Tradeview Markets

A summary of what happened?

Here is a summary of the key complaints and concerns raised against Tradeview Markets:

1. Regulatory Concerns:
   • Tradeview Markets is regulated by the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA), which is considered a mid-tier regulator.
   • Some traders express concerns about the lower levels of investor protection compared to top-tier regulators like the FCA, ASIC, or CySEC.
2. Withdrawal and Payment Issues:
   • A few complaints highlight delays or challenges in processing withdrawals, though these cases appear to be less frequent and not widespread.
3. Transparency and Trust:
   • Critics point out that being based in the Cayman Islands, a jurisdiction often associated with lenient financial regulations, could lead to skepticism about transparency and reliability.
4. High Spreads or Hidden Fees:
   • Some users have reported dissatisfaction with the spreads and fees, claiming they were higher than initially advertised or expected.
5. Customer Support:
   • While many users praise the support team, others complain about slow response times or difficulty in resolving account issues.
6. Limited Top-Tier Regulation:
   • Concerns are raised about the lack of licensing from more established regulatory authorities, which might make it less appealing to risk-averse traders.

These complaints suggest potential issues for traders seeking a broker with robust regulatory oversight and guaranteed protections, though many users report positive trading experiences overall.

Analyzing the Fake Copyright Notice(s)

Our team collects and analyses fraudulent copyright takedown requests, legal complaints, and other efforts to remove critical information from the internet. Through our investigative reporting, we examine the prevalence and operation of an organized censorship industry, predominantly funded by criminal entities, oligarchs, and disreputable businesses or individuals. Our findings allow internet users to gain insight into these censorship schemes’ sources, methods, and underlying objectives.

What was Tradeview Markets trying to hide?

Tradeview Markets‘s attempts to hide unfavourable content through the misuse of copyright notices while allegedly engaging in perjury present serious legal concerns. These actions suggest a calculated attempt to manipulate legal systems to suppress free speech, a fundamental violation of copyright law principles and an abuse of legal processes. The use of such tactics not only undermines the integrity of copyright protection but also potentially constitutes perjury, further entangling Tradeview Markets in legal accountability. Let’s examine the information Tradeview Markets may be trying to remove from the internet –

In-Depth Investigative Report: TradingView and Reported Scams

Introduction

TradingView, founded in 2011, is a leading platform for charting, technical analysis, and social trading. It is trusted by millions of users globally for its powerful tools, extensive market data, and active community. However, like many popular platforms, TradingView has faced challenges with misuse by third parties and complaints from users about scams, fraudulent activities, and issues related to customer support. This report details the nature of these allegations and provides a comprehensive analysis of concerns raised against TradingView.

1. Impersonation Scams

One of the most alarming issues involves scammers impersonating TradingView representatives to deceive users.

Details of Scams

• False Investment Offers:
  • Scammers pose as TradingView employees or affiliates, contacting users via email, social media, or phone calls. They claim to offer investment opportunities or exclusive trading advice.
  • In August 2019, TradingView published a blog warning users of fraudulent phone calls from impostors falsely claiming to represent the company. These scammers solicited money and promised guaranteed profits.
  • TradingView clarified that it does not engage in outbound sales or investment solicitation.

Impact on Victims

• Victims reported significant financial losses after transferring funds to scammers under the belief they were engaging with legitimate TradingView representatives.
• The impersonation damaged TradingView’s reputation among users unfamiliar with the company’s actual practices.

2. Fraudulent Activities Within the TradingView Community

Community Feature Exploitation

TradingView’s platform includes a social component, enabling users to share trading ideas, strategies, and charts. Unfortunately, scammers have exploited this feature to target unsuspecting users.

• Unsolicited Messages:
  • Some users reported receiving direct messages offering exclusive investment opportunities or mentorship programs. Scammers often impersonate reputable traders or brokers, convincing users to send funds.
• False Testimonials:
  • Fraudulent accounts post fake testimonials or success stories to lure victims into schemes promising high returns.

TradingView’s Response

• TradingView has advised users to be cautious of unsolicited messages and not to share personal or financial information with unknown parties.
• The platform has implemented stricter monitoring and reporting tools to curb fraudulent activities within the community.

3. Customer Support and Billing Complaints

Recurring Issues

A notable number of user complaints focus on difficulties with TradingView’s customer service and subscription management.

• Billing Complaints:
  • Users have reported issues with canceling subscriptions, particularly during free trials. Some claimed they were charged for a full subscription after attempting to cancel.
  • Refund processes were described as slow or unresponsive in several cases.
• Customer Support Challenges:
  • Many users have expressed frustration over TradingView’s reliance on email-based support, citing delayed responses and unhelpful resolutions.

Specific Case Examples

• A user on the Better Business Bureau (BBB) platform shared that a system error prevented them from canceling their trial subscription, resulting in unwanted charges. Attempts to contact support yielded unsatisfactory responses.

