A broker brand can be visible in two countries while a specific product, operating entity or deposit incentive is not. “Does this broker operate here?” and “Can this retail user claim this CFD bonus?” are not the same question.
A provider is not a single legal route
Global financial brands often operate through different entities. Each entity can have its own permissions, product range, onboarding flow and promotion rules. A site that stores only “broker + coupon” cannot represent this cleanly.
Broker.codes uses a layered model: provider → entity → product → jurisdiction → offer → attribution mechanism. The launch dataset does not pretend every entity is fully mapped yet. It does make room for the distinction and defaults unknown eligibility to review.
Why product type matters
CFDs, margin forex, exchange-traded futures, stocks, crypto services and prop-firm challenges can fall under different rules. A restriction on a retail CFD incentive should not be rewritten as “the provider is banned” or “every product is unavailable”.
Spain is a useful example. The CNMV measures prohibit advertising CFDs to retail investors or the general public and impose restrictions around certain high-risk products. That is more precise than saying “CFDs are banned in Spain”. A provider may have a different product route, but a public retail CFD incentive is still the wrong thing to promote.
Three kinds of market answer
| State | When Broker.codes uses it | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Unavailable | An explicit provider restriction or relevant primary rule supports the offer-level block. | Copy and provider-offer actions are disabled. |
| Review required | The code or provider exists, but code-specific market terms are incomplete. | Facts remain visible; eligibility is not promised. |
| Available | Current evidence supports that provider, product, audience and offer mechanic for the market. | The action can be presented with its terms. |
Launch records mostly resolve to review required outside explicit restrictions. That is intentional. Availability is a claim that needs evidence.
Examples from the launch board
United Kingdom
The FCA's rules prohibit monetary and non-monetary incentives in the marketing, distribution or sale of restricted speculative investments to retail clients. Broker.codes therefore does not present the supplied AvaTrade bonus mechanic as available to UK retail CFD users.
Australia
ASIC's CFD product-intervention order includes an inducement prohibition and remains in force. TABTrade also explicitly lists Australia as a restricted jurisdiction. Those are separate evidence routes that can lead to the same offer-level action state.
Brazil
Brazil's CVM issued an explicit warning and stop order concerning XM Global solicitation. Broker.codes encodes XM as unavailable for that market rather than generalising the finding to every broker.
Why manual selection stays visible
Cloudflare can provide a visitor-country signal, but location detection is not perfect and should not become invisible compliance theatre. The selected market stays visible, users can change it, and an explicit choice is stored without being overwritten on the next page.
Country is still only one input. Professional classification, entity, product and actual provider terms can change the result. The UI says so instead of turning a country flag into legal advice.