Skip to content
PeekWellThe Handbook
Join now

CMA fake reviews guidance: reviews that look genuine

At a glance

UK-13HighDMCCA 2024, s. 225 and Sch. 20 para. 13 (banned practice, in force 6 April 2025); CMA direct enforcement

Peeky looks at the reviews and testimonials on a public page, whether the page says how they were checked, and flags text or photos that look possibly fabricated.

Last checked against the source:

I need to fix thisI need the rule

The rule

Since 6 April 2025 fake reviews have been a banned practice in the UK, not a matter for a case-by-case fairness test. The banned practices sit in Schedule 20 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA), which section 225 brings into the general prohibition on unfair commercial practices. Section 225(4) lists Schedule 20 practices, “commercial practices which are in all circumstances considered unfair”, among those the Act prohibits.

Paragraph 13 covers four things. The first is “submitting, or commissioning another person to submit or write” either “a fake consumer review” or “a consumer review that conceals the fact it has been incentivised”. The second is publishing consumer reviews or review information “in a misleading way” (para. 13(2)), which includes removing negative reviews while publishing positive ones and giving greater prominence to one kind. The third is “publishing consumer reviews, or consumer review information, without taking such reasonable and proportionate steps as are necessary” to prevent the publication of fake reviews and of reviews that conceal an incentive, with matching duties to remove them. The fourth is offering services to traders to do or facilitate the first or second (para. 13(4)). “Commissioning” includes incentivising by any means. A “fake consumer review” is “a consumer review that purports to be, but is not, based on a person’s genuine experience”. Concealment arises where a person has been commissioned to write the review “and that fact is not made apparent”.

The wording turns on what a review purports to be. It does not turn on who runs the site. It reaches the trader who writes or buys a review, the agency that arranges it, and the business that publishes reviews written by others. The Schedule 20 provisions came into force on 6 April 2025 under SI 2025/272.

The CMA’s guidance sets out what it expects. For businesses and agencies it says not to “pretend to be a customer and write reviews”, not to “commission third parties to write fake reviews – you may be liable for their actions”, and not to “offer inducements (money or gifts) to customers to write positive reviews”. It tells agencies that both they and their clients risk breaking the law if fake reviews are arranged, and it states the consequence as “a fine of up to 10% of global turnover, and potentially be a criminal offence”. For sites that publish reviews, the guidance says to “subject both negative and positive reviews to checks of the appropriate rigour”, to have “procedures in place to prevent and remove fake reviews”, to make clear “how reviews have been collected and checked”, and not to “edit, withhold, remove or delay publication of genuine negative reviews”. It also says not to collect reviews only from customers known to be satisfied, “unless these are clearly labelled as testimonials”.

The CMA does not need a court to decide these cases. Its press release on the Amazon undertakings says that under the DMCCA the CMA can itself decide whether consumer law has been broken and impose fines of up to 10% of global turnover, without going through the courts.

What PeekWell checks and how

UK-13 reads the reviews and testimonials a visitor can see on a public page and asks two things. Does the page say whether and how they were checked? Do any of them look possibly fabricated?

The scan is automated. It finds the reviews and testimonials on your public pages and looks for a statement about how they were collected or checked. A page with reviews and no such statement is recorded as observed that way.

The second answer is a flag, not a fact. The scan looks for signs a review may not be genuine, such as the same wording across several reviews or a photo that also turns up elsewhere. Anything like that is reported as possibly fabricated and worth a second look. It never says a review is fake. A real customer may have had help with the wording or reused a picture.

The check is the same as EU-11 and US-01. Only the rule it’s read against changes.

The scan has limits, and the report says so. It sees the public pages it visited, and the members area when you give it a sign-in. It doesn’t contact reviewers, check reviews against your orders, or see what your review service held back. It doesn’t read your agency contracts, so it can’t tell whether a review was commissioned or incentivised. The Act’s incentive wording needs knowledge of how the review came about, and the scan has none. A Passed means the expected behaviour was observed on the pages scanned. It doesn’t say the site complies.

Why it matters for a company

The CMA has used its review powers in three ways, and each applies to a different kind of business.

