公司資料

了解 A.C.T.

公司資料

了解 A.C.T.

A.C.T. BROKERS LTD operates as an international online broker providing access to over 1,000 financial instruments through its trading platform. The company's stated mission is to offer exceptional trading conditions, including tight spreads, advanced technology, and dedicated customer support, to a global client base.

行業

外匯零售經紀主要
財務其他服務

軟件

無可用數據

呢個部分好似係空嘅。快啲返嚟睇更新！

聯絡

社交

公司尚未更新其資訊。

此服務在您所在的地區不可用。

A.C.T.

英國

成立於

2002 (24 年)

成立

最後上線: 最近無活動

索償公司訪問網站

暫無 TrustScore分數不足，無法顯示趨勢。

成為首個為該公司評分與評論的使用者。

綜合得分

牌照

--/40

評論

--/60

0 則評價

由 TrustFinance 提供

暫無 TrustScore分數不足，無法顯示趨勢。

成為首個為該公司評分與評論的使用者。

TrustFinance 不是持牌金融顧問，也與您所在地區的任何金融機構無關聯。我們鼓勵您在做出任何投資決定前自行研究。

FTD LIMITED

(505 評論)

British Virgin Islands

2017

(9 年)

安全資訊 :

BVI FSC

安全資訊

警告

該公司目前未經證實.

請注意潛在風險！

牌照

甲級牌照

由全球知名監管機構頒發，這些許可證透過嚴格的合規性、資金隔離、保險和定期審計，確保最高程度的交易者保護。爭議解決和遵守 AML/CTF 標準進一步提高了安全性。

B 級牌照

由受尊敬的區域監管機構授予，這些許可證提供強大的安全措施，例如資金隔離、財務報告和補償計劃。雖然沒有等級 1 那麼嚴格，但它們提供可靠的區域保護。

C 級牌照

由新興市場的監管機構頒發，這些許可證提供基本保護，例如最低資本要求和 AML 政策。監管較不嚴格，因此交易者應謹慎行事並驗證安全措施。

D 級牌照

來自監管最少的司法管轄區，這些許可證通常缺乏關鍵保護，例如資金隔離和保險。雖然它們對營運彈性很有吸引力，但它們對交易者構成較高的風險。

TrustFinance 不是持牌金融顧問，也與您所在地區的任何金融機構無關聯。我們鼓勵您在做出任何投資決定前自行研究。

公司資料

了解 A.C.T.

公司資料

了解 A.C.T.

行業

外匯零售經紀主要
財務其他服務

軟件

無可用數據

呢個部分好似係空嘅。快啲返嚟睇更新！

聯絡

社交

公司尚未更新其資訊。

睇A.C.T.嘅用戶仲睇…

IUX

XM

FXGT

Deriv

Exness

IUX

XM

FXGT

Deriv

Exness

新聞

TrustFinance 情報機構

研究日期: 7月 28, 2026

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act does not preempt state law claims against transportation brokers for negligent hiring of motor carriers, allowing such claims to proceed under state law. This decision emphasizes the broker's duty to exercise reasonable care when hiring carriers, but does not create strict liability or alter existing vicarious liability standards. The ruling may lead to increased claims and scrutiny on carrier selection processes, prompting brokers to enhance their vetting and documentation practices to mitigate risks.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act does not preempt state law claims against transportation brokers for negligent hiring of motor carriers, allowing such claims to proceed under state law. This decision emphasizes the broker's duty to exercise reasonable care when hiring carriers, but does not create strict liability or alter existing vicarious liability standards. The ruling may lead to increased claims and scrutiny on carrier selection processes, prompting brokers to enhance their vetting and documentation practices to mitigate risks.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in the Montgomery v. Caribe case that freight brokers can be sued under state law for negligently hiring unsafe motor carriers, raising liability and vetting concerns. The ruling allows state negligence claims against brokers if they fail to exercise reasonable care in selecting carriers. This decision could lead to increased litigation exposure and inconsistent state standards for brokers, prompting them to tighten carrier selection processes and document their safety evaluations more rigorously.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in the Montgomery v. Caribe case that freight brokers can be sued under state law for negligently hiring unsafe motor carriers, raising liability and vetting concerns. The ruling allows state negligence claims against brokers if they fail to exercise reasonable care in selecting carriers. This decision could lead to increased litigation exposure and inconsistent state standards for brokers, prompting them to tighten carrier selection processes and document their safety evaluations more rigorously.

The Supreme Court is currently deliberating on the case Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, which addresses whether federal law preempts state law claims against freight brokers for negligent hiring. The case arose from an accident involving Shawn Montgomery, who argues that Caribe Transport and the broker C.H. Robinson were negligent in selecting a motor carrier. The district and appellate courts ruled in favor of the claim's relation to state safety regulations, but the Supreme Court is reviewing conflicting circuit court decisions. Key arguments focus on the interpretation of federal regulations and their implications on state tort claims, with a decision expected by June.

