Schippers, Renken and Keysers (NeuroImage, 2011) present a simulation of multi-subject lag-based causality estimation. We fully agree that single-subject evaluations (e.g., Smith et al., 2011) need to be revisited in the context of multi-subject studies, and Schippers' paper is a good example, including detailed multi-level simulation and cross-subject statistical modelling. The authors conclude that “the average chance to find a significant Granger causality effect when no actual influence is present in the data stays well below the p-level imposed on the second level statistics” and that “when the analyses reveal a significant directed influence, this direction was accurate in the vast majority of the cases”. Unfortunately, we believe that the general meaning that may be taken from these statements is not supported by the paper's results, as there may in reality be a systematic (group-average) difference in haemodynamic delay between two brain areas. While many statements in the paper (e.g., the final two sentences) do refer to this problem, we fear that the overriding message that many readers may take from the paper could cause misunderstanding. ► Group-level FMRI simulations can be useful to test methods such as Granger causality. ► Simulation results need careful evaluation and interpretation. ► There is ample evidence of haemodynamic variability across regions and voxels. ► Lag-based FMRI causality analysis may be biassed by such variation. ► This confound should be considered when reporting lag-based results.