Global Relay Industry Insights: Compliant Communications Report 2025

—
INDUSTRY INSIGHTS

Compliant Communications Report 2025

Industry Insights: Compliant Communications Report 2025Contents

—
About Global Relay

Key findings

Channel bans are still prevalent

But belief in their effectiveness is falling

The number of firms electing to ban communications channels like WhatsApp and WeChat has steadily reduced over the last three years, from 59% in 2023 to 43.5% in 2024 and now 40.4% in 2025. This continuous decrease suggests that the tide is turning away from bans and towards enabling compliant communications.

48% of 2025 survey respondents agreed that bans are effective for managing communications compliance risk. This marks a continued decrease in the belief that bans are effective, with 56% in 2023 and 50% in 2024 – a near 10% decrease over the last three years.

There are a range of potential explanations for this gradual decrease, including:

Continued media reporting of off-channel communications and recordkeeping enforcements where individuals – including those at senior levels and with compliance responsibilities – had been found to be using channels banned by their organization, bringing into question the effectiveness of channel bans
Engagement with employees leading firms to understand that channel bans are often circumvented internally, and learning the importance of specific channels for employees and their business

The increase in availability and effectiveness of communications compliance solutions enabling firms to leverage these across previously banned channels, leading to a shift towards more permissive strategies

Beginning in 2021 with a $125 million penalty against JP Morgan for recordkeeping failures relating to off-channel communications use, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)’s “War on WhatsApp” has shone a spotlight on communications compliance for the last four years. Global Relay’s Industry Insights: Compliant Communications Report 2025 shows that the SEC’s focus has substantially shifted compliance priorities and investment from firms in a lasting way.

Industry insights

Our survey respondents tell us which communication channels pose the greatest potential risk to their firms.

We don’t use WhatsApp or WeChat… We don’t use social media channels in our operations.

Risk Management, Miami, Florida, U.S.

WhatsApp, since it can’t easily be archived or monitored.

Compliance Administrator,
Financial Services, Canada

Not one in particular. However, any social media we aren’t capturing could be an issue.

Director of Compliance, Investment Advisor, U.S.

The ones we don’t know about. This landscape is constantly changing.

Anonymous respondent

I believe all are equal. The challenge is monitoring specific types of activities, i.e. profile updates vs. friend requests vs posts. Current tools limit the ability to filter by type of activity.

Anonymous respondent

For our specific company, channels like Facebook, Instagram, and X will pose a bigger threat than LinkedIn because of the nature of our business and user base.

Anonymous respondent,
Crypto exchange business

Firms are increasingly allowing all channels to be used – but monitoring them

Is this the dawning of the age of enablement?

Our 2025 survey found that 39% of firms allow all communications channels to be used and are monitoring them – a significant increase (up 21.6%) compared to 2024, when only 17.4% of firms were enabling and monitoring all channels.

This represents a marked shift over the last three years: in 2023, only 10.3% of firms were enabling and capturing all channels. The latest survey shows an increase of nearly a third (28.7%) between 2023 and 2025, with a range of potential contributory factors including:

Firms having a greater understanding of what communications compliance solutions are available across all channels they use
The cautionary impact of consistent regulatory enforcements against off-channel communications violations finally “sinking in”
Firms engaging with employees to learn what specific channels are preferred, and working to enable these channels rather than ban them

After implementing monitoring and capture across central business channels (i.e. email) and seeing the effectiveness, firms rolling out solutions across other communications channels
Firms working to enable more channels with a view to ingest more communications data, enhance eDiscovery, and train AI models
Often long implementation timescales for communications monitoring technologies reaching the final stages after all necessary testing and signoffs

In the results of our 2024 report, 7.8% of respondents said they did not have a clear plan for managing compliant communications, a considerable drop from 25.6% of respondents in 2023. However, our 2025 survey found that 20.6% of respondents do not have a clear plan to manage communications channels.

Concerningly, although we have seen a concentrated shift towards compliant communications enablement, we have also seen an increase in firms having a lack of clear plans for managing communication risk. Potential reasons for this could include:

Regulators like the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) announcing that it would not pursue enforcement action for off-channel communications violations, combined with changes of the SEC’s upper leadership, leading firms to believe they do not need to prioritize communications compliance as it may not be a continuing regulatory priority
Firms “turning a blind eye” to widely used channels like WhatsApp instead of creating dedicated compliance strategies and policies for them – leaving themselves exposed to risk
Shifting regulatory and compliance focuses meaning that firms are focusing planning efforts and budget outside of developing communications compliance strategies

It will be interesting to see if this trend towards firms leveraging solutions to enable compliant communication continues. With the number of firms banning channels (40.4%) and those enabling channels (39%) now roughly equal, we may be at an inflection point where the industry shifts away from bans towards permissive – but compliant – use of all channels, including WhatsApp.