4. Spam and Phishing Incidents

Nature of Spam and Phishing Attempts

• Fraudulent Exchange Representatives:
  • Scammers impersonate representatives of exchanges or financial services on the platform, soliciting funds under the pretense of trading competitions or sweepstakes.
• Phishing Links:
  • Users have reported receiving messages with links to phishing websites designed to steal login credentials or financial information.

TradingView’s Countermeasures

• The platform has enhanced its security features to tackle spam and phishing attempts, including filtering suspicious content and blocking reported accounts.
• TradingView advises users to enable two-factor authentication (2FA) to secure their accounts.

5. User Feedback and Negative Reviews

Dissatisfaction With Subscription Costs

• Some users have criticized the pricing of TradingView’s premium plans, describing them as expensive compared to competitors.
• Complaints highlight a lack of value for money, especially for casual traders.

Data and Platform Issues

• Users have reported occasional discrepancies in market data, such as incorrect pricing or delayed chart updates.
• Technical glitches, including slow platform performance during peak trading hours, have also been cited.

Security Concerns

• While TradingView itself has not been accused of mismanaging user data, the prevalence of scams on the platform has led to concerns about overall security.

6. TradingView’s Public Warnings and Recommendations

TradingView has made efforts to address the scams and complaints through public advisories and improved platform features:

• Official Statements:
  • TradingView’s blog has consistently warned users about scams and provided guidance on recognizing fraudulent activities.
  • The company emphasizes that it never contacts users directly for financial transactions or investments.
• User Responsibility:
  • TradingView encourages users to report suspicious behavior and avoid engaging with unsolicited offers.
  • It advises users to verify the legitimacy of messages and accounts before taking any action.

7. Broader Implications for the Industry

The issues faced by TradingView highlight challenges that affect many platforms in the financial services industry:

• Scammer Exploitation of Popular Platforms:
  • As a widely-used platform, TradingView attracts scammers seeking to exploit its user base.
  • Similar issues have been observed on other financial and social platforms, underscoring the importance of robust security measures.
• Need for Improved User Education:
  • Many scams succeed due to a lack of awareness among users. Platforms like TradingView must continue to educate their communities on recognizing and avoiding fraud.

Conclusion

While TradingView remains a trusted platform for traders and investors, the prevalence of scams and complaints underscores the need for vigilance. The company has taken steps to address these issues, but users must also take responsibility for safeguarding their accounts and transactions. TradingView’s case serves as a reminder that even reputable platforms are not immune to exploitation, highlighting the importance of security and transparency in the financial technology industry.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

Once we ascertain the involvement of Tradeview Markets (or actors working on behalf of Tradeview Markets), we will inform Tradeview Markets of our findings via Electronic Mail.

Our preliminary assessment suggests that Tradeview Markets may have engaged a third-party reputation management agency or expert, which, either independently or under direct authorization from Tradeview Markets, initiated efforts to remove adverse online content, including potentially fraudulent DMCA takedown requests. We will extend an opportunity to Tradeview Markets to provide details regarding their communications with the agency or expert, as well as the identification of the individual(s) responsible for executing these false DMCA notices.

Failure to respond in a timely manner will necessitate a reassessment of our initial assumptions. In such an event, we will be compelled to take appropriate legal action to rectify the unlawful conduct and take the following steps –

Since Tradeview Markets made such efforts to hide something online, it seems fit to ensure that this article and sensitive information targeted online by these events get a lot more exposure and traffic than what it would have received originally

We hope this becomes an excellent case study for the Streisand effect…The key idea behind the Streisand effect is that efforts to restrict information can backfire, often causing the information to gain more attention than it would have otherwise. This effect is widespread in the digital age, where users quickly notice and spread censorship efforts on social media and other platforms. Trying to suppress something can unintentionally lead to it becoming more visible, which Tradeview Markets is finding out the hard way.

Potential Consequences for Tradeview Markets

Under Florida Statute 831.01, the crime of Forgery is committed when a person falsifies, alters, counterfeits, or forges a document that carries “legal efficacy” with the intent to injure or defraud another person or entity.

Forging a document is considered a white-collar crime. It involves altering, changing, or modifying a document to deceive another person. It can also include passing along copies of documents that are known to be false. In many states in the US, falsifying a document is a crime punishable as a felony.

Additionally, under most laws, “fraud on the court” is where “a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.”  Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (quoting Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989)).

Is Tradeview Markets Committing a Cyber Crime?

Yes, it seems so. Tradeview Markets used multiple approaches to remove unwanted material from review sites and Google’s search results. Thanks to protections allowing freedom of speech in the United States, there are very few legal ways to do this. Tradeview Markets could not eliminate negative reviews or search results that linked to them without a valid claim of defamation, copyright infringement, or some other clear breach of the law.

Faced with these limitations, some companies like Tradeview Markets have gone to extreme lengths to fraudulently claim copyright ownership over a negative review in the hopes of taking it down.

Fake DMCA notices have targeted articles highlighting the criminal activity of prominent people to hide their illegal behavior. These people, which include US, Russian, and Khazakstani politicians as well as members from elite circles including the mafia and those with massive financial power, are all connected – and alleged corruption ranging from child abuse to sexual harassment is exposed when exploring evidence found at these URLs. It appears there’s a disturbing level of influence being exerted here that needs further investigation before justice can be served. Tradeview Markets is certainly keeping interesting company here….