It has taken undertakings from large platforms. Google offered changes in January 2025, and Amazon followed in June 2025. Amazon’s undertakings commit it to systems for detecting and removing fake reviews and “catalogue abuse”, where reviews of a well-performing product are moved to a different one, and to sanctions that can include a ban from selling. These were undertakings given after investigation, with no fine in either case.

It has also opened cases under the new regime. On 27 March 2026 it announced investigations into five businesses, opened the day before. Autotrader and Feefo are examined over whether moderated 1-star reviews were not published or counted towards star ratings. Dignity is examined over whether it asked staff to write positive reviews. Just Eat is examined over star ratings that may have been inflated. Pasta Evangelists is examined over discounts offered for 5-star reviews on delivery apps. The CMA’s case pages say that “it should not be assumed” that any of them has infringed and “no finding has been made”.

Finally, it has written to publishers. The CMA says it swept more than 100 review publishers and sent advisory letters to 54.

For a company, the cases suggest where review problems tend to come from: how reviews are collected, which ones are published, and what staff or agencies were asked to do. The statement of how reviews are checked is where a regulator or a reader first looks.

Smaller companies and larger companies

The ban has no size threshold. The standard for hosts, reasonable and proportionate steps, scales with what a business can do, but the ban on writing or commissioning fake reviews applies to everyone.

In a small business the risk is usually informal. A founder asks friends and family to post a few 5-star reviews at launch. A freelancer is briefed to “get the Google rating up”. A shop offers a discount code in exchange for a review and the review does not say so. Staff post under their own names without saying who they work for. None of this is hidden on purpose. The page simply carries it with no label. The CMA’s Pasta Evangelists case concerns this kind of arrangement, offered at a discount in exchange for 5-star ratings, though it is an open investigation and not a finding.

In a larger business the same behaviour arrives through process. Review invitations are sent only to customers likely to be happy. An agency runs a seeding programme. Moderation rules sit with a vendor, and no one can say why some 1-star reviews never appear. The Autotrader and Feefo investigation is about that gap between the business, its vendor and what the public sees.

Enforcement cases

Published decisions about other companies, listed for context. Each links to the authority's own page. They say nothing about any particular website.

The Officer, squinting at a file.

Larger companies

  • Amazon

    CMA (United Kingdom), 2025No fine; undertakings

    The CMA investigated whether Amazon had done enough to protect people from fake reviews, including detecting and removing them, responding to suspicious patterns and sanctioning those involved. On 6 June 2025 Amazon gave undertakings to put in place systems to detect and remove fake reviews and 'catalogue abuse', to sanction sellers and reviewers, and to improve reporting.

    Read the CMA (United Kingdom) publication about Amazon
  • Google

    CMA (United Kingdom), 2025No fine; undertakings

    The CMA's concern was that Google might not have done enough to protect people from fake reviews. On 24 January 2025 Google offered undertakings including stronger detection and removal, posting bans for repeat offenders, warning alerts on UK business profiles that use fake reviews, and three years of reporting to the CMA.

    Read the CMA (United Kingdom) publication about Google
  • Facebook (Facebook.com and Instagram)

    CMA (United Kingdom), 2021No fine; commitments

    After the CMA found that fake and misleading reviews were still being bought and sold on Facebook and Instagram despite commitments given in 2020, Facebook removed a further 16,000 groups trading in them. It also agreed to suspend or ban users who repeatedly create such groups and profiles and to improve automated detection.

    Read the CMA (United Kingdom) publication about Facebook (Facebook.com and Instagram)

Smaller companies

  • Total SEO & Marketing Ltd

    CMA (United Kingdom), 2016No fine; undertakings

    The CMA found that between 2014 and 2015 the marketing firm wrote more than 800 fake positive reviews for 86 small businesses, published on 26 review websites. The company and its directors undertook to stop and to take steps to remove the reviews, and the CMA wrote to the client businesses warning that third parties writing fake reviews on their behalf might lead to them breaking the law themselves.