Expert insights

I am shocked that 40.4% of respondents continue to simply ban some of the most widely used communications channels despite the prevalent availability of compliant capture solutions.

In reality, many employees within these firms may not be complying with these bans, placing them at high risk of an off-channel communications enforcement action.

Those that are complying are probably doing less business than their peers as they cannot use the preferred methods of communications that their clients – and the market – demand.

It is very evident that the recordkeeping enforcements that have been a constant since December 2022 for off-channel comms and trading venue completeness have significantly changed most institutions’ approach to compliance.

Alex Viall
Chief Strategy Officer,
Global Relay

It’s very interesting to see that a surprisingly high number of firms are enabling the use of channels like WhatsApp, as conventional wisdom is that the majority prohibit it.

This suggests a much more widespread adoption of compliant communications solutions to enable business. Given the ongoing tempo and tone of enforcement actions for off-channel communications throughout 2024, the number of respondents without a clear communications compliance strategy is as surprising as it is concerning.

Rob Mason
Director,
Regulatory Intelligence,
Global Relay

It is surprising to see an increase in respondents suggesting they don’t have a clear plan on communications compliance, given the availability of solutions to mitigate these risks.

There is perhaps the question of budgets coming into play and some being unwilling to invest in solutions – it’s no secret how compliance and surveillance teams are often expected to ‘do more with less.’ Considering the size of off-channel communications fines weighed against cost to capture channels, leveraging compliance solutions feels like a quick win, and having no plan in place will be very hard to defend should regulators uncover noncompliance.

Ryan Sheridan
Senior Manager,
Regulatory Intelligence,
Global Relay

Industry insights

Our survey respondents tell us what steps they’re taking to tackle the challenges of communications compliance.

Reviewing approved channels and stressing the importance of using only approved channels.

CCO, Hedge Fund, Global

Communication, training, agreement from team and their understanding of how this protects the clients and firm.

Chief Strategy Officer, RIA, Illinois, U.S.

Getting our employees used to only using approved channels, as they have been used to doing basically whatever they want to some extent. And then making sure we have all channels feeding our archive and surveillance.

Anonymous respondent

Trying to limit the usage of cell phones. Providing the employees with company gadgets for their internal and external communications.

Anonymous respondent

We restrict communication channels to emails and Slack, which are monitored.

Anonymous respondent

Monitoring personal communication channels… but this is difficult and also an invasion of privacy.

Anonymous respondent

Have staff gotten the message on communications compliance?

In our 2024 report, 65.2% of respondents said that getting employees to comply with electronic communications compliance rules was their biggest challenge. Our 2025 report shows that this has dropped to 29.5% – a considerable reduction (down 35.7%).

This will be welcome news across the industry, as communications compliance efforts are only truly effective if they are supported by employee buy-in. Outlining policies and procedures is one thing, but these can only work if staff understand and adhere to them.

Many of the recordkeeping and off-channel communications enforcements since 2021 have seen senior-level staff involved in off-channel communications, including many with compliance responsibilities. Without senior-level employees setting the required “tone from the top” and leading by example, it is unsurprising that staff adherence to policies has been a consistent challenge.

Expert insights

It has become considerably easier to get employees to comply to policies given the very large fines we've seen. Discipline leads to compliance.

But this messaging needs to come from the head of the business as a whole, not necessarily from compliance teams. Firms need to establish a culture of compliance from the top down. Given advances in technology, onboarding employees, devices, and channels has gotten easier. Having more controls in place within a business makes both employees using off-channel comms less prevalent, and data completeness more achievable.

Senior colleague
Multi-national bank

The tsunami of record keeping enforcement actions (notoriously referred to as the ‘WhatsApp fines’) have clearly made an impact.

Employees have undoubtedly been read the riot act and told that there is zero tolerance for non-compliance.

Emma Parry
Senior Advisor, Culture, Conduct, and Risk and
CEO & Founder of
NovaFin Consulting Ltd.