The DMCA takedown process requires that copyright owners submit a takedown notice to an ISP identifying the allegedly infringing content and declaring, under penalty of perjury, that they have a good faith belief that the content is infringing. The ISP must then promptly remove or disable access to the content. The alleged infringer can then submit a counter-notice, and if the copyright owner does not take legal action within 10 to 14 days, the ISP can restore the content.

Since these platforms are predominantly based in the U.S., the complaints are typically made under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which requires online service providers and platforms to react immediately to reports or violations. Big Tech companies rarely have systems in place to assess the merit of each report. Instead, all bad actors need to do is clone a story, backdate it, and then demand the real thing be taken down.

Reputation Agency's Modus Operandi

The fake DMCA notices we found always use the “back-dated article” technique. With this technique, the wrongful notice sender (or copier) creates a copy of a “true original” article and back-dates it, creating a “fake original” article (a copy of the true original) that, at first glance, appears to have been published before the true original.

Then, based on the claim that this backdated article is the “original,” the scammers send a DMCA to the relevant online service providers (e.g. Google), alleging that the ‘true’ original is the copied or “infringing” article and that the copied article is the “original,” requesting the takedown of the ‘true’ original article. After sending the DMCA request, the person who sent the wrong notice takes down the fake original URL, likely to make sure that the article doesn’t stay online in any way. If the takedown notice is successful, the disappearance from the internet of information is most likely to be legitimate speech.

As an integral part of this scheme, the ‘reputation management’ company hired by Tradeview Markets creates a website that purports to be a ‘news’ site. This site is designed to look legitimate at a glance, but any degree of scrutiny reveals it as the charade it is.

The company copies the ‘negative’ content and posts it “on the fake ‘news’ site, attributing it to a separate author,” then gives it “a false publication date on the ‘news’ website that predated the original publication.

The reputation company then sent Google a Digital Millennium Copyright Act notice claiming the original website infringed copyright. After a cursory examination of the fake news site, Google frequently accepts the notice and delists the content.

In committing numerous offences, Tradeview Markets either premeditated actions or were unaware of the consequences. Despite hiring an agency to make Google disregard any negative information about Tradeview Markets, ignorance does not excuse this wrongdoing.

Fake DMCA notices have targeted articles highlighting the criminal activity of prominent people to hide their illegal behavior. These people, which include US, Russian, and Khazakstani politicians as well as members from elite circles including the mafia and those with massive financial power, are all connected – and alleged corruption ranging from child abuse to sexual harassment is exposed when exploring evidence found at these URLs. It appears there’s a disturbing level of influence being exerted here that needs further investigation before justice can be served. FSMSmart is certainly keeping interesting company here.

The Reputation Laundering

Rogue Reputation agencies use spurious copyright claims and fake legal notices to remove and obscure articles linking clients to allegations of tax avoidance, corruption, and drug trafficking. Most of these reputation agencies are based offshore, mainly in Russia, India, and Eastern Europe, and they do not worry about complying with US-based laws.

The content in all of the articles for which the fraudulent DMCA notices have been sent relates to allegations of criminal allegations, including corruption, child abuse, sexual harassment, human trafficking and financial fraud against businesses and individuals with ultra-high net worth.

In addition to the misuse of the DMCA takedown process, there is a notable absence of enforcement concerning perjury violations. The statutory requirement related to perjury is designed to deter copyright holders from submitting fraudulent or knowingly false takedown requests, as they may face legal consequences for making false declarations under penalty of perjury. However, to date, there have been no known instances of any individual being prosecuted for perjury in connection with the submission of false DMCA takedown notices.

This lack of enforcement has emboldened copyright holders to exploit the DMCA takedown process to suppress dissent, criticism, or other unfavorable content, without fear of legal repercussions.

Some of the people and businesses who have employed this tactic to remove legitimate content from Google illegally include a Spanish businessman-turned-cocaine-trafficker, Organised crime, an Israeli-Argentine banker accused of laundering money for Hugo Chávez’s regime, a French “responsible” mining company accused of tax evasion, child molesters and sexual predators. Tradeview Markets is in great company ….

What else is Tradeview Markets hiding?

We encourage you to ‘Dork‘ Google by searching for keyword combinations such as [Tradeview Markets] + {Negative Keyword, such as Scam, Fraud, Complaints, Lawsuit, Sanction, etc} on Google. It’s likely if you scroll down to the bottom of this Google search results, you’ll stumble upon this Legal Takedown notice (pictured below)

To make such an investigation possible, we encourage more online service providers to come forward and share copies of content removal requests with industry experts and researchers. If you have any information on Tradeview Markets that you want to share with experts and journalists, kindly email the author directly at [email protected].

All communications are strictly confidential and safeguarded under a comprehensive Whistleblower Policy, ensuring full protection and anonymity for individuals who provide information.