    Read the CMA (United Kingdom) publication about Total SEO & Marketing Ltd
  • Tonic Nutrition Ltd (Tonic Health)

    ASA (United Kingdom), 2025No fine; ruling upheld

    The ASA found that the product review page on the company's website showed identical review text twice under two different customer names, and that duplicated reviews were still appearing months after the company said a technical error had been fixed. It concluded the testimonials were not genuine and gave the impression that more customers had independently praised the product than was the case.

    Read the ASA (United Kingdom) publication about Tonic Nutrition Ltd (Tonic Health)
  • Viva Doors Ltd (VivaFolio)

    ASA (United Kingdom), 2023No fine; ruling upheld

    The ASA found that the company's website showed a Trustpilot logo with five stars beneath it, which consumers would read as a five-star Trustpilot rating, when the company did not hold that rating at the time. The company did not respond to the ASA's enquiries.

    Read the ASA (United Kingdom) publication about Viva Doors Ltd (VivaFolio)
  • ZING Oral Care Ltd (ZING Toothpaste)

    ASA (United Kingdom), 2026No fine; ruling upheld

    The ASA found that Facebook ads showed Trustpilot-style five-star ratings with claims such as 'Excellent, based on 13,183 reviews', when the company's Trustpilot page had fewer than 100 reviews and a four-star rating. The company said a change of review provider had reset its profile, but it gave no evidence that the ratings shown were genuine.

    Read the ASA (United Kingdom) publication about ZING Oral Care Ltd (ZING Toothpaste)
  • Banquist Ltd (Winedrops)

    ASA (United Kingdom), 2025No fine; ruling upheld

    The ASA found that a social media ad showed a five-star rating styled like Trustpilot's, when the review and rating had been left by one customer on the company's own website and was not its Trustpilot rating. It told the company not to imply that reviews from its own website came from third-party review sites.

    Read the ASA (United Kingdom) publication about Banquist Ltd (Winedrops)
  • Airbrush UK

    ASA (United Kingdom), 2026No fine; ruling upheld

    The ASA found that five-star reviews on the hair styling tool seller's website were shown with photos featuring a different brand's styling tool and, in one case, an image taken from an unrelated social media user. The company did not respond or provide evidence that the testimonials were genuine, and the ASA concluded they were misleading.

    Read the ASA (United Kingdom) publication about Airbrush UK
  • Brian Oxton (Oasis Landscapes and Bespoke Chester)

    Flintshire County Council Trading Standards (United Kingdom), 2025Eight-month suspended sentence, curfew and unpaid work; £13,000 compensation and costs paid

    Flintshire Trading Standards found that the landscape gardener used trusted-trader review cards carrying positive reviews he had written himself, along with online reviews posted by people outside the UK and photographs of other companies' work presented as his own. He pleaded guilty to one charge under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations.

    Read the Flintshire County Council Trading Standards (United Kingdom) publication about Brian Oxton (Oasis Landscapes and Bespoke Chester)

How to fix it

These steps are practical, not legal advice.

  1. Find every review and testimonial on your pages. Include product pages, landing pages, case studies and ad images. Write down where each came from.
  2. Take down anything you cannot trace to a real customer. A quote you wrote yourself, or that an agency supplied, should not be shown as a customer’s experience.
  3. Label testimonials. If you choose praise to show, mark it as testimonials, as the CMA’s guidance describes. Do not show a hand-picked set as if it were all your reviews.
  4. Disclose incentives in the review. If a reviewer got a discount, a free product or payment, the review should make that apparent. Do not make any reward depend on a positive rating.
  5. Publish negative reviews too. Ask your review service how it moderates, and whether 1-star reviews are held, delayed or left out of the average. Adjust the settings so the same rules apply to every review.
  6. Write it down for agencies and staff. Contracts and briefs should rule out fake or concealed-incentive reviews. Tell staff not to post about the business without saying who they are.
  7. Say how reviews are collected and checked. Put a short note next to the reviews, in the same place a visitor reads them.
  8. Re-scan. Run a scan again. The note should now be found, and flagged items should be gone or explained.

Questions

Are fake reviews banned in the UK?

Yes. Since 6 April 2025 the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 lists fake consumer reviews as a practice that is unfair in all circumstances. It covers writing or commissioning them, and reviews that hide the fact that they were incentivised. The CMA can decide cases itself and fine up to 10% of global turnover, according to its guidance.

