The UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) today issued a ruling against a piece of advertisement by FX Compared Ltd.

A website for FXcompared, www.fxcompared.com, an international money transfer comparison site, seen on 7 March 2024, included large text on the homepage that stated, “Compare the best international money transfer companies”. Text underneath stated “Compare transfer fees and exchange rates to find the best deal to send money overseas. We’ve done all the hard work to find the best money transfer companies from around the world so you can save up to 90% on fees and charges versus using your bank”. Small text underneath stated “FXcompared.com is an independent & Unbiased service […]”.

The page included a money transfer calculator. Under a button labelled “COMPARE NOW”, text stated “Results are ranked in order of the best overall deal, taking into account transfer times, rates, fees, and customer service”. The page also included further information on three money transfer companies and the benefits of using FX Compared to compare money transfer companies.

Using the money transfer calculator, on the results page for sending £10,000 from the UK to the USA, under the heading “Top 3 Money Transfer Providers for UK to USA”, there was information for each of the providers about the “Amount Received”, “Fee”, “Exchange Rate”, “Speed” and a button labelled “more…”.

Further down the page, under the heading “Top 9 Money Transfer Providers”, text stated, “Latest prices for transferring money from UK to USA Exchange Rates as of 6 March 2024, 10:51” and included further information on the comparative benefits of FX Compared in comparison to banks.

Small text in the footer of the page stated, “FXcompared.com is an fx money comparison site for international money transfer and to compare rates from currency brokers for sending money abroad […]”.

The Transparency Task Force, which believed that FXcompared had commercial relationships with the money transfer companies referenced in the ad, challenged whether:

1. the savings claims compared to banks were misleading and could be substantiated;
2. the ad falsely implied that the marketer was acting for purposes outside its business and did not make their commercial intent clear; and
3. the ad misleadingly implied the money transfer providers were the “best” and “top providers” compared to all other providers on the market.

The ASA upheld all three complaints.

On the results page for sending £10,000 from the UK to the USA, alongside each result listing was the total amount in US dollars for the “amount received” and a figure in sterling for the amount “saved vs. banks”. The ASA considered that consumers would understand that to mean that if they were to complete their international money transfer with one of the money transfer companies listed in the results, then, for those with a saving listed, it would cost them that specific amount less to transfer using that provider than it would if they used a bank.

Further down the result listings, one of the providers listed was “Rate From The Average UK High Street Bank”, which included information that explained that the quotes from the money transfer providers showed the typical saving that could be made compared to banks, that the quote was an “actual quote of the average from UK banks” for that month, and that it included major and small banks and listed some of the banks that were included in that. There was an “amount received” in US dollars alongside that, and we understood that the “saved vs. banks” claims were based on the difference between that figure and the figure for the individual money transfer companies.

ASA reviewed the average bank pricing data they provided which related to two separate months of data for transferring £100,000 in US dollars and two separate months of data for transferring £10,000. For the £100,000 transfer, nine banks were included in the results, which we considered was insufficient to account for all major and small banks in the UK. Notwithstanding that, the banks referenced in the pricing data did not match those referenced in the ad. Furthermore, the data was based on transferring £100,000, whereas the amount in the ad was for £10,000, and the range in the ‘Median Received Amount’ between the banks was over $3,700, which indicated that there was significant variation in the amount being charged by banks.

The £10,000 transfer data related to December 2024 and January 2025 and post-dated for when the ad had been seen, by eight and nine months. Again, nine banks were included in the results and the banks referenced in the pricing data did not match those referenced in the ad. The range in the “amount received” between the banks was $221 which indicated there was still large variation in the amount being charged by banks, relative to the size of the amount transferred.

Because there was a large variation in the amount different banks charged, ASA considered that the actual amount that a consumer could save by using a money transfer provider instead of a bank would vary widely depending on an individual bank’s rate and fees. The watchdog therefore considered that using an average from a range of banks as the basis to make a price comparison was misleading.

ASA acknowledged the recent changes made by FX Compared to the wording of the ad. However, because the claim “saved vs. banks”, in the original ad, next to individual search results implied that it was an actual amount that would be saved by using that money transfer company compared to any bank, when it was in fact based on an average from a limited number of banks that had large variations in their rates and fees, the Authority considered that the claim was misleading.

For those reasons, ASA concluded that the saving claims had not been substantiated and were misleading.

On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.17 (Price), 3.33 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors) and 3.39 (Price comparisons).

The CAP Code stated that marketing communications must be obviously identifiable as such, and they must make clear their commercial intent if that was not obvious from the context.

The result listings included an “amount saved vs. banks”. That information was calculated by FXcompared by using an average figure they had calculated based on the rates from a range of banks. It was not information provided by the individual money transfer providers.

