Not upheld: Alleged provision of investment advice through marketing emails and responsibility for trading losses complaint against Trading 212 UK Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr J complained that emails from T212 prompted him to alter his trading strategy from high-frequency short-term trading to longer-term position holding, resulting in losses of approximately 90% of his investment. Mr J sought compensation for both the loss in value and missed growth. T212 denied providing advice, characterising the emails as generic risk-management guidance sent to all customers. The ombudsman found that the emails did not meet the FCA's threshold for regulated investment advice, as they were generic, non-personalised communications containing general best practices rather than specific recommendations tailored to Mr J's circumstances. Under the execution-only service model, Mr J retained sole responsibility for his trading decisions and outcomes. The ombudsman rejected the complaint, finding no evidence that T212 had provided advice or caused the losses.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the FCA's regulatory test for what constitutes personal recommendation and advice. The emails were found to be generic risk-management communications sent to the wider customer base, not personalised recommendations. They contained no direction toward particular trading decisions, no assessment of Mr J's individual circumstances, and no formal recommendation to alter his strategy. The emails merely suggested general best practices such as planning trades to avoid emotional decisions and ensuring trading activity remained proportionate to income. Under the execution-only model, Mr J bore sole responsibility for his trading decisions and investment outcomes. The ombudsman noted that T212 would have had greater financial incentive to encourage high-frequency trading (generating more fees) rather than discourage it, undermining Mr J's theory about T212's motivation. The placement of the account in close-only status was deemed a reasonable protective measure following Mr J's complaint of significant losses.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website