What are the main barriers to compliant communications?

Do firms struggle to meet regulatory requirements for business communications?

Almost a third of respondents – 30.8% – said that comprehensively monitoring all communications channels was their biggest communications compliance challenge. This represents a 6.5% increase from our 2024 survey, where 24.3% of respondents agreed that monitoring all communications channels was their biggest challenge.

While the challenge of monitoring all communications channels has increased since 2024, it is not causing firms as much difficulty as it used to.

Our 2023 survey found that 53.8% of respondents identified comprehensive monitoring their biggest challenge, perhaps influenced by the growth in compliant communications and surveillance solutions across business communications channels.

Part of this difficulty could stem from the sheer number of communications channels available to users – a number that is constantly growing as new channels come to market. A survey respondent identified “over 602” communications channels that they were aware of, with another respondent identifying that the biggest communications channel risk is:

“The ones we don’t know about. This landscape is constantly changing.”

Only 16% of respondents found that “ensuring solutions are in place for newly emerging channels” was their most pressing challenge in 2025. This may suggest that firms are placing higher priority on sourcing solutions for existing channels, and are not looking to integrate new means of communication that might emerge. Alternatively, they may feel their existing compliance solutions are able to manage new channels as they emerge.

While the challenge of monitoring channels has slightly increased, the number of respondents listing capturing and storing communications data as their main challenge has remained roughly consistent, with only a 3.3% decrease between 2024 and 2025’s survey results.

Expert insights

Good recordkeeping across all channels is not easy, especially as the number of communications channels continues to increase.

Basic archiving solutions do not allow for different channel storage, so may not be an adequate, future-proof solution. We’re also seeing regulators increasing their expectations around data completeness, making the need for thorough recordkeeping, channel capture, and surveillance even more pressing.

Rob Mason
Director,
Regulatory Intelligence,
Global Relay

Disparate data sources and bifurcation of compliance and technology resources, as well as jumbles of third-party partners and legacy architectures, can make it challenging for firms to access a single source of truth.

Knocking down silos within organizations can help improve the situation, but the drive to do this needs to come from the top of the house.

Ryan Sheridan
Senior Manager,
Regulatory Intelligence,
Global Relay

AI use is increasing

But at a steady pace

The conversation around artificial intelligence (AI) is inescapable, with AI technologies being implemented across nearly every business vertical at pace.

The financial services space has been no exception, with AI being a hot point of discussion over the last few years. However, its adoption curve within the sector has been slower than many would expect.

A third of respondents to our survey (33.1%) said that they were already utilizing AI within their compliance workflows. The primary use cases that respondents identified for AI in compliance included:

45.5% using AI to streamline workflows and processes
25.8% utilizing AI for communications monitoring and surveillance
21.2% using these technologies for eDiscovery and analytics

For those not already utilizing AI in their compliance workflows, 46% said that they intend to introduce AI technologies within the next 12 months. However, over half (54%) said they had no intention of implementing AI as part of their compliance strategy over the next year.

These numbers are consistent with our 2024 report findings, with 42.6% of respondents intending to introduce AI over the next year, and 57.4% saying they had no plans to. While 2025’s figures do indicate a slight shift towards a more “AI-positive” outlook, we are left with an impression that AI skeptics are still hesitant to fully embrace AI technologies.

Compliance vs. Surveillance – you can’t spell either without AI

The findings of the Global Relay Industry Insights: State of AI in Surveillance Report 2025, which assessed how surveillance teams were integrating AI into workflows, result in some interesting comparisons to how compliance teams more broadly view and leverage AI technologies.

It is interesting to track the similarities between surveillance and compliance respondents. There are generally consistent trends around AI adoption, with around a third of respondents already integrating AI technologies into their respective workflows, and on non-adoption, with another third of respondents showing no intention of leveraging AI within the coming year.

Both surveillance and compliance functions are under increasing pressure to “do more with less” in terms of budget and resource, and AI solutions will be under scrutiny to prove their suitability and return on investment (ROI). Surveillance and compliance workflows are also highly likely to involve large amounts of potentially sensitive data, and those with concerns around data privacy may be hesitant to expose that data to third-party AI systems.

This leaves pro-AI surveillance and compliance professionals needing to make a clear case for these technologies to multiple stakeholders and budget holders, which is no easy feat.

