Regulations · MiCA · Article 88(3)
// MICA · ARTICLE 88(3) · TITLE II

Risk warnings must match the benefit claim.

The parity rule. A hero promise without a paired, visually-balanced risk warning fails this sub-article. Footer disclosures don’t satisfy it; prominence is part of the rule.

Applies to: Exchanges RWA platforms Token issuers Stablecoin issuers

The rule.

Article 88(3) sits inside the same article as the “clear, fair, not misleading” rule, but it adds a specific obligation about how risk is presented.

// Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 · Article 88(3)

“Marketing communications shall not contain any false or misleading information. Marketing communications shall identify the risks associated with the relevant crypto-asset clearly and prominently. The information about the risks shall be presented in a manner that is no less prominent than the information about the potential benefits of the crypto-asset.”

ESMA’s 2024 Guidelines on marketing communications interpret “no less prominent” as: same visual weight, same column, same approximate position in the visual hierarchy, no use of contrast or typography to dim the risk treatment relative to the benefit.

What it requires.

Three operational obligations.

Identification of risks. The marketing communication must say what could go wrong. “Crypto-asset prices can fluctuate” is the minimum; for higher-risk products (leverage, staking, lending, tokenised real assets) the disclosure has to extend to capital loss, illiquidity, smart-contract risk, custody risk, regulatory risk.

Prominence parity. The risk treatment must be at least as visible as the benefit treatment. If the benefit is in 72-pixel Inter Bold above the fold, the risk cannot be in 12-pixel grey type 1,400 pixels down.

Same visual frame. The risk pairing has to live in the same visual unit as the benefit claim. A standalone risk page accessible from the footer does not satisfy parity. The risk has to be where the eye lands when reading the benefit.

Common violations.

// Violation pattern · footer risk disclosure

Hero: “Tokenised treasuries. Earn 5.2% APY.”
Footer (1,800px below): “Capital at risk. Returns may vary.”

Two separate visual frames. The reader who only sees the hero leaves with the benefit but not the risk. Fails the “no less prominent” standard.

// Violation pattern · typography downgrade

Benefit: 56px white bold on dark background.
Risk: 11px grey on dark background, in same block.

Same block, but typography hierarchy fails parity. The risk text is approximately 5× smaller and lower-contrast.

// Violation pattern · risk-page handoff

Hero CTA: “Start earning” — risk disclosure on a separate /risks page linked from a small footer link.

Adding a click to access the risk treatment is, by definition, less prominent. Fails parity.

How to comply.

// Fix 1 · pair the hero

For every benefit claim above the fold, place the matching risk statement in the same visual frame, at the same typography level. If you can’t do that, soften the benefit.

// Fix 2 · size parity

Risk statements must be at least 60% of the type size of the benefit claim and use the same colour family. ESMA explicitly cites contrast and size as parity factors.

// Fix 3 · specificity

Replace generic risk language (“risks apply”) with specific risk language (“you may lose all of your capital, returns are not guaranteed and yield can drop to zero”). Specificity is part of clarity.

// Fix 4 · banner ad treatment

For small-format ads (banner, search, paid social), if the format does not allow a paired risk treatment, the ad cannot make a quantified benefit claim. Use a brand claim, not a yield claim.

Related rules.