Removing a Forex Peace Army review is rarely a takedown request. The site is built to resist those. What works is answering the complaint on the record, getting reviews that are provably fake or written by competitors taken down, acting on false statements of fact, and getting the page out of Google results for your name.
Key facts
- Forex Peace Army states publicly that it does not remove reviews because a company objects, so a takedown demand is the wrong opening move.
- The site’s dispute process is the mechanism that changes pages most often, because an unanswered complaint reads as an admission.
- A scam designation is an output of the underlying complaints and reviews, not a setting that anyone can switch off by request.
- Reviews come down where they are shown to be fake, where they breach the site’s own rules, or where a court orders it.
- Your charts, course material, video stills and screenshots remain yours inside a review or forum post, regardless of the surrounding text.
- Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act protects the site from liability for what its users write, so American pressure sits on the author or on a court.
- Google can take the page out of results in one country while it stays live on the site, which is often the outcome that matters commercially.
What Forex Peace Army is
Forex Peace Army hosts user reviews of brokers, signal services, trading educators, prop firms and expert advisors. Its pages rank strongly for company and product names, and its most damaging feature is the tagging: a “scam” designation attached to a company page carries far more weight with a prospect than any individual review, because it reads as a verdict rather than an opinion.
The site also runs a dispute process, in which a complaint against a company is published, the company is invited to answer, and the outcome is recorded on the page. That process is the part most companies ignore and the part that changes pages most often.
Two things about the site’s posture matter before you plan anything. It states publicly that it does not remove reviews because a company objects, and it has a long history of resisting takedown demands rather than complying with them. Legal threats sent without a proper basis tend to become content on the site itself, and the page about your threat will rank alongside the review you were trying to remove. Assume that any letter you send may be published.
What is realistically removable
Fake reviews are the first place to look, and there are usually more of them than a company expects: accounts with no trading history with you, the same text spread across several companies, or a cluster that appeared within days of a launch. That is a pattern rather than a set of individual complaints, and patterns are what review sites act on.
False statements of fact are the second: a claim that you were sanctioned by a regulator when you were not, that a named person was convicted of something, that funds were stolen when the record shows a completed refund. Material of yours reproduced in a review or a forum post is a separate matter again, as is any personal information about you or your family.
Not removable: a genuine customer’s account of losing money with a genuine service, a critical opinion of your strategy, or a review you dispute but cannot disprove. The whole model of the site depends on those staying up, and we will tell you when that is what you have.
Timelines depend on the route and are set out in writing after the free Exposure Scan.
Get a Free, Confidential Exposure Scan
Answering the dispute rather than demanding deletion
For most companies the highest-value work is the least dramatic. If a complaint against you is open and unanswered, the page reads as an admission. A complete, documented answer, with the transaction record, the correspondence and the resolution, changes what the page says about you even when nothing is deleted.
We prepare those answers the way we would prepare a regulatory response: dated, evidenced, unemotional, and written knowing that a prospect and possibly a journalist will read it. Most companies write them in anger and make the page worse. Where a complaint has already been resolved privately, the resolution should be on the record, because a silent settlement leaves the accusation as the only version anyone can see.
The scam tag
A scam designation attached to your company page is the item worth the most attention, because it is what appears in the search snippet. It changes when the underlying complaints change: resolved disputes, removed fake reviews and documented answers are the inputs. There is no route that removes a tag by request, and any vendor claiming a back channel to change one is misrepresenting how the site works.
Where the tag rests on claims that are provably false, the work is legal and search based rather than editorial. That is a slower path and we set expectations on it at the start rather than at the end.
How we run these cases
We map every result for your company name, your product names and your principals, not just the page you were sent, because the review site is rarely the only thing a prospect finds. Then we audit the reviews themselves against your own records, which is the part almost nobody does and the part that decides what is achievable.
From there we deal with the removable items, prepare any open dispute properly and once, and work the search result at the same time, because moving the page off the first screen for your brand name often matters more commercially than deleting it. You get dated before and after evidence on Google and Bing. See remove search results.
The same approach applies to the adjacent sites in this category. See remove a TradingSchools.org review and remove scam review pages. Industry pages for the two buyer groups who ask for this most are trading educators and financial educators.
What the law and the site’s own rules say
Two separate systems decide what is possible here, and the site’s own rules are the more useful of the two.
Those rules are a private contract with its users. They allow reviews from people with a genuine trading relationship, they prohibit fake and competitor reviews, and they run the dispute process that lets a company answer a complaint on the record. Everything the site does happens inside that framework and on evidence, which is why an audit of the reviews against your own payment records is worth more than any letter.
The law sits behind it and is jurisdiction dependent. In the United States, Section 230 means the site is not liable for a user’s review and the actual malice standard applies to public figures, so a claim runs against the author. In England and Wales the Defamation Act 2013 requires serious harm and, for a company, serious financial loss, and the limitation period is short. Australia added a serious harm element in 2021.
