Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website for CurrencyWave, www.currencywave.com, a foreign currency payments service, seen on 7 March 2024. The home page featured headline text which stated, “CURRENCYWAVE SMARTER GLOBAL PAYMENTS. Further text stated, “Transparent pricing, secure transactions” and included two buttons labelled “CURRENCYWAVE FOR BUSINESS” and “CURRENCYWAVE FOR INDIVIDUALS”. It also included an image of an electronic tablet with text which stated, “Cost Comparison Sending a USD 75,000 payment: Total cost […]” and displayed the rates of the advertiser and four other providers. Text stated, “The above costs were calculated using online exchange rates obtained on 25 October 2022 for sending an international currency transfer of $75,000 by SWIFT priority payment”. Underneath, text stated, “Powered by: Currencycloud A Visa Solution” and featured the Currencycloud logo. Further text stated, “[…] CurrencyWave removes the complexity and high cost of receiving, holding and sending payments in multiple currencies and serves a growing market of businesses involved in global trade”.
The page included an animated video and a voice-over stated, “CurrencyWave gives you direct online access to the wholesale currency market, allowing you to bypass expensive and outdated banking services […] We can negotiate substantially better exchange rates for you […] Your payments will be sent through a fully FCA Authorised platform […] So if you want to navigate currency markets more efficiently, and save money, make CurrencyWave your international payment partner.” The video included on-screen text which stated, “FCA Authorised”. Further text below stated, “FCA REGULATED E-MONEY PARTNER”. 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”.
Issue
The Transparency Task Force challenged whether the ad misleadingly implied that CurrencyWave:
1. provided the payment services, because they understood they were carried out by CurrencyCloud; and
2. were regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).3. They also challenged whether the cost comparison information was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
1. CurrencyWave Ltd said they acted as one of many business introducers for The CurrencyCloud Ltd t/a CurrencyCloud, and performed customer service functions on behalf of customers in relation to the services that CurrencyCloud provided. The CurrencyWave website made numerous references to the fact that CurrencyCloud conducted the payment services and they believed it clearly stated that the service was powered by CurrencyCloud.When signing up to the service, the clients’ contract was with CurrencyCloud which was made clear through the online onboarding process and terms and conditions. CurrencyWave provided an example of the email their clients received when they signed up, which they believed made clear the client’s relationship with both CurrencyWave and CurrencyCloud. Currencycloud required its introducer-brokers like CurrencyWave, to share with it for review and/or approval marketing materials prior to launch or publication.When a client applied for an online account and signed up to the CurrencyCloud terms and conditions, CurrencyCloud would then perform due diligence and identification checks; any additional information was requested from the client by CurrencyWave. Once the account was approved, the client received details for setting up password credentials and would be able to use the platform to conduct payment services. They would also have access to the CurrencyWave helpline and support if they needed assistance.
Each page of the website contained the following statement: “For clients based in the United Kingdom and rest of the world, payment services for CurrencyWave are provided by The Currency Cloud Limited”.CurrencyCloud said they were an e-money institution authorised by the FCA and CurrencyWave was one of their foreign exchange introducer-brokers. Under their arrangement, CurrencyWave maintained the end-client relationships day-to-day and they could submit orders and instructions on customers behalf to CurrencyCloud, who provided regulated payments and e-wallets to customers. CurrencyWave handled customers online accounts and transactions as the appointed authorised person. Currencywave was involved in the facilitation of a service that Currencycloud ultimately provided, and they did not believe that the marketing of such arrangements was misleading, although they accepted that clarification may be helpful. In practice, the customers agreed a trade with the foreign exchange introducer-broker, who then booked the trade on CurrencyCloud’s platform on behalf of the end client, and CurrencyCloud executed the trade. They said the arrangement was common across the industry and were aware of other firms which operated similar arrangements with similar marketing practices. They had reviewed CurrencyWave’s website and found instances of language that was not in line with their marketing policies and had worked closely with CurrencyWave to update the language and bring it in line with their policies.CurrencyCloud said the qualification “payment services for CurrencyWave are provided by The Currency Cloud Limited”, was in line with broader financial industry practice and they were aware of a number of other financial institutions that operated on the same basis. They had had engagement with the FCA regarding their arrangements with foreign exchange introducer-brokers. Their interactions with the FCA had focussed on ensuring the language on introducer-broker websites was not misleading in a number of ways, and the placement and size of the disclosures in isolation had not to date, been raised as a concern. They were aware of a number of finance companies with similar types of arrangements, using similar language on their websites, who used multiple regulated e-money or payment service providers. They believed their approach was an acceptable one across the industry and they had not seen anything to the contrary from the FCA.
