If a bank has closed your account, refused your application, or a transaction has been blocked without explanation, a World-Check entry is among the most likely causes. This guide explains the legal process for disputing wrong data in World-Check One, operated by Refinitiv (LSEG), and the options available when Refinitiv does not cooperate.
What Is World-Check and Why It Matters
World-Check One is a financial crime screening database used by over 10,000 financial institutions in 170+ countries. It aggregates data from sanctions lists, court records, adverse media, PEP registers, and government publications to create risk profiles for individuals and companies. When a bank, fintech, or regulated business screens your name, a World-Check flag can trigger account closures, refused transactions, and KYC failures — simultaneously, across every subscribing institution.
The database is operated by Refinitiv, which was acquired by London Stock Exchange Group (LSEG) in 2021. Disputes are addressed to Refinitiv as the data controller for World-Check.
Step 1: Submit a Subject Access Request
Before you can dispute data, you need to know what data Refinitiv holds about you. Under GDPR Article 15, you have the right to request all personal data held about you by Refinitiv, including the full World-Check profile, the categories of risk assigned, the sources used, and the legal basis for processing.
A Subject Access Request (SAR) to Refinitiv must be submitted in writing — by email or postal address to their data protection team. Refinitiv has one calendar month to respond. Where the request is complex, they may extend this by two additional months but must inform you of the extension within the initial month.
Step 2: Assess the Grounds for Challenge
Once you have the World-Check data, you can assess the legal grounds for a challenge. The main grounds are:
- Inaccuracy (GDPR Article 16): The entry contains factually wrong information — wrong identity, incorrect risk category, or data that has been publicly corrected at the original source.
- Outdated information (GDPR Article 17): The entry reflects a matter that has been resolved, a status that has changed, or a conviction that has been spent or overturned. Continued retention without a current justification is processing without a valid legal basis.
- False positive: The entry does not refer to you at all — your name matches or resembles a genuinely flagged individual, and Refinitiv has conflated the two.
- Disproportionate processing (GDPR Article 5): The retention of the data is not proportionate to the legitimate aim being pursued — for example, retaining an entry indefinitely based on an allegation that was never proven.
Step 3: Submit a Formal Legal Demand
A formal legal demand is different from a standard dispute request. It is a legal document that: (1) identifies the specific data to be corrected or deleted; (2) states the legal basis for the demand under GDPR; (3) requires Refinitiv to confirm compliance within a specified timeframe; and (4) states the escalation path if Refinitiv does not comply — regulatory complaint to the relevant data protection authority and/or civil proceedings under GDPR Article 82.
In our experience, formal legal demands receive substantively different responses from Refinitiv than standard consumer requests. They are handled by Refinitiv legal and compliance rather than the standard data rights administrative team, and the response quality and speed differ materially.
Step 4: Escalate if Refinitiv Does Not Comply
Where Refinitiv fails to comply with a valid erasure or rectification demand within the statutory period, the escalation paths are:
- Supervisory authority complaint: Filing a formal complaint with the ICO (UK), the relevant EU data protection authority, or the applicable regulator in your jurisdiction. The supervisory authority can investigate, issue enforcement notices, and impose fines.
- Civil proceedings under GDPR Article 82: A court claim for compensation for material and non-material damage caused by Refinitiv’s unlawful processing. Damages can include quantifiable financial losses (banking fees, lost contracts) and non-material damages for distress and reputational harm.
After a Successful Dispute: What Happens Next
When Refinitiv corrects or removes your World-Check entry, the updated data propagates to subscribing institutions at their next database refresh. This does not automatically reverse decisions already made — banks that have closed accounts or refused applications based on the old data require separate engagement. Where the dispute is successful, we advise on institutional follow-up as a standard step.
Do You Need a Lawyer for a World-Check Dispute?
For straightforward cases — a single clear factual error with documented proof — a well-prepared SAR and correction request may achieve the result without legal representation. For cases involving banking consequences, GDPR enforcement, compliance database cascades across multiple institutions, or where Refinitiv has previously refused to act, legal representation significantly improves the outcome. See our World-Check removal lawyer and World-Check false positive services for how we approach these cases.