Cross-Border CFD Bans 2024-2026 — Which Jurisdictions Cracked Down, and Why

The EU's MiFID II passporting framework permits a broker licensed in any member state to provide services across the entire EU/EEA. The framework has been the foundation of the cross-border retail-CFD industry for a decade. Since 2024 a wave of national-competent-authority interventions has restricted the framework in specific jurisdictions — Belgium, Spain, France, Poland, and several others have moved. This piece walks the interventions, the drivers behind them, and the consequences still unfolding for cross-border retail-CFD operators.

What the cross-border framework normally permits

A CySEC-licensed broker (or BaFin-licensed, AMF-licensed, etc.) can serve clients across the EU/EEA via the MiFID II passport. The passporting framework imposes:

- Notification by the home-state regulator to the host-state regulator - Compliance with host-state conduct-of-business rules where the host state has invoked "general good" provisions - No requirement to obtain a host-state licence

The framework is the legal foundation of the Limassol cluster covered in [/blog/why-cyprus-dominates-eu-retail-forex-tax-licence-economics-2026](/blog/why-cyprus-dominates-eu-retail-forex-tax-licence-economics-2026). Most EU retail-CFD brokers are licensed in one jurisdiction and serve clients across many.

The host-state can invoke specific marketing restrictions under MiFID II Article 24 and Article 16 if the host-state CA determines that retail-protection objectives are not being met by the passport-only framework. The interventions of 2024-2026 are largely applications of this provision.

The interventions

A summary of the most significant national-CA actions affecting cross-border retail-CFD marketing in the EU 2024-2026:

**Belgium (FSMA).** The Belgian Financial Services and Markets Authority has historically been one of the most restrictive EU CAs on retail-CFD marketing. Belgium banned binary options and certain leveraged-CFD products for retail in 2016 (one of the earliest national-CA actions in the EU). The 2024-2025 update tightened cross-border marketing restrictions further — brokers passporting into Belgium must now satisfy additional disclosure and conduct requirements beyond the baseline MiFID II passport. Several offshore-and-EU-dual-entity brokers have withdrawn marketing to Belgium retail entirely.

**Spain (CNMV).** Spain's Comisión Nacional del Mercado de Valores tightened retail-CFD marketing rules in 2023 and again in late 2024, with specific focus on social-media marketing by influencers. Brokers using paid Spanish-language influencer marketing now face additional compliance requirements and several have curtailed Spanish-influencer programmes as a result.

**France (AMF).** The French Autorité des Marchés Financiers has run an active enforcement programme on cross-border retail-CFD marketing for several years. The 2024-2025 update included a tightening of advertising rules for retail-CFD products — restrictions on certain promotional formats, tighter requirements on French-language risk warnings, and expanded oversight of paid social campaigns. Several brokers have restructured their French marketing operations in response.

**Poland (KNF).** The Polish Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego applied product-intervention powers in 2024 to restrict certain high-leverage CFD products for Polish retail clients. The intervention is broader than just leverage caps — it includes restrictions on specific product structures (digital-options-style CFDs) and tighter disclosure requirements.

**Italy (CONSOB).** Italy's Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa has tightened oversight of CFD marketing to Italian retail clients in 2025, including specific requirements on Italian-language disclosures and stricter penalties for marketing rule breaches.

**Greece (HCMC).** The Hellenic Capital Market Commission applied product intervention in 2024 to restrict certain CFD product offerings to Greek retail clients. Greek-resident clients of brokers passporting in from CySEC have faced increased oversight.

**Cyprus (CySEC, applying as the home regulator).** CySEC has tightened its supervisory regime on Cyprus-licensed brokers that derive substantial revenue from outside the EU/EEA — increased reporting requirements, tighter consolidated-supervisory expectations, and more frequent inspection cycles for brokers with offshore-entity affiliates. The intervention is partly home-state-discipline on the dual-entity structures that the Limassol cluster commonly operates.

What drove the wave

Three common threads across the interventions:

**Retail-protection consistency with ESMA framework.** The original 2018 ESMA leverage caps and NBP requirement were temporary product-intervention measures. After conversion to national-level permanent measures, national CAs retained the flexibility to apply stricter measures than the ESMA baseline if national circumstances warranted. The 2024-2026 tightening is national CAs exercising this flexibility — pushing beyond the EU baseline in specific marketing and product dimensions.