Interestingly, if unsurprisingly, how surveillance and compliance teams already leveraging AI use these technologies is very different, although both functions are utilizing AI for communications monitoring purposes including voice transcription and risk identification.

It is also unsurprising to see that both surveillance and compliance teams use AI to reduce their respective workloads, by streamlining compliance workflows and reducing surveillance false positives that would take considerable time to manually review. Clearly the benefits of AI are already being felt by professionals leveraging these technologies to free up valuable time for compliance and surveillance to take on higher value tasks, while maintaining (and increasing) levels of risk identification.

Expert insights

Recent technological advances in AI are moving the needle quickly when it comes to adoption, although AI technologies are still generally perceived as difficult, expensive, and only marginally effective for risk detection use cases.

Compliance teams are crying out for a tool that ‘just works’ without hours of training, tuning, and refinement. Many current AI solution providers are only supporting established risk detection technologies, weeding out some noise and adding a little value as a chat bot. True, effective AI for risk detection is a real game-changer for firms, and it will be very interesting to see if adoption numbers increase as organizations realize the value and availability of these solutions.

Don McElligott
Vice President,
Compliance Supervision,
Global Relay

I am already looking forward to next year’s survey results on how many institutions are using AI in their compliance processes.

Based on the pace of advancement of these technologies, I think we can expect to see the number of respondents not using AI in compliance practice come down significantly.

Alex Viall
Chief Strategy Officer,
Global Relay

It’s curious to see that over half of respondents not already utilizing AI in compliance workflows have no plans to introduce it in the immediate future.

Concerns may include budget and overall resourcing, as some AI solutions can be incredibly resource intensive to run and integrate into workflows.

Many firms are using AI chat bots to assist with internal communications and inbound requests, helping to point employees toward relevant policies and procedures. This undoubtedly helps compliance teams manage their most valuable resource – time.

Ryan Sheridan
Senior Manager,
Regulatory Intelligence,
Global Relay

There’s an interesting dichotomy underway as it relates to AI. Firstly, not all solutions utilize AI which might account for the 53.9% of firms who have ‘no plans’ to use it.

However, we know that regulators and central banks are increasingly using AI, which may be leading to other firms being confident in taking a more AI-forward approach.

Emma Parry
Senior Advisor, Culture, Conduct, and Risk and
CEO & Founder of
NovaFin Consulting Ltd.

Do firms see social media as a compliance risk?

And is it a risk worth taking?

Our 2025 survey found that over half of respondents (52.4%) believe that social media channels present a communications compliance risk. This has remained roughly consistent since 2024, with 55% of respondents seeing social media as presenting risk. Only 18.4% of respondents disagreed that social media channels are a communication compliance risk.

Social media channels are a firm fixture of the business communications landscape, utilized by organizations to communicate with other businesses, their target audiences, and the wider public.

But, with legislation and regulation governing aspects of their use, like the SEC Marketing Rule, and channels potentially blurring the lines of professional and personal use, they can present unique risks.

Given the prevalence of social media in regulatory and compliance news, it is easy to understand why over half of firms see it presenting risk:

In recent years firms have turned to well-known media or social media personalities, or “influencers,” to market their services or products to a wider audience. Regulators including the FCA and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) have issued fines against firms and undertaken legal proceedings against “finfluencers” and firms using their services to promote products non-compliantly.
The SEC’s Marketing Rule governs how firms can market products and services using social media channels, including stringent rules around “hypothetical performance.” We have seen several hefty fines issued under the Marketing Rule since it came into force in 2022.

Social media channels can blur the lines of professional and personal conduct, which can lead to reputational risks for individuals and the firms they represent, and the potential for those channels to be used for off-channel communications or other misconduct. Our Global Relay Data Insights: Communication Capture Trends in 2024/25 report found that 33% of firms were capturing social media data, with LinkedIn being the channel most often captured.
Social channels themselves can also present cybersecurity and reputational risk, with the SEC’s official X channel being hacked by an “unknown party” in early January 2024 and used to post misinformation on Bitcoin ETFs that resulted in a $40 billion market swing.

Expert insights

I am interested to see whether regulators start to supervise social media as an outlet for market abuse and other financial misconduct.

However, it may take a significant enforcement where collusion or manipulation has originated on social media to drive that shift.

Alex Viall
Chief Strategy Officer,
Global Relay

With fraud and scams on the rise on social media platforms, I’m not surprised to see firms identifying it as a risk.

