Maxigrid LTD has threatened to sue the FPA over a review


FPA Forums and Reviews Admin
Maxigrid LTD has threatened
to sue the FPA over a review

Another broker has decided to try to take the legal road to remove a review they don't like.


My review moderation team and I work very hard to keep the Forex Peace Army's reviews as fair as possible. I lost count of the number of times that someone told me "the FPA should verify that the person is a client and verify every statement they make before allowing it to be posted in the reviews or the forums." Strangely, not once has any company suggested performing this level of checking for a positive review. Instead, the recommendation (or demand) is only mention when by company representatives when a negative review or forums post.

My team is good, but they aren't psychic. They also don't have unlimited access to the records of any company that has ever wanted the FPA to do this. It's a great idea. It's also impossible to implement for many reasons. I get this suggestion often enough that I prepared an FAQ item explaining why it's impractical...

Why doesn’t the Forex Peace Army check to make sure each reviewer or person posting in the forums is really is a client of the company reviewed?

Despite these limitations, I firmly believe the FPA's reviews are the best financial reviews on the web. I've seen obviously fake reviews and even pure spam which the FPA rejected end up on many other forex review sites.

I also get all the usual excuses for removal with zero evidence often enough that I wrote the answer to this question in the FAQ...

How do I deal with negative reviews or forums posts about my company?

This post has links to items about how to professionally deal with these situations. It also has links to a removal request, which requires evidence.

Some companies think that yelling "lawyer" and "lawsuit" will make all the bad things go away. That's why these two items were written...

The FPA WILL remove that bad information about me or my company or I WILL sue the FPA

How the FPA Handles Legal Threats

Despite this, some companies prefer to try to force actions by making legal threats instead of discussing things.


I was barely aware of this company. Then someone in the advertising department forwarded me a message from the Affiliate Director of Dualix Maxigrid...

Subject: Review Removal

1. It has come to our attention that on your website ‘’ there is a review that mentions our site ‘’
2. The comment described our company as a “Rip off” with false accusations in regards of our activities.
3. This comment was made in bad faith and is a bridge of our reputation
4. We are a regulated company and will not accept this type of false accusation on your website.
5. You are asked to remove these false accusations without further notice.
6. We will use our regulated position and seek legal relief from site owners, editors, and any publishers including, but not limited to, search engines will make sure this slander will come to a stop and the people behind allowing these posts will be held responsible.
7. Find the link to the post and quoted review below and contact us ASAP

Here is the main part of my reply...

Let me address these in order.

1. I am happy that you are aware of the review page.

2. I have no way to be certain if any client's review is 100% accurate. Maybe the reviewer misinterpreted something one of your coworkers said. Maybe the review is completely accurate. Maybe the 5 Star on the review below it contains errors.

3. I have no way to be sure if the review you claim was made in bad faith was really made in good faith or not. If I can only approve reviews where I have evidence proving beyond any reasonable doubt that the review was made in good faith, I would need a team of 100 investigators plus full access to the records of every forex company. Is Dualix.Maxigrid volunteering to grant the FPA unlimited access to all client records and communications with clients?

4. Many Cysec regulated companies are infamous for doing exactly what this reviewer accuses your company of doing. Some of those companies have gone out of business or had their licenses cancelled. Some of those companies have somehow managed to keep their Cysec registrations active. Being regulated by Cysec is not evidence of the review in question being fake.

5. No. The FPA has ways for company representatives to address negative reviews. How a company deals with negative reviews says a lot about the company.

6. You have just made a legal threat against the FPA over third party content. I need your CEO or the head of your legal department email me by the end of the business day on Monday, March 16th, 2020. The message I get from that person needs to explicitly state that MaxiGrid LTD permanently and irrevocably lifts all legal threats against the FPA over 3rd party content. Otherwise, I will follow FPA policy here...

and will also inform Cysec that your company is using legal threats to try to prevent reviewers from being able to complain about the company.

7. Thank you for including a link and image. Some company representatives want me to search the entire website and guess which item they are complaining about.

Following the entire protocol for legal threats is time consuming. I really hope that the head of your legal department or CEO permanently and irrevocably lifts the threat by the end of the business day on Monday.

There have been incidents of representatives who made legal threats failing to escalate those issues when requested. Because of this, a note has been added to the review about this incident. I am also CCing the main support address of your company and the email listed on your Cysec license.

Best regards,

Bill K.

Many times, just letting a company know that the FPA doesn't fall down grovelling at the mention of the word "lawyer" is enough to turn the "take it down or else" threat into a more polite form of discussion. Not this time.

She replied with...

Thank you for proving to us that you are using your power to blackmail our company.

