Financial Times

https://www.ft.com · 49/92 checks passed · media

Compliance report (framework 0.8)

Gate passed (every Core check must pass) · not counted towards the gate: paused 35, draft 48, ready for review 54.

Site level: 0 (no scored checks yet).

By level

LevelResult
Level 1 — Basic 27/37 (10 failed)
Level 2 — Enhanced 11/27 (16 failed)
Level 3 — Advanced 0/10 (9 failed)

By category

CategoryResult
Accessibility 8/13
Accountability 1/5
AI & Automation 4/8
Interoperability 2/3
Privacy 8/16
Provenance 2/2
Security 8/11
Transparency 5/13
Responsibility to the Future 0/3

Level 1 — Basic

Accessibility

AI & Automation

FAIL AI use policy in place
  • policy_exists: The page is a topical AI news hub with no visible AI use policy or statement governing the site's own use of AI.
    Fix: Publish a clear AI use policy or statement (linked from the footer or this hub page) describing how the FT uses AI in its operations and journalism.
  • scope_clear: No text on the page explains what AI the FT itself uses or for what purposes; content is solely editorial coverage of AI topics.
    Fix: Add a section or linked statement describing the specific scope of AI usage at the FT (e.g., content generation, translation, recommendations).

Privacy

Security

Transparency

FAIL Funding/sponsorship disclosure
  • disclosure_exists: The About page contains no funding or sponsorship disclosure, only general company descriptions.
    Fix: Add a dedicated funding/revenue disclosure section to the About page summarizing how the FT is financed (e.g., subscriptions, advertising, ownership).
  • transparent: No funding sources are identified anywhere on the page.
    Fix: Explicitly name primary funding sources such as subscription revenue, advertising, and parent company ownership (Nikkei Inc.).

Level 2 — Enhanced

Accessibility

Accountability

FAIL Published response timeframes
  • response_timeframe: The page lists contact methods but does not publish any response timeframes for inquiries.
    Fix: Add expected response times (e.g. 'We respond within 2 business days') next to each contact category.
  • specific: No specific timeframes in days or hours are provided; only switchboard opening hours are listed.
    Fix: State concrete response windows in days or hours for each inquiry type rather than leaving it unspecified.
FAIL Documented complaints process
  • process_exists: The contact page offers general inquiry routes but does not document a dedicated complaints or feedback process.
    Fix: Publish a clear complaints/feedback procedure, e.g. linking to an editorial complaints policy or dedicated feedback form.
  • steps_clear: No step-by-step instructions for filing a complaint or escalation path are provided on the page.
    Fix: Add numbered steps explaining how to submit a complaint, what information to include, and how it will be escalated if unresolved.
FAIL Clear appeals process
  • appeals_exists: The contact page lists general inquiry categories but does not document any appeals process for disputes or decisions.
    Fix: Add a dedicated section describing how users can formally appeal decisions, including required information and response timelines.
  • independent: No mention of an independent reviewer or escalation path is provided; only standard contact routes are listed.
    Fix: Document an escalation path to an independent ombudsperson or senior review body for appeals that cannot be resolved by first-line teams.

AI & Automation

FAIL Published AI use policy (detailed)
  • detailed_scope: The page contains no AI policy and therefore no detailed scope of AI use by the FT.
    Fix: Create an AI policy that enumerates specific use cases, tools, and workflows where AI is applied within FT products and journalism.
  • limitations: No acknowledgment of AI system limitations appears on the page outside of third-party news coverage.
    Fix: Include an explicit statement acknowledging known limitations of AI systems used (e.g., hallucinations, bias, accuracy constraints).
  • safeguards: No safeguards, quality controls, or human-oversight practices for AI use are described on the page.
    Fix: Document safeguards such as human editorial review, fact-checking, disclosure labels, and governance processes for any AI-assisted content.
FAIL AI-assisted content clearly marked
  • marking_policy: The page covers AI topics extensively but does not display any policy for marking AI-assisted content.
    Fix: Publish a visible editorial policy stating how AI-assisted content is labelled and link to it from the footer or article pages.
  • consistent: No AI-content labels or markings appear on any of the listed articles, so consistency cannot be demonstrated.
    Fix: Apply a standard AI-assistance disclosure tag to every article that uses AI in its production and surface it consistently in listings and bylines.
FAIL Human oversight of AI documented
  • oversight_exists: The page does not document any human oversight process for AI outputs used in editorial content.
    Fix: Add a statement (e.g., in the Editorial Code or About Us) describing how human editors oversee AI-generated or AI-assisted material.
  • review_process: There is no description of a review or approval workflow for AI content on this hub page.
    Fix: Publish a clear review workflow explaining the editing, fact-checking, and sign-off steps applied to any AI-assisted content.
  • accountability: No named role or person is identified as accountable for AI-generated content on the page.
    Fix: Designate and publicly name an editor or role (e.g., Head of AI Editorial Standards) responsible for AI-generated content.

