The rule.
Article 88 of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 governs marketing communications relating to a public offer or to admission of crypto-assets to trading. The headline obligation is in paragraphs (1) and (2):
“Any marketing communications relating to a public offer of a crypto-asset other than an asset-referenced token or an e-money token, or to the admission to trading of such a crypto-asset, shall comply with all of the following requirements:
(a) the marketing communications are clearly identifiable as such;
(b) the information in the marketing communications is fair, clear and not misleading;
(c) the information in the marketing communications is consistent with the information in the crypto-asset white paper, where such a crypto-asset white paper is required …”
Parallel obligations apply under Article 29 (asset-referenced tokens) and Article 53 (e-money tokens). The standard is identical: clear, fair, not misleading, consistent with the whitepaper, and identifiable as marketing.
What it requires.
Four operational obligations, in plain language.
Identifiable as marketing. A page, ad, post, or video that promotes a crypto-asset has to be recognisable as a marketing communication. The form matters: an op-ed-styled page that fails to disclose its commercial intent is non-compliant.
Fair. Benefit claims must be balanced. A hero that says “earn up to 24% APY” without paired, prominent treatment of capital-loss risk fails fairness. The threshold is comparative prominence, not the existence of a footer disclosure.
Clear. Technical claims must be substantiated and understandable to the target audience. “Backed by blockchain technology” alone does not satisfy clarity if the underlying mechanism is material to the investment decision.
Not misleading. Selective data, partial backtests, undated claims, peer-comparison claims without methodology, “guaranteed,” “risk-free,” “safe,” “the best,” “the only” — all flagged. The standard is “not misleading,” not “technically defensible.”
Common violations.
What we see most often on Launch Audits.
“Earn up to 24% APY on stablecoins.”
Hero headline. No paired risk language above the fold. Capital-loss disclosure is in a footer block 1,400 pixels down the page. Fails Article 88(1)(b) on fairness. “Up to” is not a cure — the EU consumer-protection case law on “up to” claims is settled.
“The fastest-growing RWA platform in Europe.”
No date. No methodology. No source. No definition of “fastest-growing” (TVL? customers? geography?). Fails Article 88(1)(b) on misleading. Also captures Article 88(1)(c) if the whitepaper makes a different claim.
“The safest place to hold your crypto.”
Superlative claim about safety in a sector where capital loss is the default risk. Fails Article 88(1)(b). The word “safe” is one of the highest-priority flags in NCA enforcement.
How to comply.
Five corrections that resolve most Article 88 findings.
For every benefit claim in the hero, the paired risk statement must sit in the same visual frame. Same column, same typography weight, same vertical position. Footers do not satisfy parity.
Replace any superlative or comparative claim with a quantified, dated, sourced version. “The fastest-growing RWA platform in Europe” becomes “Largest tokenised treasury platform in Europe by AUM, €X.X B as of March 2026 (source: rwa.xyz).”
Remove “guaranteed,” “risk-free,” “safe,” “the best,” “the only,” “100%” from marketing copy unless the claim is literally and provably true in the specific context. These are NCA flag words.
Every promotional page or post needs visible identification as a marketing communication. For paid social, this is the “Paid partnership” or “Sponsored” native label. For long-form pages, a clear footer disclosure.
Run a side-by-side check: every claim on the marketing page must appear in the whitepaper or be a downstream paraphrase of a whitepaper claim. If the whitepaper says “variable yield,” the landing page cannot say “stable yield.”
Related rules.
-
The parity rule. How prominent your risk warning must be relative to the benefit claim.
-
Marketing communications must match the published whitepaper.
-
The UK equivalent. Stricter wording requirement than MiCA.