ThinkMarkets

ThinkMarkets, a global online trading platform established in 2010, presents itself as a reputable broker offering forex, CFDs, and other financial instruments. On the surface, it seems legitimate, with claims of robust regulation and sophisticated trading tools. However, a deeper examination exposes a pattern of compliance failures, customer grievances, and deliberate attempts to suppress negative information.

Regulatory Compliance: Troubled Track Record

ThinkMarkets operates through multiple entities, including ThinkMarkets Pty Ltd in Australia and ThinkMarkets UK Limited. While the company boasts regulation by top-tier authorities such as the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), its history reveals serious lapses.

In 2020, the FCA fined ThinkMarkets UK £400,000 for failing to properly verify clients’ identities—a fundamental requirement under anti-money laundering regulations. Such a failure signals not a minor oversight but a substantial lapse in operational integrity, calling into question the company’s adherence to basic regulatory standards.

Persistent Customer Complaints

A survey of online reviews uncovers a recurring pattern of customer dissatisfaction. Traders have alleged manipulated spreads, sudden account closures, and difficulties withdrawing funds. One user claimed their profits vanished due to “slippage” during market volatility, while another reported being unable to process legitimate withdrawal requests.

These complaints are not isolated incidents—they reflect a systematic trend that suggests the company prioritizes profit over client protection. Negative experiences reported online hint at a broker more interested in preserving its revenue streams than maintaining fair and transparent trading conditions.

Adverse Media Coverage

ThinkMarkets has also attracted attention from industry media for operational challenges. In 2019, Finance Magnates reported significant layoffs, raising concerns over the company’s financial stability. In 2022, LeapRate covered a lawsuit from a former employee alleging wrongful termination and unethical business practices. Collectively, these reports highlight a company struggling to maintain a veneer of credibility amidst internal and external scrutiny.

The Censorship Playbook

Perhaps most concerning is ThinkMarkets’ approach to criticism. Instead of addressing complaints openly, the firm has actively sought to remove negative content online, employing tactics that raise serious ethical questions.

Aggressive Takedown Requests: ThinkMarkets has sent legal notices to websites hosting critical reviews or investigative articles, citing copyright infringement or defamation, often in cases where fair use clearly applies. Smaller platforms frequently capitulate under these threats.

SEO Manipulation: Negative content is systematically buried in search results, while positive testimonials are amplified, sometimes through fake accounts or forum posts. This deliberate distortion of online information misleads potential investors, presenting a skewed version of the company’s reputation.

Legal Intimidation: Bloggers and journalists reporting unfavorable information have received cease-and-desist letters, pressuring them to remove content. While these actions may lack legal merit, the intimidation factor effectively silences critics.

The Motive: Protecting Profits

The underlying motivation for these tactics is straightforward: revenue protection. ThinkMarkets targets retail traders, many of whom are inexperienced and susceptible to persuasive marketing. By controlling the narrative and suppressing red flags, the company continues to attract deposits and generate profit from trading fees, spreads, and other charges—sometimes at the expense of fair trading practices.

This strategy not only harms individual investors but also undermines trust in the broader financial sector. When a regulated broker evades accountability and silences critics, it sets a dangerous precedent for industry standards.

Call to Action

Potential investors should exercise extreme caution. Due diligence is essential, and regulatory history, user complaints, and adverse media coverage must be considered before committing funds. Authorities, including the FCA and ASIC, also bear a responsibility to scrutinize ThinkMarkets’ ongoing practices and enforce compliance.

Conclusion

ThinkMarkets’ attempts to conceal criticism through censorship and manipulation reveal more than a defensive strategy—they highlight systemic operational and ethical issues. Legal threats, SEO games, and fabricated testimonials cannot mask regulatory failures and widespread customer dissatisfaction.