ASA understood that the default order for the result listings was ordered according to the “FXcompared ranking” which took into account the rating FXcompared gave to the company and the price for the transfer.

One factor that was considered as part of the rating was how a particular money transfer provider treated and paid their suppliers, partners and affiliates, which included their relationship with the FXcompared website.

ASA further understood that FXcompared had financial arrangements in place with some of the money transfer companies that appeared in the results listings on their website. Those companies were required to pay a fee for successful referrals arranged by FXcompared.

The Authority therefore considered that the companies they had financial relationships with may be assessed differently to the companies they recommended where there was no financial arrangement, with regards to the way they treated and paid FXcompared, and this could have an impact on their overall rating and, therefore, their ranking in the result listings. Whilst having a financial arrangement did not guarantee a money transfer provider would appear in a preferential position within the result listings, ASA nonetheless considered they were ads for the purposes of the CAP Code.

ASA then considered whether those results were obviously identifiable as marketing communications and whether the commercial intent was made clear.

There was nothing alongside the result listings for the money transfer providers they had a financial arrangement with that made it clear to consumers that FXcompared would receive a fee from successful referrals. ASA noted FXcompared’s comment that, by error, the ad did not include their “How we make money / Advertising Disclosure” label, and that they had since amended the website so that all results pages included it. The label opened a pop-up box that included information that FXcompared had financial arrangements with some of the money transfer providers.

ASA concluded it was not clear from that text which of the money transfer providers it was referring to. Furthermore, the label appeared in small lettering which could be easily overlooked and therefore a consumer could go through the process of comparing and selecting a money transfer provider without seeing this information.

While ASA acknowledged the recent changes made by FX Compared, because of the absence of any prominent identifiers alongside the individual listings or another clear and prominent communication outlining which specific results were ads, when the ad was originally seen, ASA considered that they did not make clear upfront their commercial intent.

It concluded they were not obviously identifiable as marketing communications. The ads therefore breached the Code.

On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 2.1 and 2.3 (Recognition of marketing communications).

Also, the website home page included claims such as “Compare the best international money transfer companies”, “We’ve done all the hard work to find the best money transfer companies from around the world so you can save up to 90% on fees and charges versus using your bank”, “FXcompared.com is an independent & Unbiased service”, “Results are ranked in order of the best overall deal, taking into account transfer times, rates, fees, and customer service”, and “Make the best money transfer choices before you send money internationally, with FXcompared”. The results page included the headings “Top 3 Money Transfer Providers for UK to USA” and “Top 9 Money Transfer Providers” and provided information on a selection of money transfer providers.

ASA considered that consumers would understand from the overall impression of the ad that FXcompared were an independent comparison website whereby they could compare companies to send money abroad. The providers they were shown would be based on the individuals’ specific requirements and would be ranked based on objective criteria that took into account how long the providers took to transfer the money, their rate, fee and quality of customer service. The providers they were recommended were the best compared to most, if not all, other providers available on the market.

ASA noted FXcompared’s comment that they dealt with higher value transfers and therefore not all providers, in particular those including physical cash agents and small money transfer companies, who did not accept large transfer values in cash, were relevant to them.

However, in the absence of information in the ad explaining that, ASA considered because the overall impression of the ad was that FXcompared provided a comprehensive comparison of all international money transfer providers, consumers would not be aware that the recommendations for the “top providers” were based on a comparison against a small, limited number of providers, and not all those available on the full market.

Due to an error, the results page did not include their “How we make money / Advertising Disclosure” label, which stated “FXcompared does not include the entire universe of available international money transfer companies”. Notwithstanding the points made above that the label appeared in small text which could be easily overlooked, ASA also considered that consumers would be unaware from the label that they could find information about the scope of the providers that were included in the comparison.

Furthermore, ASA understood that the market, when including physical cash agents and small money transfer companies, included hundreds of providers. However, FXcompared only included a very small proportion of the market in their comparison, and ASA therefore considered that consumers would be unaware from that information that only a limited number of providers were included in the comparison. The homepage also did not include any such messaging.

ASA acknowledged the recent changes made by FX Compared. However, because the overall impression of the ad, when it originally was seen, was that FXcompared provided a comprehensive comparison of all international money transfer providers, when in fact they only included a small number of providers from a limited sector of the market, the Authority concluded that the claims “best” and “top providers” were misleading.

On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.33 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).

ASA ruled that the ad must not appear again in the form complained of. It told FX Compared Ltd t/a FXcompared not to imply that the international money transfer providers they recommended were the best or the top providers compared to all other providers if they only include providers from a limited sector of the market, and to ensure that future savings claims did not mislead.

The Authority also told them to ensure that where they received a fee from a money transfer provider, the result listing was obviously identifiable as a marketing communication and that the commercial intent was made clear.