MiCA Article 7 · Operational checklist

MiCA Article 7 Marketing Checklist 2026 — CASP Compliance

Article 7 looks simple — fair, clear, not misleading, with required disclosures. The operational delivery is harder. The checklist below covers the pre-publication review steps every CASP compliance function runs in mid-2026, mapped against ESMA's Guidelines on marketing communications and the format-specific rules for each channel.

A MiCA Article 7 marketing-compliance checklist is the working tool a CASP compliance function uses to verify that a proposed marketing communication meets the substantive fair-clear-not-misleading rule, contains the required risk disclosures and white-paper references, follows the format-specific placement requirements set out in ESMA's Guidelines, and is captured in the CASP's record-keeping system before publication.

Quick facts

ParameterValue
Trigger eventAny proposed marketing communication for an in-scope crypto-asset, ART, EMT, or CASP service that will reach EU consumers via any channel
Pre-publication ownerCASP compliance function — not the marketing team, not the influencer, not the agency
Required recordApproved content, approver identity, approval date, version history, publication date and platform — retained for at least five years
Mandatory disclosure elements(1) Risk warning on volatility and total loss; (2) reference to the approved white paper; (3) reference to the CASP's MiCA authorisation; (4) paid-relationship disclosure where applicable
Approval validityApproval lapses 14 days after grant; content published after the window requires re-approval
Iteration limitNo formal limit; ESMA expects no more than 2-3 approval iterations on well-prepared content
Cross-border re-approvalContent originally approved for one EU market needs separate review against each host-state consumer-law overlay before extension to a new market

The pre-publication approval workflow

Article 7 requires CASPs to ensure their marketing communications are fair, clear, and not misleading, and contain prescribed disclosures. The supervisory expectation is pre-publication approval by the CASP compliance function. The checklist below operationalises that expectation against ESMA’s 2026 Guidelines and observed NCA practice.

Pre-Submission Checks (Owner: Marketing)

  • The proposed content is for an in-scope crypto-asset, ART, EMT, or CASP service
  • The content type and channel are identified (static post, short-form video, long-form video, story, paid ad, email, push notification, in-app message)
  • The target audience and geographies are documented (which EU member states the content will reach)
  • The intended publication date is stated
  • Source material is referenced (white paper, regulatory documents, CASP licensing materials)

Substantive Review (Owner: Compliance)

Fair-Clear-Not-Misleading Test

  • Fair: No selective presentation. Material risks shown alongside material benefits. Past performance, if shown, includes the standard “past performance does not predict future results” warning.
  • Clear: Language proportionate to the target audience. Technical terms defined or simplified. No jargon that obscures the underlying proposition.
  • Not misleading: Claims supportable by evidence. No implied endorsements not actually given. No price predictions or guarantees of return.

Required Disclosures

  • Volatility warning: Visible in the content (not buried in the caption). Standard phrasing: “Crypto-assets are highly volatile. Investing involves the risk of total loss of capital.”
  • White-paper reference: Link, QR code, or clear textual reference to where the approved white paper can be found
  • MiCA authorisation reference: Statement that the CASP is authorised under MiCA by [home NCA name and reference number]
  • Paid-relationship disclosure: Where the content is influencer or KOL marketing, the paid relationship is disclosed using #ad, #sponsored, or #partnership (not #collab or #thanksto)

Format-Specific Placement Checks

Short-Form Video (TikTok, Reels, Shorts)

  • Risk warning visible within the first three seconds
  • Warning text size at least proportionate to surrounding text
  • Warning contrast against background meets readability
  • White-paper QR code or link visible at end of video

Twitter / X

  • Risk warning fits in the visible portion of the post without ‘see more’
  • White-paper link in the post body (not in a reply)
  • Paid-relationship disclosure in the post body

Stories (Instagram, TikTok)

  • Risk warning sticker visible for the entire display duration
  • White-paper link via swipe-up or visible text
  • Paid-relationship disclosure visible the same way

Long-Form Video (YouTube)

  • Risk warning shown for the first 10 seconds
  • Risk warning re-shown each time the crypto-asset is mentioned
  • White-paper link in description AND in pinned comment

Static Posts

  • Risk warning visible in the image (not exclusively in caption)
  • White-paper link in post body
  • Paid-relationship disclosure on the same screen
  • Risk warning legible at the standard ad display size
  • Click-through page contains the white-paper link prominently
  • Targeting parameters comply with MiCA scope (no retail-targeting where prohibited by host-state rules)

Cross-Border Overlay Checks (For Pan-EU Campaigns)

  • France overlay: AMF Position on crypto marketing, DGCCRF Loi Influenceurs rules
  • Italy overlay: Consumer Code, AGCOM advertising rules
  • Germany overlay: UWG (Unfair Competition Act), BaFin marketing guidance
  • Spain overlay: AEPD, CNMV crypto-marketing position
  • Netherlands overlay: AFM marketing-communications rules

Approval Record (Owner: Compliance)

  • Approved content version saved in the compliance system
  • Approver identification and approval timestamp recorded
  • Approval scope documented (which markets, which channels, which date range)
  • Publication window noted (14 days from approval; re-approval required after)

Post-Publication Monitoring (Owner: Compliance + Marketing)

  • Daily check of published content for edits made after approval
  • Engagement-metric review for unintended audience reach (e.g., into jurisdictions outside the approval scope)
  • Documented response procedure if a consumer or supervisor raises a concern

Common audit findings on Article 7

ESMA’s 2026 Supervisory Coordination report identified the recurring compliance gaps in early MiCA application:

Stale approvals. Content published more than 14 days after approval is the most frequent finding. Marketing teams sometimes hold approved content for opportune publishing moments; the approval lapses in the interim.