FPA has full control over this “Third party content” and not only will our lawyers be continuing this further, we will ensure that Europol is included in this seeing as you are not a legitimate marketing website.

I have forwarded everything to the necessary people to be escalated and you should expect to be contacted shortly.

Let me think this through. An unhappy person leaves a review. The FPA gets a legal threat demanding removal of the review or else lawyers will do bad things to is. I personally view threatening to use a lawsuit to take down a review to be nothing but legal blackmail. The official term is a SLAPP Lawsuit.

So, from my point of view, I'm telling a blackmailer to stop the blackmail and discuss things like civilized people or be exposed. She then calls me a blackmailer and threatens to add Europol to the list of places she's going to use to go after the FPA.

I decided to be nice and give her enough info that she could see a lawsuit threat wouldn't work. I mentioned CDA 230 protections over 3rd party content that apply to US based websites and again said that I looked forward to hearing from the head of her legal department or CEO.

She wrote back, called me a hypocrite and said a number of other things that were less than complementary. She also included this.

You are also requesting access to our platform for accuracy.. Obviously, this will not happen. There are other ways we can resolve this. Now, I can still get our lawyer to contact you, OR you can fix our listing on your site, which I have requested months ago regarding the countries. How can we take you seriously when you have not taken our previous requests seriously.

Plus, give access for people to respond to the post so we can contact the client on your site, because there is no option to do so, only to share or react if it was “helpful”.

The bulk of my reply was...

I cannot find any emails from you regarding the countries. If you sent it to advertising, they should have told you to click the "Is this your company?" button on the review page to create an account using your email address. Once created and confirmed, you will be able to submit edits to broker data as well as submit comments tied directly to recent existing reviews. At any time, you could have clicked "Contact Us" and selected Representative questions. That would have told you all you needed to know about making comments on reviews. As soon as you went to the review page with that ability, you would also have seen the link to submit the edits.

No matter who you sent your list of corrections to, why didn't you send a simple followup if you didn't hear back within a week or two? That would have been a much more professional approach than doing nothing for months and then accusing the FPA of negligence.

I want the list to be as up to date and accurate as possible, but doing this needs input from the brokers directly from their review pages. That's why it's been easy for brokers to submit updates since the day the broker data first rolled out.

This is a review site where people are allowed to express their opinions. Large amounts of time and effort are spent doing the best job possible filtering reviews I regularly see review pages on other review sites full of ads posing as reviews, recovery room scams posing as reviews, and even duplicates of reviews rejected as fakes here getting approved.

Again I said I was looking forward to hearing from her CEO or the head of her company's legal department.

Did she register at the FPA, submit an update to the excluded countries list, and add a comment to the review? No, she didn't.

Firstly, again, you post my website with wrong information, Cysec calls this misleading which is one of the biggest violations in the eyes of Cysec. Whatever assumptions you like, Cysec has given us the rules to follow and like it or not you are not the license owner.

Also, if we follow up with you or not, you should have done your research before listing on your site at all.

Secondly, you probably forgot that when you talk about our approach, you tried to blackmail the company that I am representing by demanding “email me by the end of the business day on Monday, March 16th, 2020. The message I get from that person needs to explicitly state that MaxiGrid LTD permanently and irrevocably lifts all legal threats against the FPA over 3rd party content. Otherwise, I will follow FPA policy here...” this policy outlines how you will blast the media with our information and dialogue, we will not accept these kinds of demands.

Now, regarding my CEO, she is not going to talk to you because she has bigger and better things to do/deal with at the moment.
With that being said, we have two options.

1. Fix our section on your website and when we update you about fake review you will remove it.
2. Let’s go to legal action route, something that I’m sure you don’t want, and we don’t want as well.

These are the two options and I will say it again we don’t wish to fight, and we don’t wish to block clients that put reviews on your site, good or bad, as long as they are real clients. One rule is that every review needs to come from a real client!

If we are clear, I am expecting to see you change the website and let’s finish these back and forth emails between us.

I still don't know what countries she wants to be excluded or included, since I never got the "months old" email she claims to have sent. She still hasn't bothered to follow the simple procedure to submit a correction or to even tell me what she wants changed.

Her CEO has bigger and better things to do. It seems strange to me that her CEO didn't tell her to submit a correction of the very important country flags in the exclusion list, especially after claiming that the FPA containing an error would somehow endanger Maxigrid LTD's Cysec license.

Best of all, at the beginning of the message, note that she claims the FPA should have done correct research before listing the site.