Emma Parry
Senior Advisor, Culture, Conduct, and Risk and
CEO & Founder of
NovaFin Consulting Ltd.

Social media continues to be a significant concern, so it’s no surprise that over half of respondents see it as presenting a communications compliance risk.

Given the nature of social media channels blurring the lines of personal and professional communications, and its potential to sit outside of compliance and surveillance efforts as it is not a ‘traditional’ channel for business comms, it’s difficult to see how teams monitoring for market abuse can justify ignoring this risk area.

Rob Mason
Director, Regulatory Intelligence, Global Relay

Industry insights

Our survey respondents tell us how they are attempting to manage the risks presented by social media

At the moment we ban that kind of channel as an approved channel for business communication.

Compliance Officer, Insider Monitoring, Germany

Compliance reviews everything that is posted to LinkedIn. Only certain people at the firm can post content.

Anonymous respondent

Employees are only able to use approved social media channels for business communications where we can capture and retain the communication. Their accounts are captured and monitored, and they are only permitted to post material pre-approved by compliance.

Anonymous respondent

We maintain basic guidelines for employee use of social platforms, monitor official accounts for appropriate content, and ensure any sensitive information is not shared publicly. We are also open to reviewing or strengthening our policies if the need arises in the future.

Anonymous respondent

Discourage use.

Co-Managing Partner, Redwood Shores, CA

Industry insights

Our survey respondents tell us how they are attempting to manage the risks presented by social media

Archiving the social media profiles of any person that could be posting messages that could be required books and records.

CCO, Venture Capital and Hedge Fund, U.S.-based

We monitor some types of social media activities and restrict others.

Anonymous respondent

We only allow staff to use communications channels that can be archived and monitored. We also do not allow staff to conduct business, communicate with clients, or discuss personal information over social media.

Anonymous respondent

They are blocked, and staff sign an affidavit they will not use them.

Anonymous respondent

Industry insights

Our survey respondents tell us what concerns them most about social media as a risk.

Clear internal policies in social media usage could be a solution to avoid company reputation damage.

Program Coordinator, International Cooperation, Montreal, Canada

Compliance for future staff who only know social media as a means of communication.

Compliance manager, Commodities, London, U.K.

We should be responsible and understand that when we represent an organization, we should be really careful about what we post or speak.

Anonymous respondent

I think it’s not always the case that social media channels present a compliance risk for businesses. If it’s under your control, I don’t see a reason to feel there’s a risk involved.

Anonymous respondent

If the business is highly regulated, miscommunication or data leaks through social media can lead to serious legal or reputational consequences.

Anonymous respondent

The advisors are adults and responsible for adhering to our written policies and procedures. We don't authorize any communication method that we cannot confidently capture.

Anonymous respondent

Are North American firms more likely to ban channels?

How is your business managing electronic communication channels such as WhatsApp or WeChat?

It is unsurprising that North American firms would be most likely to ban WhatsApp use entirely given the recent history of enforcement actions against off-channel communications infractions.

However, a third of EMEA-based respondents confirmed that they also ban channels like WhatsApp, raising interesting questions as to whether some firms will always revert to banning channels as a catch-all compliance solution.

Over half of EMEA respondents confirmed that they are enabling all channels but monitoring them all – 22.8% higher than North American respondents.

As the most concentrated enforcements against off-channel communications came from U.S. regulators, it is perhaps unsurprising that North American organizations would take a less permissive approach to channel enablement, reacting with caution and choosing to ban channels instead.

Are North American firms more likely to ban channels?

How is your business managing electronic communication channels such as WhatsApp or WeChat?

The higher instance of “rest of world” respondents (26.3%) admitting to not having a clear communications compliance plan could be attributed to the fact that the most focus on communications compliance enforcement has come from North American regulators.

This may mean that firms from other territories do not feel the need to develop clear strategies – although regulators like the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) still have clear expectations around communications recordkeeping.

Are North American firms more likely to ban channels?

How much do you agree that banning communications channels is an effective solution?

Over half of North American survey respondents believe that banning communications channels is an effective solution, compared to just 31.7% of EMEA respondents.

When considered alongside the numbers of EMEA-based firms that are electing to enable channels (52.4%) and the higher instance of North American respondents banning channels, it is unsurprising to see that North American respondents believe bans to be an effective solution.

There is a clear communications compliance cultural divide between North America and EMEA.