Inconsistent risk warnings. The same CASP uses different risk-warning phrasings across channels and campaigns. ESMA’s Guidelines encourage standardised phrasing to support consumer understanding.

Email-based approval. Approval trails in email threads do not provide adequate audit evidence. NCAs increasingly expect a dedicated approval system with version control and audit-trail capabilities.

Missing host-state overlay. Pan-EU campaigns extended from one market to others without separate compliance review against host-state consumer-law overlays.

White-paper reference omitted. Marketing for an in-scope crypto-asset that does not reference the white paper is a substantive breach, not a minor compliance lapse.

The technology stack for compliance

CASPs operating substantial marketing programmes in 2026 typically use:

  • A dedicated compliance-approval system (Confluence + custom workflows, or specialist tools like ComplyAdvantage, Theta Lake)
  • A versioned content library that captures every approved version
  • An automated flag system for stale approvals (14-day expiration)
  • Cross-border overlay templates per host-state
  • Integration with the broader conduct-monitoring framework

The setup cost is meaningful — a substantial compliance-tech build is a 6-9 month project — but the steady-state operating efficiency makes the investment pay back over the first year.

What good looks like

A CASP whose marketing-compliance function is operating cleanly in mid-2026:

  • Approval median turnaround: 24-48 hours from submission to grant
  • Approval refusal rate: under 15% (higher refusal rate signals upstream content problems; lower signals insufficient rigor)
  • Re-approval rate (due to stale approval): under 5%
  • Records system passes annual internal audit without findings
  • No NCA enforcement action on marketing in the past 12 months

These are operational benchmarks, not regulatory requirements. They are the operating standard the better CASPs are running against.

The buyer’s view

Article 7 compliance is one of the most leverage-rich workstreams in a CASP’s operating model. The investment is the compliance-tech stack and the approval workflow. The return is faster, safer campaign delivery and reduced enforcement exposure. CASPs that treat Article 7 as a per-campaign compliance exercise pay the cost every time; those that build the infrastructure once amortise the cost across years.

The checklist above is the working baseline. Customise it for the CASP’s specific channels, customer geographies, and risk appetite — but do not skip the steps.

Pitfalls and nuances

1 Compliance review after marketing has scheduled the post

The most common operational failure. Marketing teams schedule content into the publishing queue, then route to compliance for sign-off. The result is compliance pressure to approve quickly to meet the schedule. Article 7 contemplates compliance-led pre-approval — the approval drives the schedule, not the other way around.

2 Risk warning in caption rather than image/video

A risk warning in the caption of a static image post or in the description of a video does not satisfy ESMA's Guidelines. The warning must be in the visual content itself — in the image, in the video frame within the first three seconds, or in the visible portion of the post without expanding 'see more'.

3 Approval recorded by email rather than dedicated system

Email approval threads are not adequate audit evidence. Several NCAs have explicitly criticised email-only approval workflows in 2026 supervisory actions. The record-keeping requirement contemplates a system that captures version history, approval timestamp, and approver identity in a tamper-evident format.

4 Treating the white-paper link as optional

Marketing for an in-scope crypto-asset must reference the approved white paper. The reference can be a link, a QR code, or a clear statement of how to find the white paper. Marketing that does not reference the white paper is a substantive Article 7 breach — not a missing-element issue.

5 Extending campaigns to new markets without overlay review

A campaign approved for France is not automatically compliant in Germany or Italy. Each host-state has its own consumer-law overlay — disclosure rules, advertising standards, prohibited claims. Pan-EU campaigns require pan-EU compliance review, not a single home-state approval.

Frequently asked questions

Who approves CASP marketing content under Article 7?

The CASP compliance function — not the marketing team, not the agency, not the influencer. The compliance function reviews and approves before publication; the approval is recorded with date, version, and approver identification.

How long is an Article 7 approval valid?

14 days from grant. Content published more than 14 days after approval requires re-approval. Several NCAs have flagged stale approvals as a recurring compliance gap in their 2026 supervisory updates.

Does a single approval cover all EU markets?

No. Content approved for one market needs separate review against each host-state consumer-law overlay before extension. The MiCA passport extends the licence, not the marketing approval.

What records must the CASP keep of approvals?

Approved content, approver identity and date, version history, publication date and platform — retained for at least five years under MiCA Article 7 and the broader record-keeping rules in Article 71.

Get matched

Working through a crypto-licensing decision?

Get an editorial shortlist of firms matched to your business — customer market, model, jurisdiction, and stage. Free, and not influenced by sponsorship.

Get a firm shortlist →

Sources cited

  1. Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA), Article 7 — regulation
  2. ESMA Guidelines on marketing communications under MiCA — regulator
  3. EBA — Joint ESAs Guidelines on the use of social media for marketing — regulator
  4. AMF — Crypto marketing communications page — regulator