I went to's website and looked for their list of excluded countries. Maybe it's there somewhere, but I couldn't find it. A lot of brokers put it in their footers, but it wasn't there. I asked the moderator who did carefully research the company where the information she posted came from, the website, live chat, or an email to Dualix support. She had to think about it a little, since the data was collected in December 2019. After a little more digging and we found something interesting.

I wrote back to Dualix.Maxigrid's Affilliate Director...

The information was gleaned off of your website. It might now be out of date, but those flags exactly match the excluded countries which were listed on your website at the time data was gathered. Read the first line in this image.


The data displayed was correct according to your website at the time it was entered, other than the fact that the FPA doesn't have a flag for "some other additional jurisdictions". If the list of excluded countries on your company's website was not correct, then your company is the source of the misleading information. If it has been updated since, I have already told you how to update it at the FPA.

Again, I told her how to submit corrections...

1. Go to the review page.
2. Click where it asks "Is this your company?"
3. Sign up using a valid email address.
4. Once confirmed, return to the review page and submit the corrections. If you now exclude additional countries, you can add those flags. If you've begun offering services to North Korea or any of the others, your submission will result in those flags being removed. If you fail to do this, any inaccuracies remaining on display are your responsibility.

While there, you can submit a comment on the review.

and I finished with...

I suggest you actually read the FAQ where I clearly explain that since the FPA does not have full access to your company's records and those of every other reviewed company, it is impossible to be 100% sure that any one review isn't fake. I can tell you we filter out over 30% of reviews as fakes. Even though the reviewer who gave you 5 stars provided an account number, that is not proof that the review is true. Based on your standards, all reviewers should submit account statements and ID documents.

I should also point out that the FAQ does have a specific page where companies can submit evidence if they feel a review or forums post is fake.

You blasting the FPA with a lawsuit threat and your falsely insinuating that my staff posted inaccurate data is both unacceptable and offensive. I've been nice so far and have not taken the next steps in a threat over 3rd party material. If your CEO or the head of you legal department doesn't get in touch with me to lift the threat over the 3rd party posting by this time on Friday, I will begin taking appropriate defensive steps as outlined in our policy.

So, all I need is for you to submit corrections and a comment, plus for your CEO or head of your legal department to permanently and irrevocably lift the threat over 3rd party content. With that done, we won't have to spend any more time on emails unless a specific issue comes up.

I'm still mystified that an employee of Dualix Maxigrid thinks the FPA is responsible for each and every word a reviewer chooses to use. Will the FPA be held similarly liable if a positive reviewer calls her company "supremely great" and Cysec only considers her company to be "very great"? ;)

I expected her or someone else to register an account and submit correction. That still hasn't happened. I expected to hear something from the CEO or legal department.

Instead, something else happened.

Legal Escalation

I got an email from someone else on March 19th...



My reply...

I'm going to lay our some details your client may not have made you aware of. Then I'm going to explain two possible ways to proceed to end this issue, one way or another.

Companies are based somewhere and must follow the laws of their home countries. Otherwise, anyone could go venue shopping to any jurisdiction in the world to sue a company for something that's legal for the company to do. If Cyprus laws permits actions not permissible elsewhere, would your clients follow a demand letter from a lawyer in another country for something they are permitted to do in Cyprus?

It's called Governing Law. This is the Governing Law Statement.

Governing Law. All terms and conditions of this website are subject to and to be interpreted by the laws of the United States of America and the State of California. Any disputes arising with regard to this website or its content will be brought only in the courts of the State of California or the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

The Governing Law Statement and other useful information is on this page...

Per CDA 230 protections offered to US based websites, the FPA is not liable for 3rd party postings. Case law makes it very clear that this applies whether or not the site in question moderates posts or reviews. The disputed review, including its title, was submitted by a 3rd party, who bears 100% of the legal responsibility for the content he or she submitted. The FPA's display of the disputed review is in compliance with the laws it is governed by.

The FPA has an established procedure for asking for review removal. It's easy to find from the Contact Us link at the bottom of pages at Your client chose to not even look for it and proceeded directly to legal threats. The proper procedure for removal is here...

Your client wants the FPA to verify that each and every reviewer of any company or its products be fully verified as a client. This is not just impractical, but it is impossible. The reasons are laid out here...

Further, I have no direct way to know for certain if this specific review is deliberately false, part of a misunderstanding, an exaggeration, or 100% true. I have seen other Cysec regulated companies face criminal charges for practices very similar to what is described in the review, so I can't honestly say "No Cysec regulated broker would ever do that."

I also have no way to be certain the 5 star review beneath it came from a real client. If the FPA required DNA samples and ID cards to approve reviews, both would be removed.

I and my moderation team have developed a number of ways to filter out fake reviews. One things we've noticed. When someone gets a fake review approved, they almost always get greedy and come back to leave more fake reviews. There is no such pattern linked to either of the approved reviews. Both also passed all other screening measures.