Can I give customers a discount for a review?

You can offer something, but it must not depend on the review being positive, and the review must make the incentive clear. The Act bans reviews that conceal they were incentivised. The CMA's guidance says not to offer inducements for positive reviews.

What does the CMA expect from a site that shows reviews?

Reasonable and proportionate steps to stop fake and concealed-incentive reviews being published, and to remove them. The CMA's guidance for review sites also asks for clear information on how reviews are collected and checked. It says not to withhold or delay genuine negative reviews.

Does the DMCC Act cover testimonials on my own site?

The Act defines a fake review as one that purports to be based on a person's genuine experience but is not. The CMA's guidance accepts business-chosen testimonials if they are clearly labelled as testimonials. If a quote is presented as a real customer's, it has to be one.

How can I check whether the reviews on my site are real?

Peeky gives you a first pass. It reads the reviews and testimonials on a public page and looks for a note on how they're collected or checked, and for signs that a review isn't genuine. Anything flagged is reported as possibly fabricated, never as fake.

Where each review came from is something only your own records can show. How a scan works has the full path.

Filed with

The rule

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, s. 225 and Schedule 20, para. 13 (fake consumer reviews)

Read the rule (Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, s. 225 and Schedule 20, para. 13 (fake consumer reviews))

A case

Amazon

CMA (United Kingdom), 2025

Read the decision (Amazon)

Your site

Is your website affected? Join now to find out.

Join now

Sources

The law

  1. Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, Schedule 20 (unfair commercial practices: fake consumer reviews), paragraph 13
  2. Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, section 225 (unfair commercial practices)
  3. Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Commencement No. 2) Regulations 2025 (SI 2025/272)

Guidance

  1. CMA, Fake reviews guidance (CMA208, 4 April 2025)
  2. CMA, Reviews and social media endorsements: guidance for businesses and brands (updated 28 August 2025)
  3. CMA, Reviews: guidance for online review sites (3 September 2025)
  4. CAP Code, section 3: Misleading advertising (includes the rules on endorsements and testimonials)

Decisions and cases

  1. CMA, Online consumer reviews: case page, including the July 2025 website review of more than 100 businesses
  2. CMA, Fake and misleading reviews: 5 businesses under CMA investigation (27 March 2026)
  3. CMA, Pasta Evangelists: consumer protection enforcement case (opened 26 March 2026)
  4. CMA, Amazon gives undertakings to CMA to curb fake reviews (6 June 2025)
  5. CMA, CMA secures important changes from Google to tackle fake reviews (24 January 2025)
  6. CMA, CMA intervention leads to further Facebook action on fake reviews (9 April 2021)
  7. CMA, Facebook and eBay pledge to combat trading in fake reviews (8 January 2020)
  8. CMA, Fake and misleading online reviews trading: case page (closed 9 April 2021)
  9. CMA, CMA takes enforcement action against fake online reviews (Total SEO & Marketing Ltd, 4 March 2016)
  10. CMA, Fake online reviews: case page and undertakings (Total SEO & Marketing Ltd, closed 4 March 2016)
  11. CMA, Online review sites commit to improve practices (Checkatrade, Trustatrader, Carehome.co.uk, Care Opinion and Most Recommended Care, 11 February 2016)
  12. ASA Ruling on Tonic Nutrition Ltd t/a Tonic Health, 16 July 2025
  13. ASA Ruling on Viva Doors Ltd, 12 April 2023
  14. ASA Ruling on ZING Oral Care Ltd t/a ZING Toothpaste, 11 February 2026
  15. ASA Ruling on Banquist Ltd t/a Winedrops, 5 February 2025
  16. ASA Ruling on Airbrush UK (testimonials not shown to be genuine), 29 July 2026
  17. Flintshire County Council, Flintshire Trading Standards prosecutes landscape gardener, 17 January 2025
  18. ASA Ruling on AHK Designs Ltd t/a Victoriaplum.com (Trustpilot rating and review count carried over from a predecessor business), 22 May 2024

Last checked against the source:

For information only. Not legal advice.