Removing a Forex Peace Army review is rarely a takedown request. The site is built to resist those. What works is answering the review through the site’s own dispute process, removing reviews that are provably fake or written by competitors, filing 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.
- A DMCA notice removes your charts, course material, video stills and screenshots from 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.
- A Google legal removal request can take the page out of results in one country while it stays live on the site.
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. Reviews from accounts with no trading history with you, duplicated across several companies, or written by an account traceable to a competitor. Every review site has an interest in removing these, and evidence is what moves them.
- Competitor sabotage waves. A cluster of reviews appearing within days of a launch, sharing phrasing, timing and account creation patterns, is a pattern case rather than a set of individual complaints.
- False statements of fact. 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.
- Copyright. Screenshots of your paid material, your charts, your video stills or your course content lifted into a review or a forum post.
- Private information. Home addresses, family details, identity documents, or account numbers posted in a review or in the discussion under it.
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.
| Route | What it reaches | Typical time range |
|---|---|---|
| Dispute response on the site | The tag, the outcome recorded on the page | Weeks |
| Evidence-backed report of fake or competitor reviews | Individual reviews | Weeks |
| Copyright notice | Your lifted material | Days |
| Letter from counsel over false factual claims | The specific claim, sometimes the page | Weeks, and may be published |
| Court order | The strongest instrument available | Months |
| Google legal removal request | The URL out of results in a country | Weeks |
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. 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 routes are legal and search-based rather than editorial. That is a slower path and we set expectations on it at the start.
How we run these cases
- Map every result for your company name, your product names and your principals, including the Forex Peace Army page, forum threads, copycat articles and the review sites that syndicate from them.
- Audit the reviews themselves: which are real customers, which have no matching transaction, which cluster.
- Build the evidence file: payment and account records, regulatory registrations, refund ledgers, correspondence, and the originals of any material copied from you.
- Answer the disputes that are open, properly and once.
- File on the removable items at the site, at the host and with the search engines, on copyright, defamation, impersonation and privacy grounds as each applies.
- Work the search result in parallel, because moving the page off the first screen for your brand name often matters more commercially than deleting it. See remove search results.
- Verify and report, with dated before and after evidence on Google and Bing.
The same playbook 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 rules are the more useful of the two.
The site’s 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. Removals happen inside that framework, 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. In the European Union a Digital Services Act notice puts a host on formal notice of content unlawful in a member state. In Australia the serious harm element added in 2021 applies and a concerns notice comes before proceedings.
Copyright runs across everything through the DMCA and does not depend on anyone agreeing the review is unfair. Privacy is a separate ground again: addresses, identity documents, family details and account numbers are removable at the site and directly at the search engines. Where you are regulated, remember that anything you publish in a dispute response may later be read by your regulator, which 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, licenses and any correspondence with 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.
- Timing data and anything else you have noticed suggesting a competitor wave: shared phrasing, account creation dates, campaigns running elsewhere.
- 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.
Copyright notices usually move within days. Evidence backed reports of fake or competitor reviews run in weeks, and pattern cases take longer because the evidence has to be assembled before it is filed. A dispute answer is published on the site’s timetable and typically runs in weeks. Letters from counsel run in weeks and may be published. Search removal requests run in weeks. Court orders run in months.
A tag changes when the inputs behind it change, and that is a slower process than any single filing. 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.
- Filing on copyright you cannot prove you own. One bad notice weakens every notice you send 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 the sequence 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?
Timing data, phrasing overlap, account creation patterns, and anything linking the accounts to a commercial rival, such as shared infrastructure or a matching campaign elsewhere. Pattern evidence moves review sites. Individual denials do not.
Can the page be removed from Google even if the review stays?
Sometimes. Where the page contains false statements of fact about an identifiable person, or personal information, a legal removal request to Google can take the URL out of results in a given country while the page remains live on the site.
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 payroll, contract and payment records are the evidence, and they are usually enough.
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.