2. The animated video on the home page of their website made clear the relationship between CurrencyWave and CurrencyCloud. It made one reference to payment services where it said, “Your payment will be sent through a fully FCA authorised platform”. It did not say ‘our’ or ‘CurrencyWave’s’ fully FCA authorised platform, but it referred to a fully FCA authorised platform. The following statement was also on each page of the website “The Currency Cloud Limited is authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority under the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 for the issuing of electronic money”. Further text on the home page stated, “FCA Regulated E-Money Partner” which they believed made it clear that payments and funds were processed by their E-Money partner, CurrencyCloud.Neither the video nor the website stated that CurrencyWave was FCA authorised. It was made clear that payment services were provided by CurrencyCloud, who were the FCA regulated entity. Furthermore, when accessing the ‘About Us’ page of their website, they made clear the relationship between CurrencyWave and CurrencyCloud. It stated, “Payment services for CurrencyWave are provided by CurrencyCloud, a leading payment provider and a subsidiary of Visa Inc. Currencycloud is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) […] Client funds are safeguarded by our FCA-regulated e-money partners in segregated accounts at tier one banks. In the unlikely event of Currencycloud ceasing to exist, your money remains protected.” When clients applied for an account, it was made clear that they were entering into a contract with CurrencyCloud, not CurrencyWave as in the terms and conditions. They believed that taking into account all the information provided to the client, it was clear who was FCA authorised and what CurrencyWave’s relationship to CurrencyCloud was.3. CurrencyWave said exchange rates were dynamic and subject to continuous change which was why they stated on the cost comparison table the date on which the data was collected and compared. They believed that consumers would be able to ascertain from the date given in the comparison that the information was historic, intended only as a guide, and did not constitute a real time comparison. They said they obtained data from some competitors directly from their websites and for others via a personal banking app.CurrencyWave said they were in the process of re-developing their website and ahead of that they had removed the animated video and the cost comparison table.
Assessment
1.Upheld
The ASA understood that CurrencyWave acted as an introducer for CurrencyCloud and that it was CurrencyCloud that handled all the foreign exchange payments and financial transactions. We considered it was material information for consumers to be aware that their contract for the provision of financial services was with CurrencyCloud and not CurrencyWave.At the top of the webpage, the ad featured the claims “CURRENCYWAVE SMARTER GLOBAL PAYMENTS”, “Transparent pricing, secure transactions”. The cost comparison table gave the cost of sending money with CurrencyWave. Further text stated. “CurrencyWave removes the complexity and high cost of receiving, holding and sending payments in multiple currencies and serves a growing market of businesses involved in global trade”. Under the heading “CurrencyWave for Individuals” text stated, “wherever you live in the world, we can offer you a simple way of transferring money abroad, or repatriating funds back to your home country”. Throughout the homepage, CurrencyWave was repeatedly mentioned as facilitating the foreign exchange payments. We considered those claims implied that CurrencyWave was the entity responsible for conducting the payment transactions for consumers, whether individuals or businesses, and the references to “we” in relation to CurrencyWave further added to that impression. We also considered that the similarity of the company’s names, CurrencyWave and CurrencyCloud, would add to the likelihood of ambiguity regarding their relationship and whether or not they were linked. The rest of the webpage included information on CurrencyWave’s service, how it worked and the steps to register with CurrencyWave to open an account. We therefore considered that consumers would understand that CurrencyWave was the provider of the foreign exchange payment services and that their online accounts and transactions would be handled by CurrencyWave.