If a company lacks evidence, there is an option to leave comments tied directly to reviews. I have explained how this works more than once to your client. All that is required is for anyone with a valid email address at the company's domain name as it is listed on the review page to click the "Is this your company?" link on the review page.

Your client also has implied that the FPA negligently posted inaccurate information regarding countries the company does not provide service to. I have shown your client that the list was accurate when it was made in December. I have made the client aware that registering via the "Is this your company?" link on the review page will allow updates to be submitted. So far, your client has made no attempt to register from any email at any domain name matching the one at the FPA

You say you have filed a police report. Please provide a copy.

No review site can fairly and impartially moderate reviews while under legal threat. Your client chose to go straight to legal escalation instead of attempting to have a polite discussion of available options. Now your client has further escalated through you. While a legal threat is on the table, there is no option to remove the review.

The FPA considers an attempt to suppress a review through legal threats to be a very serious breach of the reviewer's basic human rights to share their point of view. I would hope that a lawyer who studied human rights at Oxford would understand this.

There are two ways to proceed here.

You end this dispute the proper way and even have a good chance to have the review removed by following these steps...

A. You and the CEO of Maxigrid both send me emails stating that all legal threats against the FPA over 3rd party content are permanently and irrevocably withdrawn.

B. You provide me with evidence that police complaint you said you filed has been withdrawn and that the complaint to google has been withdrawn.

C. Maxigrid appoints someone to sign up as a representative so that the broker information can be updated properly as changes happen. This person should also be shown how to send a polite followup email in case an update isn't approved within 5 business days or if any other message sent to the FPA isn't responded to within 5 business days. Taking this simple step will greatly improve relations between the FPA and your client.

D. Once A-C are all done, the FPA has no objection to you filing a defamation case in an appropriate California venue against the reviewer. This should take less time and effort than has already been wasted by the company representative who started this whole incident.

One broker was smart enough to do this without even disturbing the FPA. I only found out after they had a ruling in hand stating stating that a post in the FPA's forums was libelous and the poster had violated the law by posting it. Initially, I added a note to the post to let anyone following up on it to see it had been ruled to be false. Later, I removed the post completely.

If you win, the review will initially be edited to show that you have won a case against the reviewer and that the review will soon be removed. Once this note about the ruling has been visible for a reasonable period of time, the review and all associated comments can be removed.


2. You and your client can leave the legal threat in place. If the client chooses to do this, the FPA will take defensive actions as described on our website. Doing this will also mean that if there later is a ruling against the reviewer, it will only be noted on the review. These excessively aggressive actions on the part of and on behalf of the client will have closed the door to removal.

Since you were kind enough to provide me with 48 hours to reply, I am returning the favor with a similar deadline. I will even be nice enough to exclude the weekend, so will give you until 5 PM on Monday, March 23, 2020 in Cyprus to reply.

The lawyer did not write back yet.

I have done all I can to try to get someone in charge at Dualix Maxigrid to contact the FPA. I have tried very hard to get the company's representative to submit corrections to the FPA and she has not done so. If there are errors in the broker data displayed, responsibility for those now falls on her, not on the FPA.

Instead of de-escalating this problem she created by making a legal thread, her company chose to bring in a lawyer. He's claimed to have filed a case with the Cyprus Police, but didn't reply to my request for a copy of the report.

I see little choice but to make these attempts to forcibly remove a review public.

Dualix.Maxigrid/Maxigrid LTD is still free to appoint a representative to submit corrections to company data on their review page. They may also submit comment to the reviews. They can even submit any details they feel I left out to this thread. Those comments may end up in the moderation queue, but I will see that they are approved.

What they may no longer do is make me spend time arguing with their representative or lawyer. If anyone from or representing the company wants to talk to me, their CEO will need to decide it's important enough to email me first, permanently and irrevocably lift all legal threats against the FPA over all content currently on display, and also publicly apologize for this incident. The CEO is a bust person, but I also have important things to do for FPA members and other companies. Large amounts of important work I need to do have been delayed by dealing with this issue.

I’m new to the form, glad to see there’s actually a group holding brokers accountable. I am a forex trader and I made a review about the bad practices of my own broker and I am a REAL client. Keep up the hard work.
Sounds like the this Dualix Maxigrid company is in favor of freedom from speech.

That's ok. I have a simple method to never have a review from me cause them to want to file a lawsuit. I'll simply never open an account with them or any other company that uses BS legal threats against reviewers or review sites. I'll trade forex at a moneychanger in an airport before I let a company that would do this have access to even one cent of my cash.