Interoperability

Privacy

FAIL Data collection limited to necessity
  • necessity: The policy does not explicitly state that data collection is limited to what is necessary (data minimisation) for the stated purposes.
    Fix: Add an explicit data minimisation statement affirming that only personal information necessary for the stated purposes is collected.
FAIL Published data retention periods
  • retention_stated: The visible content lists 'How long we retain your personal information' as a section heading but does not include any actual retention details in the page content shown.
    Fix: Include the substantive retention content under the 'How long we retain your personal information' heading describing how long each data category is kept.
  • specific: No specific retention periods (e.g., number of months/years per data category) are provided in the visible policy content.
    Fix: Specify concrete retention durations for each data category, such as 'payment records retained for 7 years to comply with financial regulations'.
FAIL No dark patterns in consent flows
  • equal_choices: The privacy policy page does not display a consent banner with accept/reject choices, instead directing users to a separate 'Manage Cookies' page, so equal prominence of accept and reject cannot be confirmed here.
    Fix: Surface a consent interface (or link to it prominently within the policy) that presents 'Accept All' and 'Reject All' options with equal visual weight and one-click parity.
  • no_forced_consent: The policy describes broad cookie usage for advertising, personalisation, and analytics under a single framework without clearly indicating that users can decline non-essential processing without losing access to the service.
    Fix: Explicitly state that non-essential cookies and processing (e.g., advertising, personalisation) can be refused independently without bundling, and ensure declining does not block access to core content.
FAIL Advertising clearly labelled if present
  • ads_labelled: The About page contains no visible advertising or sponsored content labelling conventions.
    Fix: Add a clear policy statement and visual labels (e.g., 'Sponsored' or 'Paid Post') identifying any advertising or sponsored content across FT properties.
  • disclosure: There is no disclosure on this page describing the relationship between editorial content and advertisers or sponsors.
    Fix: Publish an advertising disclosure statement on the About page (or link to one) explaining how sponsored content is separated from editorial coverage.
FAIL Cookie banner partner disclosure
  • banner_present: No cookie or consent banner text is visible in the page content; only a footer 'Manage Cookies' / 'Cookie Policy' link appears.
    Fix: Display a visible cookie consent banner on first visit that allows users to accept, reject, or manage cookies before non-essential cookies are set.
  • partner_sharing_mentioned: The page content contains no disclosure about data sharing with third-party or advertising partners in any banner or on-page consent copy.
    Fix: Include clear banner copy stating that data may be shared with third-party advertising and analytics partners, with a link to the full partner list.
  • partner_count_specific: Because no partner sharing is disclosed on the page, no specific numeric count of partners is stated.
    Fix: State the exact number of third-party partners (e.g., 'We share data with X partners') directly in the consent banner.

Provenance

Security

Transparency

FAIL Substantive statement of purpose
  • substantive: The about page consists mostly of short section teasers with 'FIND OUT MORE' links rather than a detailed substantive statement of purpose.
    Fix: Expand the about page with detailed descriptions of the FT's history, values, editorial philosophy, and operations rather than relying on brief teaser paragraphs.
  • mission_clear: The page references authority, integrity and accuracy but does not clearly articulate a mission statement or editorial approach in depth.
    Fix: Add a dedicated mission statement and an explicit description of the editorial approach, linking prominently to the FT Editorial Code of Practice.
FAIL Funding disclosed with detail
  • detail: The page provides no amounts, percentages, or categories related to funding.
    Fix: Include meaningful detail such as approximate revenue breakdown by category (e.g., % from subscriptions vs. advertising) or link to an annual report.
  • complete: No funding streams are disclosed, so coverage of major streams is absent.
    Fix: Provide a complete list of material funding streams (subscriptions, advertising, events, FT Specialist services, parent-company investment) to ensure full coverage.
FAIL Governance structure disclosed
  • roles_clear: The page mentions employees and journalists in aggregate but does not identify key roles, leadership, or specific responsibilities within the governance structure.
    Fix: Add a section listing key leadership roles (e.g., Editor, CEO, Board members) and their responsibilities, or link to a dedicated leadership/governance page.
FAIL Algorithm explanation if applicable
  • algorithm_explained: The About page describes the FT's company, services, careers, and news but makes no mention of any algorithms or their purpose.
    Fix: Add a section explaining any algorithms used (e.g., for content recommendations or personalization) and their intended purpose.
  • impact_clear: There is no description on the page of how algorithmic decisions affect users or readers.
    Fix: Include a clear statement describing how algorithmic decisions impact users, such as what content they see or how their data is used.
FAIL Annual data practices statement
  • annual_statement: The page references a Privacy link but provides no evidence of a regular or annual review of data practices.
    Fix: Add a statement on the Privacy page indicating that data practices are reviewed on a defined periodic (e.g., annual) basis, with the date of the last review.
  • dated: No date or version information for a data practices statement is visible on the About page content shown.
    Fix: Include a 'Last updated' date or version number on the Privacy/data practices statement and surface it clearly from the About page.

