The price of stars: what the DMCC Act means for fake reviews

At one point online reviews used to be a grey area, but with the arrival of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, the UK has taken a decisive step into a new enforcement regime. Fake reviews, paid praise, and review hijacking, which have long been brushed off as shady but tolerated, are now in the firing line. For the first time, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has the power to enforce consumer law directly, with no need to go through drawn-out court proceedings. What this means is simple: the warning period is over. The CMA can now investigate, penalise, and publicise breaches without delay. Unfortunately for retailers, this introduces a new kind of legal exposure. “The CMA is taking a very broad approach, and even looking into the businesses whose products and services are listed on review sites to ensure they aren’t involved in suspicious or fraudulent activities,” says Geraint Lloyd-Taylor, partner and head of the regulatory team at Lewis Silkin. “While businesses will be nervous of being named and shamed by the CMA, and having to give undertakings to guarantee future compliance, the main threat hanging over businesses since 6 April is financial penalties of up to 10% of global turnover.” While the scope of the DMCC is wide, its most immediate target is the world of fake reviews. These are first and foremost a regulatory liability, and a consumer annoyance at the very least. This is because the CMA has long criticised the flood of misleading reviews that dominate online marketplaces. But under past frameworks, acting against them was slow and resource-heavy. It all boils down to this: if your business profits from what could be construed as misleading review content, even indirectly, it may face action. Viktor Clintom, chief operations manager of courier service company Clintopia, sees why the CMA would be so laser-focused on putting an end to bogus reviews: it’s because review manipulation chips away at consumer trust, which is absolutely crucial for online sales. “Given the CMA’s focus, we’re likely to see a push toward more robust ways of verifying reviews. This could mean stricter identity checks for reviewers or greater transparency about how reviews are collected and vetted,” Clintom says. “These changes will benefit retailers who prioritise genuine customer feedback, helping to rebuild trust and create a fairer marketplace overall.” According to Andy Callaghan, founder of booking app Jammed, retailers’ current safeguards fall short because “platforms rely heavily on automated systems that can miss more sophisticated fake reviews or catalogue abuse”. When it comes to smaller retailers, he adds that they “might also lack the resources or knowledge to monitor and enforce compliance rigorously.” One of the most significant aspects of the DMCC is how broadly liability is defined. Under the new rules, any party that enables or benefits from fake reviews may be held responsible. As well as retailers, that includes ecommerce platforms, PR agencies, affiliate marketers, and influencers. It all boils down to this: if your business profits from what could be construed as misleading review content, even indirectly, it may face action. Review hijacking, where older positive reviews are repurposed to promote a new or inferior product, is included under the umbrella of ‘misleading review content’. Helena Franklin, partner in the commercial team at law firm Simkins LLP, is urging retailers to stay on top of their compliance, citing the CMA’s recent high-profile enforcement actions on Amazon and Google as “a clear demonstration of its new enforcement powers”. Franklin sees those two cases as the watchdog’s way of sending a message to other consumer-facing businesses, practically making an example of two household names. “More high-profile enforcement action seems highly likely from July onwards,” she says, “particularly as additional elements of the DMCCA come into force.” The CMA’s shift in tone, from suggestive guidance to punitive action, means businesses that once operated in legal grey zones now face black-and-white outcomes. And while platforms like Amazon have already faced their share of regulatory pressure, Franklin says that the regulator is offering smaller sellers and mid-sized brands slightly more time to adapt. “It’s worth noting that the CMA has granted businesses a three-month grace period (until July 2025) to get their compliance processes in respect of fake reviews in order,” she adds. “Small retailers and independent sellers should be using this time to put in place proactive measures to ensure compliance, such as implementing robust review verification processes, ensuring incentivised reviews are clearly disclosed, monitoring product listings to prevent catalogue hijacking, training their staff, and ensuring any third-party review platforms they use are themselves adhering to CMA guidelines.” Once the CMA’s three-month grace period ends at the end of July, enforcement is expected to begin in earnest and a key theme emerging from the regulator’s guidance is the