**Social-media marketing concerns.** The rapid growth of social-media-driven retail-CFD marketing 2020-2024 (financial-influencer content, paid-social campaigns targeting younger demographics) raised concerns at multiple national CAs about marketing-quality and target-audience appropriateness. The interventions reflect national CAs' assessment that the existing marketing-rule framework was not adequate for the social-media channel.

**Domestic political and consumer-protection pressure.** Several of the interventions followed high-profile cases of retail-CFD trader losses or specific scandals involving offshore brokers marketing to nationals. The interventions are partly regulator-response to political pressure following media coverage.

What the interventions mean operationally for brokers

Three operational implications for cross-border retail-CFD operators:

**Country-specific compliance costs rise.** A broker passporting into ten EU member states from a single home jurisdiction (typically Cyprus) now faces materially different conduct-of-business rules in each market. The cost of maintaining compliance with ten different national overlays on the MiFID II baseline has risen substantially. Some smaller operators have responded by withdrawing from specific markets where the compliance cost exceeds the expected revenue.

**Marketing channels narrow.** Several marketing channels — paid social, influencer marketing, certain comparison-site placements — face country-specific restrictions that previously did not apply. Brokers have re-allocated marketing spend toward channels with lighter restrictions (organic SEO, broker-direct content marketing).

**Operational diversity required.** Operating effectively across the EU now requires country-specific compliance infrastructure, country-specific marketing teams, and country-specific legal review. The operational complexity has risen. The brokers that have adapted successfully are typically the larger operators with the resources to maintain the diversity. Smaller operators face structural disadvantage.

What the interventions mean for retail clients

Three implications:

**Marketing-page content varies by jurisdiction.** The same broker may present materially different marketing surfaces to Belgian, Spanish, French, and Cypriot retail clients depending on the country-specific restrictions. The variation is regulator-mandated and is generally protective.

**Country of residence determines protection.** A retail client residing in a jurisdiction with stricter overlays (Belgium, France, Spain) has stronger marketing-rule protection than a retail client residing in a jurisdiction with the EU baseline only. The substantive product protections (leverage cap, NBP) are uniform across the EU; the marketing-rule protections vary.

**Country-specific complaints channels matter.** A retail client with a dispute typically has recourse via the broker's home-state regulator (the CySEC or BaFin or AMF that holds the licence). National CAs have varying degrees of jurisdiction over passport-in operations. The Cyprus Financial Ombudsman, the FCA Financial Ombudsman Service, and equivalent schemes in other member states have specific scope rules that determine which complaints they can handle.

What might come next

Three trajectories worth surfacing for the 2027-2028 horizon:

**Further national-CA divergence under MiFIR Review.** The ongoing MiFIR Review may or may not address the growing national-overlay divergence. If it does not, the divergence will continue and likely deepen. The single-market in EU retail-CFD will be progressively more compartmentalised by national overlay.

**ESMA-level baseline upgrade.** If the divergence becomes severe enough, ESMA may upgrade the EU-baseline to reduce the gap between baseline and national overlays. The CKA-equivalent considered in [/blog/mas-suitability-assessment-20-minute-test-retail-traders-cannot-pass-2026](/blog/mas-suitability-assessment-20-minute-test-retail-traders-cannot-pass-2026) is one candidate. Tighter marketing rules are another.

**Cross-border restructuring by brokers.** Operators may increasingly establish multi-jurisdiction EU entities (CySEC primary plus BaFin secondary plus AMF secondary) to gain national-licence presence in the most-restrictive markets rather than relying on passport-in. The operational cost is high but the strategic flexibility is meaningful.

For the broader European regulator framework see [/blog/cysec-vs-bafin-which-eu-regulator-better-protection](/blog/cysec-vs-bafin-which-eu-regulator-better-protection) and [/questions/what-is-cysec](/questions/what-is-cysec). For the post-2018 ESMA picture see [/blog/esma-leverage-cap-2018-retrospective-8-year-data](/blog/esma-leverage-cap-2018-retrospective-8-year-data).

Risk warning

Trading CFDs and leveraged forex carries a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. Between 74-89% of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs. National marketing-rule overlays modify the marketing surface but do not change the underlying product risk. Retail clients in any EU/EEA jurisdiction should perform independent due diligence on any broker before depositing.

*This article reflects national CA interventions announced or in force as of May 2026. The framework is evolving — verify the current rules on the relevant national CA website (FSMA, CNMV, AMF, KNF, CONSOB, HCMC, CySEC) before relying on a specific provision.*