Who: The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and Currency Wave Ltd
Where: United Kingdom
When: 6 November 2024
Law stated as at: 10 December 2024
What happened:
A website for CurrencyWave, a foreign-currency payments service, has been called out by the ASA for implying it was a regulated payment service, with the small-print disclaimer deemed insufficient to avoid this implication.
On 7 March 2024, the home page featured the headline “CURRENCY WAVE SMARTER GLOBAL PAYMENTS” and text stating, “Transparent pricing, secure transactions” with buttons labelled “CURRENCY WAVE FOR BUSINESS” and “CURRENCY WAVE FOR INDIVIDUALS.”
An image displayed cost comparisons for sending a US$75,000 payment, with rates from the advertiser and four other providers, based on exchange rates from 25 October 2022. The text stated: “Powered by: Currencycloud A Visa Solution”. It featured the Currencycloud logo along with information about reducing the complexity and cost of multi-currency payments.
An animated video included a voice-over stating that CurrencyWave provides direct online access to the wholesale currency market, bypassing expensive banking services, offering better exchange rates and using the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) authorised platform. The on-screen text stated “FCA Authorised” and “FCA REGULATED E-MONEY PARTNER.” The small text at the bottom of the page stated: “For clients based in the United Kingdom and rest of the world, payment services for CurrencyWave are provided by The Currency Cloud Limited.”
The Transparency Task Force challenged whether the ad misleadingly implied that CurrencyWave provided the payment services, because they understood they were carried out by CurrencyCloud, and were regulated by the FCA. It also challenged whether the cost comparison information was misleading and could be substantiated.
In response to the task force’s challenge, CurrencyWave claimed that the website made numerous references to the fact that CurrencyCloud conducted the payment services and that it believed it clearly stated that the service was powered by CurrencyCloud. The company also referred to its terms and conditions.
CurrencyWave also argued that its website stated that payments would be “sent through a fully FCA authorised platform” and it had not implied it was the one that was FCA authorised.
Finally, in its defence, CurrencyWave claimed that exchange rates were dynamic and subject to continuous change, which was why it stated on the cost comparison table the date when the data was collected and compared.
The ASA’s ruling
The ASA found that the ad implied that CurrencyWave conducted the payment services, which was misleading. The claims and similarity in company names added to the confusion. The statement “Powered by: Currencycloud A Visa Solution” was ambiguous and insufficient to clarify the relationship. The footer text stating, “payment services for CurrencyWave are provided by The Currency Cloud Limited” was too small and easily overlooked.
The ad was also found to imply that CurrencyWave was FCA authorised, which it was not. The video and website claims referencing FCA authorisation were misleading as they did not clearly refer to CurrencyCloud. The small text at the bottom of the webpage was insufficient to clarify the correct FCA authorisation.
The cost comparison was also found to have used outdated exchange-rate data, which could not reliably represent current rates. The small text explaining the basis of the comparison was insufficient to prevent misleading impressions. Accurate comparisons required more frequent updates, which were not provided.
Overall, the ASA informed CurrencyWave that the ad cannot appear again in its current form. CurrencyWave must ensure it does not imply it conducts foreign-exchange payments if it does not do so. It must not claim or imply FCA authorisation if it is not authorised. Future price comparisons must be accurate and use up-to-date exchange rates.
Why this matters: This recent ruling by the ASA is important for companies looking to advertise their services online, particularly those that act as introducers, brokers or agents for other companies. In each of the rulings, the ASA mentioned that the “small text” (disclaimer) did not negate the misleading content that featured more prominently in the ad. As such, companies must ensure that the actual contents of their ads can be substantiated and are not misleading and must not rely on disclaimers to cover off fully any marketing claims.