The Supreme Court is currently deliberating on the case Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, which addresses whether federal law preempts state law claims against freight brokers for negligent hiring. The case arose from an accident involving Shawn Montgomery, who argues that Caribe Transport and the broker C.H. Robinson were negligent in selecting a motor carrier. The district and appellate courts ruled in favor of the claim's relation to state safety regulations, but the Supreme Court is reviewing conflicting circuit court decisions. Key arguments focus on the interpretation of federal regulations and their implications on state tort claims, with a decision expected by June.

The U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC has removed the legal shield that freight brokers previously relied on to defend against negligent hiring lawsuits. This ruling allows state-law claims against brokers, compelling them to demonstrate reasonable care in carrier selection. The decision does not impose automatic liability but opens the door for increased litigation, requiring brokers to document their vetting processes and ensure compliance with safety standards. The ruling emphasizes the need for brokers to maintain thorough records and to implement consistent safety criteria when selecting carriers, as failure to do so could expose them to legal risks and higher insurance costs.

The U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC has removed the legal shield that freight brokers previously relied on to defend against negligent hiring lawsuits. This ruling allows state-law claims against brokers, compelling them to demonstrate reasonable care in carrier selection. The decision does not impose automatic liability but opens the door for increased litigation, requiring brokers to document their vetting processes and ensure compliance with safety standards. The ruling emphasizes the need for brokers to maintain thorough records and to implement consistent safety criteria when selecting carriers, as failure to do so could expose them to legal risks and higher insurance costs.

The California Privacy Protection Agency is transitioning from implementing to enforcing the California Delete Act's Delete Request and Opt-Out Platform (DROP). Since its launch on January 1, 2026, over 242,000 Californians have submitted requests to delete their personal information from data brokers, exceeding expectations. The agency has established a dedicated enforcement unit to ensure compliance with the Delete Act and is expanding its capacity with the appointment of a chief privacy auditor. Data brokers have until August 1 to integrate DROP obligations, and the agency plans ongoing public education to enhance consumer participation. An updated public data broker registry will be published in March 2026, and another DROP update is scheduled for the IAPP Global Summit on March 31.

The California Privacy Protection Agency is transitioning from implementing to enforcing the California Delete Act's Delete Request and Opt-Out Platform (DROP). Since its launch on January 1, 2026, over 242,000 Californians have submitted requests to delete their personal information from data brokers, exceeding expectations. The agency has established a dedicated enforcement unit to ensure compliance with the Delete Act and is expanding its capacity with the appointment of a chief privacy auditor. Data brokers have until August 1 to integrate DROP obligations, and the agency plans ongoing public education to enhance consumer participation. An updated public data broker registry will be published in March 2026, and another DROP update is scheduled for the IAPP Global Summit on March 31.

由TrustFinance AI分析提供

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act does not preempt state law claims against transportation brokers for negligent hiring of motor carriers, allowing such claims to proceed under state law. This decision emphasizes the broker's duty to exercise reasonable care when hiring carriers, but does not create strict liability or alter existing vicarious liability standards. The ruling may lead to increased claims and scrutiny on carrier selection processes, prompting brokers to enhance their vetting and documentation practices to mitigate risks.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in the Montgomery v. Caribe case that freight brokers can be sued under state law for negligently hiring unsafe motor carriers, raising liability and vetting concerns. The ruling allows state negligence claims against brokers if they fail to exercise reasonable care in selecting carriers. This decision could lead to increased litigation exposure and inconsistent state standards for brokers, prompting them to tighten carrier selection processes and document their safety evaluations more rigorously.

The Supreme Court is currently deliberating on the case Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, which addresses whether federal law preempts state law claims against freight brokers for negligent hiring. The case arose from an accident involving Shawn Montgomery, who argues that Caribe Transport and the broker C.H. Robinson were negligent in selecting a motor carrier. The district and appellate courts ruled in favor of the claim's relation to state safety regulations, but the Supreme Court is reviewing conflicting circuit court decisions. Key arguments focus on the interpretation of federal regulations and their implications on state tort claims, with a decision expected by June.

The U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC has removed the legal shield that freight brokers previously relied on to defend against negligent hiring lawsuits. This ruling allows state-law claims against brokers, compelling them to demonstrate reasonable care in carrier selection. The decision does not impose automatic liability but opens the door for increased litigation, requiring brokers to document their vetting processes and ensure compliance with safety standards. The ruling emphasizes the need for brokers to maintain thorough records and to implement consistent safety criteria when selecting carriers, as failure to do so could expose them to legal risks and higher insurance costs.

The California Privacy Protection Agency is transitioning from implementing to enforcing the California Delete Act's Delete Request and Opt-Out Platform (DROP). Since its launch on January 1, 2026, over 242,000 Californians have submitted requests to delete their personal information from data brokers, exceeding expectations. The agency has established a dedicated enforcement unit to ensure compliance with the Delete Act and is expanding its capacity with the appointment of a chief privacy auditor. Data brokers have until August 1 to integrate DROP obligations, and the agency plans ongoing public education to enhance consumer participation. An updated public data broker registry will be published in March 2026, and another DROP update is scheduled for the IAPP Global Summit on March 31.

由TrustFinance AI分析提供