Where you are regulated, remember that anything published in a dispute response may later be read by your regulator. That is an argument for writing it carefully rather than for not writing it.
What we need from you to start
The scan runs on public information. Filing and answering both need records.
- The company page URL, the individual review permalinks, and the forum threads that repeat them.
- Payment, account and CRM records showing whether each reviewer ever had a relationship with you.
- Refund ledgers and dated correspondence for every complaint that is open on the site.
- Regulatory registrations and licenses, and anything from a regulator that disproves a specific claim.
- Originals of any charts, screenshots, course material or video of yours that has been reproduced, with proof of authorship.
- Anything you have already noticed that suggests a competitor wave.
- Written authorization naming who instructs us, usually the founder, the compliance lead or your agency.
NDA is standard, and nothing goes on the record in your name without your approval of the wording.
Timelines and what usually happens first
The first work is an audit, not a letter. We check every review against your own records, because the argument that moves this site is documentary.
After that, some things move within days and most run in weeks, with court orders running in months. A tag changes when the inputs behind it change, and that is slower than any single action. We set that expectation at the start rather than at the end.
Common mistakes that make it harder
- Opening with a demand letter. The site has a history of publishing them, and the article about your letter will rank alongside the review.
- Leaving a dispute unanswered. Silence is read as agreement by every prospect who reads the page.
- Answering emotionally. A response written in anger becomes the quotable part of the page.
- Settling privately and saying nothing. The accusation stays as the only version on the record while the resolution is invisible.
- Running a positive review campaign. Solicited waves look exactly like the sabotage you are complaining about and are detectable.
- Paying anyone who claims a back channel to change a tag. There is no such channel, and the money confirms your name is worth revisiting.
- Overreaching on material you cannot prove you own. One bad claim weakens everything you bring afterwards.
How this works alongside your lawyer, PR team or security team
We handle the removal, dispute and search work. We do not give legal advice and we do not replace counsel.
Where you have a lawyer, we plan it with them, because in this category the decision to send a letter is a publication decision as much as a legal one. We give them the evidence file in a form they can use if a claim is worth bringing. Where you are regulated, your compliance adviser should see any dispute response before it is published, since it may be read later by a regulator, a bank or a broker. Where a launch or a funding round is scheduled, your agency and your finance lead need a realistic picture of what will move and when. Everything runs under NDA and the written report belongs to you.
Who usually makes first contact and what the 15-minute call covers
First contact is usually the founder or the compliance lead, sometimes the agency running acquisition, and often triggered by a broker, a bank or a payment processor asking about the page.
Fifteen minutes covers what is on the page, which reviews look challengeable and on what evidence, whether there is an open dispute that should be answered first, and whether a scan is the right next step. Nothing is signed on the call. If the honest answer is that the reviews are real and the work is answering them properly, we will say that.
Frequently asked questions
Can Forex Peace Army be made to delete a review?
Not by request, and generally not by a demand letter. Reviews come down where they are shown to be fake, where they breach the site’s own rules, or where a court orders it. Everything else is answered, disputed or de-indexed rather than deleted.
Will a legal letter make things worse?
It can. The site has historically published takedown demands and written about them, which turns a single review into a story. We assess the risk of that before anything is sent, and where counsel is involved we plan the sequence with them.
A competitor is behind a wave of reviews. What do you need?
Anything that shows a pattern rather than a coincidence, and anything linking the accounts to a commercial rival. Pattern evidence moves review sites. Individual denials do not, which is why companies that answer one review at a time get nowhere.
Can the page be removed from Google even if the review stays?
Sometimes, and it is often the better commercial outcome. Search and the site are separate systems with separate decision makers, so the page can stay live while it stops being what people find on your name.
Should we ask customers to post positive reviews?
Not as a campaign. Solicited waves are detectable, they look exactly like the competitor sabotage you are complaining about, and being caught doing it is worse than the original review. Genuine, unincentivised feedback over time is the only version of this that survives.
Who normally contacts you, and what does it cost?
Usually the founder or the compliance lead, sometimes their agency. The 15-minute call is practical and confidential, NDA is standard, and pricing is quoted in writing after the free Exposure Scan, mostly tied to items actually moving: see success-based pricing.
If we answer the dispute, are we admitting anything?
No, and a well written answer is the opposite of an admission. It is a dated, documented account of what happened, what the records show, and how the matter was resolved. It is read by prospects, counterparties and sometimes journalists, which is why it is worth preparing the way you would prepare a regulatory response.
A former employee or affiliate is behind the reviews. Does that help?
Yes, if it can be shown. An undisclosed conflict, a review presented as a customer experience by someone who was never a customer, and a cluster tied to one departure are all pattern arguments rather than denials. Your own records are usually enough, and they are the first thing we ask for.
If a scam tag or a review is costing you conversions, start by finding out which parts of it are removable and which need answering. Get a free, confidential exposure scan, and read our process before you commit to anything.