We acknowledged that the ad included the wording “Powered by: Currencycloud A Visa Solution” near the top of the home page. However, we considered “powered by” was ambiguous and did not explain the nature of the relationship between CurrencyWave and CurrencyCloud. There were also references to CurrencyWave having an “FCA E-Money Partner”, which appeared under the heading “Use CurrencyWave With Confidence”. We did not consider that claim was sufficient to make clear that another company was responsible for handling the payments or that consumers would have understood that to mean that CurrencyCloud was the company that was conducting the payment services. We considered that was information that should have been included upfront.The ad included text in the footer that stated, “payment services for CurrencyWave are provided by The Currency Cloud Limited”. We considered that wording appeared in very small text and at the bottom of the page, and therefore it was likely to be overlooked. Notwithstanding that, even if some consumers had seen it, it was insufficient to override the impression that the foreign exchange payment services were carried out by CurrencyWave.
Because the ad gave the impression that the foreign exchange payment services and financial transactions were provided by CurrencyWave when that was not the case, we concluded that the ad was misleading and breached the Code.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 and 3.10 (Qualifications).
2.Upheld
As referenced above, we considered that the overall impression of the ad was that CurrencyWave was responsible for conducting the payments. Under the heading “Use CurrencyWave with Confidence”, the webpage featured the claims “FCA Regulated E-Money Partner” and “Funds are Safeguarded by our FCA Regulated E-Money Partners at a credit institution”. The embedded video in the ad opened with on-screen text which stated, “CurrencyWave - Smarter Global Payments” and discussed the process and costs of making foreign exchange payments via a consumer’s bank, which were presented as costly and time consuming. The voice-over said, “But there is another way” and CurrencyWave was then presented as an easier and cheaper alternative method to do such transactions. It featured the claims “Your payments will be sent through a fully FCA Authorised platform” and on-screen text stated, “FCA Authorised”. The video did not mention CurrencyCloud and we considered in that context, the claims referencing FCA authorisation and regulation would be understood by consumers to refer to CurrencyWave as being FCA regulated. However, we understood that CurrencyCloud was FCA authorised, but CurrencyWave was not.At the bottom of the webpage text stated, “The Currency Cloud Limited is authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority”. As referenced above, that wording appeared in very small text, positioned at the bottom of the page, and therefore we considered it was likely to be overlooked. Notwithstanding that, even if some consumers had seen it, it was insufficient to override the impression that CurrencyWave was FCA authorised.
Because the ad implied that CurrencyWave was authorised by the FCA when that was not the case, we considered the claims and impression of the ad was likely to mislead.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.9, 3.10 (Qualifications) and 3.50 (Endorsement and testimonials).
3.Upheld
The ad featured a chart comparing the cost of sending $75,000 with CurrencyWave and four other companies and included the amount that was saved if they used CurrencyWave over those other providers. Text stated that this information was obtained from exchange rates obtained on 25 October 2022. We noted CurrencyWave’s point that exchange rates were dynamic and subject to continuous change. We therefore considered that using exchange rate data taken more than 12 months prior to when the ad was seen could not give a reliable or accurate representation of the rates consumers could expect to receive from CurrencyWave or from the other companies. The information explaining the basis of the cost comparison was in small text underneath larger, more prominent text. Notwithstanding that, even if that information had been more prominently stated any pricing claims that were based on that data would be misleading. We also considered that for comparisons to be accurate, monitoring of competitor exchange rates would need to be updated much more frequently; we had not been provided with any evidence that this was being done.
We therefore concluded that the cost comparison information was likely to mislead and breached the Code.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3, (Misleading advertising) and 3.33 (Comparisons).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained about. We told CurrencyWave Ltd to ensure they did not imply that they conducted foreign exchange payments and financial transactions if that was not the case. We also told them not to claim or imply they were FCA authorised if they were not, and to ensure that any future price comparisons were accurate, including by using up to date exchange rates.
