DRN-6267160

The complaint Mr Q complains he was induced into opening a CFD account with Trading 212 UK Limited (“T212”) based on misleading information about its charging structure. He said if he’d understood how things worked in practice, he’d never have opened the account. What happened Mr Q opened a CFD account with T212 in 2019. He used the account until 2025, making an overall loss. In 2025 he complained to T212. He said the firm had advertised itself as having no commission and no fees, when that wasn’t the case. He said if he’d understood he’d be charged through the spread on trades and through overnight financing he wouldn’t have opened the account. He said he’d taken out a loan to make his trades on which he’d now defaulted, and wanted T212 to compensate him. T212 didn’t uphold his complaint, saying that its terms were clear about its charges, in particular that it would apply a markup to the underlying market price when quoting prices for its products, and that holding CFDs overnight would involve an interest rate swap adjustment (which could be positive or negative). It didn’t think its advertising was misleading. One of our investigators looked into things and didn’t think T212 had treated Mr Q unfairly. He noted that the way T212 derived its income through spreads was typical for CFD providers and he didn’t think it made T212’s promotional material misleading or unclear. Mr Q disagreed and asked for an ombudsman’s decision. He maintained that claiming to offer no commission and no fees wasn’t a true reflection of T212’s offering. He didn’t think it was fair for the firm to hide behind information buried in the terms when he’d relied on its prominent advertising claims. He said it was “clear that I would not have entered into CFD trading at all but for this representation.” What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Mr Q’s position rests heavily on his reliance on advertising put out by T212 before he opened his account. He’s provided a screenshot of such an advert (which appears to be from social media) which says “Invest in 3000+ stocks for free. £0 commissions, £0 fees.” I’d start by noting that this advert doesn’t specify which of T212’s products it relates to. T212 offer unleveraged trading in individual shares (and other instruments) as well as CFDs which Mr Q traded. The fact the advert invites people to “invest” in “stocks” further suggests it may not have been intended to reflect the specific terms of its CFD offering. In any event I think it’s important to look at things as a whole in order to decide what’s fair and reasonable here. If Mr Q saw this advert and was interested in fee free trading, he’d have had to go to T212’s website, and sign an agreement in which he said he’d read its terms, in order to open a CFD account.

-- 1 of 2 --

Like our investigator, I’m satisfied that nowhere on that journey would Mr Q have been given the impression that trading CFDs with T212 involved no costs or charges at all. The terms and fee schedule were clear about the impact of overnight funding charges (although as above, these were reflective of the leveraged nature of the product and could result in credits to Mr Q as well as debits). The order execution policy also made it clear when trading CFDs with T212 its prices wouldn’t directly mirror the underlying market, but would involve a markup to the spread. There’s a question as to whether such a markup could rightly be considered a “commission” on each trade – but I don’t think I need to determine that here as I think it’s important that whatever the content of the advert, Mr Q ought to have understood on opening the account that this is the way T212’s pricing worked (and so T212 at least didn’t consider this to be a commission payment). I’d also note that whether or not T212 added a markup, all markets would involve a buy and sell price which were different to each other – in other words a spread. So the mere fact that such a spread existed doesn’t mean a fee was being charged. I know Mr Q feels strongly about his complaint, and that he feels he relied on misleading advertising. But looking at things in the round, I’m satisfied that he was provided with sufficient clear, fair and not misleading information about T212’s CFD offering and what he’d be charged (and how) to use it before he opened his account. I’m satisfied he was in a position to make an informed decision whether to trade or not. Even if I was wrong, and Mr Q was induced unfairly by a misleading advert – by Mr Q’s own admission when he first traded and saw the impact of the spread “this was my first practical indication that there were built-in costs”. I’d therefore find it difficult to conclude T212 had caused Mr Q’s losses, where he says himself he quickly discovered the truth of the matter and then continued to trade. In this vein I also find it persuasive that Mr Q traded quite a lot. By then end of 2019 he had traded over 1000 times, and at that point his overall trading was profitable. I’m satisfied that by then Mr Q would have had a keen understanding of how T212’s trading worked and what he was paying for it. And I don’t think it would be fair to say that any losses he later suffered were then a result of his initial decision to open the account, where he’d traded successfully and in high volume for a significant period of time beforehand. Taking all this into account I don’t think it would be fair to require T212 to compensate Mr Q for any money he lost trading CFDs with the firm. My final decision For the reasons I’ve given I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr Q to accept or reject my decision before 22 May 2026. Luke Gordon Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --