Reverse Solicitation After MiCA’s Transitional Period: An Exception, Not an Exit Strategy

Since 1 July 2026, any crypto-asset service provider operating without a MiCA licence can no longer serve EU clients under national transitional regimes.

ESMA’s public statement on the matter is unconditional on this point: unauthorised CASPs must immediately stop onboarding new EU clients and limit any further activity to actions necessary to sell, transfer or close out existing clients’ positions – regardless of whether the relevant Member State had adjusted its national law to MiCA. There is no exemption that allows a firm previously operating under a national transitional regime to retain its existing EU client base once that regime lapses.

Source: ESMA | Date: 2026-06-23
Link

A separate, and much narrower, question is whether a third-country firm that was never registered or authorised in the EU at all can still serve an EU client who approaches it entirely on their own initiative. This is the reverse solicitation exemption under Article 61 of MiCA, and it is the subject of ESMA’s guidelines (ESMA35-1872330276-2030). It is not a route back into the market for firms winding down former transitional-regime relationships – it applies, case by case, only to genuinely unprompted, one-off contact initiated by the client, not to an ongoing relationship that already exists.

Source: ESMA | Date: 2025-02-26
Link

What counts as “solicitation” is defined broadly

Under Article 61 of MiCA, a third-country firm loses the benefit of the exemption the moment it is deemed to have solicited an EU client, rather than been approached by one. ESMA’s guidelines define solicitation in a deliberately broad, technology-neutral way: it covers not only direct advertising but also country-specific SEO strategies, geo-targeted digital ads, sponsorship of EU or Member State sporting events, the use of remunerated influencers, and websites in an official EU language that is not customary in international finance, without a legitimate commercial rationale unrelated to targeting EU clients.

ESMA also notes that even sponsoring an international sporting competition involving EU teams or athletes may amount to solicitation for the purposes of Article 61. This does not prohibit such sponsorship, but it does prevent the firm from relying on the reverse solicitation exemption.

Solicitation carried out by a third party acting on the firm’s behalf — including informally, without a written contract – is treated the same as solicitation by the firm itself.

“Client’s own exclusive initiative” is construed narrowly

Even where the client genuinely makes the initial approach, the exemption remains narrowly confined to that specific client-initiated relationship. ESMA stresses that reverse solicitation must be assessed on the facts of each case, and contractual disclaimers cannot override the actual circumstances. The timing of any subsequent communication is also relevant: marketing or promotional messages sent after the initial transaction – including push notifications encouraging clients to return to the platform or trade additional assets – may indicate that the relationship has evolved into active solicitation rather than remaining based on the client’s exclusive initiative. Article 61(2) allows a third-country firm to market crypto-assets or services of the same type only in the context of the original client-initiated transaction, not as an ongoing marketing relationship.

The guidelines also make clear that the concept of crypto-assets of the “same type” must be interpreted narrowly and assessed case by case. They include a non-exhaustive list of crypto-asset categories that should not normally be regarded as being of the same type, including utility tokens, asset-referenced tokens and electronic money tokens.

Supervisors are actively looking for circumvention

The guidelines also instruct national competent authorities to actively monitor for firms attempting to disguise solicitation as reverse solicitation – through SEO and social media monitoring tools, cooperation with other authorities (including tax authorities and police), and follow-up on client complaints or whistle-blower reports. This is not a passive compliance framework; ESMA’s annex lists an extensive set of practical circumvention scenarios competent authorities are told to watch for.

Compliance across the EU and Baltic states

As of ESMA’s latest compliance table, most EU competent authorities, including the Bank of Lithuania, Latvijas Banka and Estonian Finantsinspektsioon, have confirmed compliance with the reverse solicitation guidelines. The remaining exceptions are procedural rather than substantive: Belgium, Poland and Romania are currently listed as “non-compliant by default” because the competent authority responsible for MiCA supervision has not yet been formally designated.

Source: ESMA | Date: 2026-06-29
Link

Practical takeaway

For EU clients of firms that were operating under national transitional regimes, the position is straightforward: those clients cannot be retained, and firms must wind down and inform them of a deadline to withdraw, transfer or reallocate their assets. Reverse solicitation is not a substitute business model or a way to preserve that client base – it applies only to case-by-case, genuinely unprompted contact from a client to a firm with no prior EU registration, and the burden of proof sits with the firm to demonstrate each instance was truly self-initiated. Any ongoing marketing, cross-selling, or automated re-engagement is a clear signal that the exemption does not apply.

How ECOVIS ProventusLaw can help crypto platforms

At ECOVIS ProventusLaw, we advise firms navigating MiCA implementation across the EEA. Among our recent clients: Match Networks Ltd., Proof Space Pte. Ltd., Aethir Network Foundation Company, Trek Technologies SIA, Trek Labs UAB (Backpack Token) and others.

ECOVIS ProventusLaw is a top-tier law firm operating across Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia and is part of the ECOVIS International network, which is present in more than 90 countries worldwide. The firm has helped clients secure more than 40 FinTech licenses end to end.