This alert is part of our DMCC mini-series, where we spotlight the latest changes businesses need to know. Here, we focus on the new rules under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC), and the accompanying guidance from the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) targeting fake reviews.
What’s changing? The new provisions clamp down on practices like posting fake reviews, failing to disclose incentivised reviews, and misrepresenting consumer review content. In this alert, we unpack what qualifies as a “banned review”, key elements of the new rules, and what businesses must now do to remain compliant.
For a wider look at DMCC guidance, enforcement priorities, and market trends, read our general article. For a detailed analysis of the price transparency and subscription rules, see our separate alert in this series.
The complexity of fake reviews
The DMCC takes direct aim at banned reviews by prohibiting fake reviews, undisclosed incentivised reviews, and the misleading use or presentation of consumer reviews and related information. Any conduct falling within this scope is automatically deemed unfair. As a result, businesses need to understand the nuances of these rules to ensure their review practices remain compliant. Again, the rules have a broad reach, applying to so-called “publishers”, a category that includes not only traders but also intermediaries such as search engines, online marketplaces, social media platforms, and even print publications.
While the outright ban on fake reviews marks a fresh addition to consumer law, the CMA hasn’t exactly been sitting on its hands. It previously addressed hidden incentivised reviews to crack down on this practice across multiple platforms. So, rather than a radical shift, the DMCC represents a tightening of the screws by introducing a more detailed and prescriptive framework for the CMA to follow.
What is a no-go?
Under the DMCC, the following fake reviews are now expressly banned:
- Submitting or commissioning consumer reviews that are fake or misleading.
- Offering to submit or commission consumer reviews that are fake or misleading.
- Publishing consumer reviews or consumer review information in a misleading way.
- Operating a customer review system without taking steps to prevent and remove fake reviews.
The truth about fake reviews
To understand what constitutes a fake review, it helps to reverse-engineer the definitions:
- “Consumer review” refers to any feedback about a product, trader, or anything else that could influence a consumer’s decision to buy, including written blogs, comments on product listings, opinions expressed in videos, or star ratings that appear next to the listing. The reviews do not have to be written directly by consumers to fall within this definition.
- “Consumer review information” includes aggregated data based on reviews, such as overall ratings, rankings, or review counts. This goes beyond what most would typically consider to fall within the scope of fake reviews.
By working backward from these definitions, a fake review is one that claims to be based on a genuine experience but isn’t. Whether intended to boost or damage a product or service, if it misleads consumers about quality, performance, or suitability, it’s prohibited. The ban on fake reviews covers various media – including text, speech, and image – and applies to both online and analogue formats.
Not quite fake, but not quite real – “misleading ways”
And how is a review published in a “misleading way”? Even genuine reviews can be problematic if they’re published in a misleading way, and under the DMCC, that’s equally off-limits. In short, it’s not just about whether a review is genuine – it’s also about how it is used and presented. Publishing a review in a misleading way could include:
- Cherry-picking only favourable reviews while omitting negative ones.
- Keeping outdated reviews online after a product has significantly changed.
- Review hijacking, where reviews for one product are used to promote another.
- Framing or presenting review content in a way that encourages consumers to form inaccurate impressions.
No secrets here: “concealed incentivised reviews”
The DMCC has made one thing crystal clear: if you’re incentivising reviews, don’t hide it.
“Concealed incentivised reviews” are banned. This includes situations where the incentive – whether money, discounts, complimentary stays, or even a special invite to an event – isn’t clearly disclosed. The CMA is keeping a close watch on this, so businesses need to be upfront about what’s behind those glowing (or negative) reviews. However, the keyword in regard to this banned practice is “concealed” – incentivising reviews is not outright prohibited, as long as it is not done in secret.
Real-life examples that violate the DMCC’s guidelines include influencer reviews that are not clearly marked as incentivised. In these cases, both the business commissioning the review and the influencer who failed to disclose the incentive may be held responsible for breaching the guidelines. Businesses should require influencers to clearly state when a review is incentivised.
Other common pitfalls include:
- Asking for five-star reviews on social media in exchange for free products.
- Posting a positive review where the reviewer received the product for free without mentioning it upfront, and hiding that information behind a “Learn more” link.
- Reaching out to customers who left negative reviews and offering them a refund or gift card in exchange for altering their review to remove the criticism.
The takeaway? Transparency is key. Incentives aren’t forbidden, but hiding them is – businesses must ensure that incentives are disclosed and reviews reflect genuine customer experiences.
Enforcement
The CMA initially allowed a three-month grace period following the introduction of the new rules in April 2025, lasting until 6 July 2025, as outlined in its Approach to Consumer Protection document. During this time, the CMA prioritised other areas of the DMCC and worked with businesses to support compliance. But that phase is now over. Since then, the CMA has reviewed the websites of over 100 businesses to see whether they have clear, accessible policies banning fake reviews and setting out its approach to incentivised ones. The results? More than half (54, to be exact) may be falling short. Some had no policy at all; others had policies that were buried, vague, or missing key details.
Concerned by these gaps, the CMA is now writing to those 54 businesses, reminding them that policies to prevent fake reviews aren't optional, and must be visible, specific, and meaningful. Each business is being asked to confirm what steps it has taken (or plans to take) to comply.
As the CMA transitions from a supportive role to a more enforcement-driven approach, it is essential that businesses have robust compliance measures in place. Proactive preparation will be key to avoiding regulatory action and ensuring alignment with the CMA’s expectations moving forward.
What actions should businesses be taking?
The DMCC introduces a positive obligation to take reasonable and proportionate steps to prevent and remove banned reviews and false or misleading consumer review information. Given the broad definition of “publisher”, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to the required actions; however, all publishers must:
- Have a clear, accessible prevention and removal policy for banned reviews and false or misleading consumer information.
- Carry out a risk assessment to (a) assess the risks of consumers encountering such material on the publisher’s media, and (b) identify appropriate measures to address such risks.
- Take proactive steps to detect such prohibited material.
- Conduct appropriate investigations where suspicious material is flagged.
- Respond to any confirmed breaches and impose sanctions on users involved.
- Maintain regular reviews and assessments of the prevention and removal procedures in place.
Client Alert 2025-210