Are North American firms more likely to ban channels?

What aspect of meeting regulatory requirements for business comms do you find most challenging?

Considering that EMEA-based firms are more likely to enable the use of channels like WhatsApp, compared to North American firms which are statistically more likely to implement channel bans, it is unsurprising that considerably more EMEA respondents list comprehensively monitoring all channels as their biggest challenge compared to North American or RoW respondents.

It is interesting that, despite more EMEA-based respondents electing to enable and capture all channels, fewer list data storage as their biggest challenge compared to North America and RoW respondents.

This may indicate that EMEA firms, by looking to enable more channels for use, have implemented compliant archiving and data capture solutions, meaning that they find data storage and capture less challenging.

Are North American firms more likely to ban channels?

What aspect of meeting regulatory requirements for business comms do you find most challenging?

Interestingly, getting staff to comply with communications policies is a consistent challenge across all geographies, though slightly higher in North America.

However, when compared to the overall average of previous years (65.2% across all territories in 2024) there has been a considerable drop worldwide in firms struggling to get employees to comply with policies and rules.

Implementing solutions for emerging channels is seen as the least significant challenge for firms across all territories.

This can perhaps be attributed to firms focusing on challenges they feel impact them in the present, such as existing communications channels, or firms being confident that the compliance solutions they are currently leveraging will be adequate to address all future channels as they emerge.

Are North American firms still more skeptical of AI?

The geographical splits here broadly mirror the general findings of the report, with around a third of respondents already leveraging AI for compliance workflows and around two-thirds currently not utilizing AI.

Interestingly, RoW respondents show a slightly higher instance of AI use, perhaps indicating more enthusiasm and fewer concerns about the impacts of AI technologies outside of EMEA and North America.

Are North American firms still more skeptical of AI?

What primary use case are you utilizing AI for?

While the majority of firms in both EMEA and North America are utilizing AI to streamline compliance workflows and processes, it is interesting that EMEA respondents did not say they were using AI technologies for eDiscovery and analytics.

The use cases leveraged by EMEA firms are well-established uses for AI technologies that perhaps speak to a hesitance to employ AI for purposes that might require adding “sensitive” or business-critical data into AI models.

The high instance of use of AI for communications and surveillance among North American respondents could indicate that firms are leveraging AI to assist in managing off-channel communications and related misconduct in the wake of the SEC’s ongoing enforcement drive.

Are North American firms still more skeptical of AI?

Do firms not already using AI for compliance plan to introduce it in the next year?

There is a clear geographical divide between EMEA and North America and RoW respondents when it comes to introducing AI into workflows in the next year. Nearly twice as many (56.3%) North American respondents said they had no intention of introducing AI compared to EMEA respondents.

This maps a continuing trend: Our 2024 survey found that 65.9% of respondents in North America had no intention of introducing AI, compared to 72.7% of EMEA respondents that planned to introduce AI technologies. Although the totals for North American respondents have shifted over the last year (2024: 34.1% Yes / 65.9% No vs. 2025: 43.7% Yes / 56.3% No) representing a slightly less AI-skeptical outlook, EMEA respondents are still much more “AI-positive.”

This can perhaps be attributed to the current regulatory environment of AI within both territories. The EU AI Act has set a clear intention to establish regulatory guardrails around AI use. The SEC has recently shifted towards a “technology neutral” approach to AI innovation, which may embolden firms that were waiting to see potential regulatory stances on AI technology use and development before investing in integrating AI into their workflows.

Disclaimer

This report and the graphs therein refer to data collected by Global Relay Communications Inc. The information, materials, and opinions contained in this report are for general information purposes only, are not intended to constitute legal or other professional advice, and should not be relied on or treated as a substitute for specific advice relevant to particular circumstances.

Global Relay Communications Inc makes no warranties, representations, or undertakings about any of the content of this report (including, without limitation, any as to the quality, accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any particular purpose of such content), or any content of any other website referred to or accessed by hyperlinks through the report. Although we make reasonable efforts to update the information on our reports, we make no representations, warranties or guarantees, whether express or implied, that the content is accurate, complete, or up-to-date.

_{Copyright © 1999-2025 Global Relay Communications Inc. Proprietary. All Rights Reserved. Not to be reproduced or distributed without permission. All trademarks are the property of their respective owners. No implication of endorsement by or affiliation with these third parties is intended.}

_{March 2025}