Level 3 — Advanced

Accessibility

FAIL Published accessibility statement
  • remediation_timeline: The statement repeatedly says issues are being 'worked on' or 'improved' but provides no dates or target timelines for fixing them.
    Fix: Add specific target dates or milestones for remediating the known issues (e.g., comments section, cookies page, and non-conforming sub-domains).
  • feedback_channel: The page offers a 'contact us' feedback channel but states no commitment on response time or handling of accessibility feedback.
    Fix: State a defined response commitment (e.g., 'we will respond to accessibility feedback within 5 business days') alongside the contact link.

Accountability

FAIL Published moderation policies
  • policy_exists: The page shows FT subscription Terms and Conditions but does not publish any moderation policy for user content or comments.
    Fix: Publish a dedicated moderation or community guidelines policy and link to it from the Terms page.
  • criteria_clear: No moderation criteria (e.g., prohibited content, standards for acceptable contributions) are stated on this page.
    Fix: Add clear, specific criteria describing what content is allowed or prohibited in user-generated areas such as comments.
  • enforcement: The page does not describe any moderation enforcement process, such as warnings, content removal, appeals, or account actions tied to moderation.
    Fix: Document the enforcement workflow including how violations are reviewed, actions taken, and how users can appeal moderation decisions.

Interoperability

Security

FAIL Incident response plan published
  • plan_exists: The About page contains only company, services, careers, and news descriptions with no published incident response plan or security policy.
    Fix: Publish an incident response plan or security policy page and link to it from the site.
  • notification_commitment: The page makes no commitment to publicly notify users of significant security incidents.
    Fix: Add an explicit commitment to notify affected users and the public when significant incidents occur.
  • timeframe: No timeframe for disclosing incidents to affected users is stated anywhere on the page.
    Fix: Specify a concrete disclosure timeframe (e.g., within 72 hours of discovery) in the incident response policy.

Transparency

FAIL Algorithmic decision criteria published
  • criteria_published: No specific criteria for any algorithmic decisions are published anywhere on the About page.
    Fix: Publish the specific criteria (e.g., inputs, signals, rules) used in any algorithmic decision-making on a dedicated transparency page.
  • weighting: The page provides no information about the weighting or priority of criteria in algorithmic decisions.
    Fix: Document and disclose how different criteria are weighted or prioritized in any algorithmic processes used by the FT.
  • auditable: The page contains no technical or procedural detail that would enable external audit or review of algorithms.
    Fix: Provide sufficient methodology, data sources, and governance details to allow independent auditors to review algorithmic systems.
FAIL Open source code or tech docs
  • open_source: The page does not link to any publicly available source code or open-source repositories.
    Fix: Add links to any public FT engineering repositories (e.g., GitHub) or explain which components are open source.
  • tech_docs: No technical documentation or developer resources are referenced on the about page.
    Fix: Link to technical documentation, API references, or an FT engineering/developer portal from the about page.

Responsibility to the Future

FAIL Environmental / sustainability disclosure
  • disclosure_exists: The page is an editorial section aggregating journalism about sustainability topics, not a published environmental impact or sustainability disclosure by the FT itself.
    Fix: Publish a dedicated corporate sustainability or environmental impact statement (e.g., linked from the footer) describing the organisation's own environmental footprint and commitments.
  • specific_metrics: The page contains news headlines referencing others' climate metrics but provides no specific figures for the FT's own carbon, energy use, or emissions.
    Fix: Include quantified environmental metrics such as annual carbon emissions, energy consumption, and reduction targets in a corporate disclosure.
  • hosting_disclosure: There is no information anywhere on the page about the carbon or energy profile of the website's hosting infrastructure.
    Fix: Add a statement disclosing the hosting provider's energy sources and the site's hosting-related carbon or energy footprint, ideally with green-hosting certification details.
FAIL Succession and continuity plan
  • plan_exists: The About page describes the company, services, and careers but contains no published plan for what happens if the organisation fails or exits.
    Fix: Publish a succession or wind-down plan describing what would happen to the service if the FT ceased operations, and link it from the About page.
  • data_and_content_fate: The page mentions privacy and copyright policies but does not address what happens to user data and published content in the event of organisational failure or exit.
    Fix: Add a section explaining how user data would be handled and how published journalism would be preserved or transferred if the organisation shuts down.
  • custodians_or_mirrors: No custodians, mirrors, or archive partners are identified anywhere on the page.
    Fix: Name a designated custodian, archive partner, or mirroring arrangement responsible for preserving content and data if the FT exits.
FAIL Worker wellbeing policy
  • policy_exists: The page is an editorial 'FT People' directory of business personnel moves and contains no published policy on worker wellbeing or working conditions, offering only a generic 'Careers' footer link.
    Fix: Publish a dedicated worker wellbeing or working conditions policy and link to it prominently from the site.
  • specific_commitments: The page contains no specific commitments on pay, hours, mental health, or benefits, only news content and standard footer navigation.
    Fix: Add explicit commitments covering pay, working hours, mental health support, and employee benefits within a wellbeing policy.
  • accountability: There is no mention of any individual, department, or oversight body responsible for worker conditions anywhere on the page.
    Fix: Name a responsible role or committee (e.g., HR director or board oversight) accountable for monitoring and enforcing worker conditions.