources to cite explains what they look for.

When the accusation is true

Sometimes the critics are right: withdrawals were slow, an agent overpromised, a fee was unclear. Then acknowledge it, fix it and explain what changed: what went wrong, what affected clients will receive and by when, and what stops it happening again. Never call critics liars, and never describe a sanction as a misunderstanding.

The EU complaints guidelines expect the same discipline inside the firm: analyse complaints to identify root causes common to types of complaint, consider whether those causes affect other products, and correct them where reasonable[6]. A run of similar “scam” posts is complaints data, so treat it that way.

When a journalist, auditor or assessor asks for your side, give it, with documents. Trading Trust Index, for instance, may show an allegation labelled “unproven” with the firm’s response where it has given one[1]. Silence leaves the allegation standing alone. Our guide on how to rebuild trust in a trading brand when clients expect the worst covers the longer work.

If the story reaches the media, choose one spokesperson, agree the facts in writing and rehearse the hardest question rather than the easiest. Our guide on how to prepare your spokespeople so every interview builds trust sets out how.

Measure what people and machines see, every month

Keep a monthly log of:

• the first two pages of search results for your brand name with “scam”, “review”, “withdrawal” and “complaint”;
• what the main AI assistants say when asked whether your firm is safe or legitimate, and which sources they cite;
• regulators’ warning lists, your register entries and approved-domain listings in every country where you operate;
• new domains or accounts using your name;
• complaint volumes, response times, ombudsman referrals and the root causes behind them.

Each change tells you where to act: a new clone, an outdated register entry, an AI answer repeating a withdrawn allegation.

A step list for the next “scam” post

1. Capture the post, its date and where it appears. Do not reply in anger.
2. Classify it: regulator warning, clone, enforcement action, legal finding, allegation, complaint or opinion.
3. If it is a clone, report it to the regulator and alert clients with your genuine domains and register link.
4. If it is a complaint, reply in public with a named contact and the route, then resolve it privately within your published timelines.
5. If it is false and illegal, use the platform’s reporting tool with a precise, evidenced notice.
6. If it is true, acknowledge it, fix the cause and publish what changed.
7. Never threaten, never demand the removal of honest reviews, and never buy or write praise.
8. Keep your register entries, approved domains and complaints page current.
9. Cooperate with independent assessments and use every right of reply.
10. Review search results and AI answers monthly, and act on what has changed.