expectation of ownership. As Clintom points out, fake reviews should be a no-go zone anyway because they destroy consumer confidence, nevermind breaching regulations. Dean Tollman, chief executive of retailer of baby products Vital Baby, explains how his business sees the threat. “In today’s market, for many brands online sales significantly exceed those in-store, particularly on platforms like Amazon, so the online footprint is so important,” he says. “Having accurate, honest reviews of products by customers that can be trusted is crucial. Fake reviews are not just a legal risk but a significant reputational one, and when it comes to baby products, parents are particularly sensitive consumers. They would simply not buy from a brand that has a negative or dishonest perception linked to it.” Tollman’s insight speaks to a broader truth: consumer trust is hard to earn and easy to lose; once doubt is introduced, sales evaporate. Once the CMA’s three-month grace period ends at the end of July, enforcement is expected to begin in earnest and a key theme emerging from the regulator’s guidance is the expectation of ownership. Using Google, Trustpilot, or another review service won’t shield a business if fake or misleading content is found under its name. Ellen Huison, an associate at Knights and specialist on competition law, is blunt about what to expect, saying, “It is not sufficient to rely on the compliance methods of third parties”. Instead, she urges retailers to “take ownership of their review compliance processes”. “The CMA is clear that it expects organisations to have, as an absolute minimum, a clear published policy on the prevention and removal of banned reviews and false or misleading consumer review information, and a risk assessment in relation to material appearing on their media and take such further proactive steps to mitigate identified risks,” Huison outlines. She adds: “In addition, organisations may wish to consider integrating review compliance into existing web policies; having clearly documented policies and procedures to be used in the event of a CMA investigation; integrating compliance wording into communications with clients; reviewing existing terms with third-party review sites; reviewing influencer marketing policies; and reviewing existing measures to ensure that reviews are genuine.” This kind of end-to-end compliance demands time, training, and executive buy-in. For many businesses, that will require a mindset shift from passive publishing to active oversight. “It’s been hard, historically, for consumers to really know whether reviews are false or to enforce their consumer rights.” Importantly, not all incentivised reviews are illegal. But they must be clearly disclosed, and they must not mislead. If a customer receives a free product or discount in exchange for a review, that fact needs to be front and centre – not hidden in footnotes. Removing negative reviews or artificially inflating star ratings is also a red flag. In the CMA’s eyes, misrepresentation by omission is still misrepresentation. Lucy Blick-Jones, commercial partner at Keystone Law, says that when you consider the breadth of the ‘fake reviews’ definition, and the “persuasive power” of an objective opinion to other consumers, it’s “no surprise” that up to 15% of reviews are estimated to be fake. “Having said that, it’s not something that really crossed a lawyer’s desk,” she says. “It’s been hard, historically, for consumers to really know whether reviews are false or to enforce their consumer rights.” That means any attempt to selectively moderate content, whether by suppressing criticism or cherry-picking praise, could trigger enforcement. Blick-Jones sees this as “a very welcome step in the right direction” for consumer protection, pointing out “we are all consumers, after all”. Just last week, Amazon signed undertakings committing to enhancing its existing systems for tackling fake reviews and catalogue abuse, following an investigation by the CMA from March 2024. Moving forward, other well-known brands and influencers may also be caught out – particularly if they’ve leaned on positive reviews as a key part of their marketing strategy. Emily Sadler, senior commercial solicitor at Harper James, concludes that the CMA’s focus on Amazon and Google is likely only the beginning. “As regulators become more active under the new consumer protection regime, we can expect tighter standards across the industry,” she says. “We’re already seeing a move toward setting clearer expectations in the CMA’s guidance, and that may evolve into formal regulations or industry codes of conduct.” The good news is that compliance is achievable. The bad news, however, is it won’t happen by accident. Businesses need to treat this like any other regulatory obligation: with clear documentation, board-level oversight, and ongoing review. For now, Sadler says businesses should expect the direction of travel to be “toward more accountability and less tolerance for any grey areas when it comes to consumer feedback”.

The price of stars: what the DMCC Act means for fake reviews

Check out our free weekly podcast

Read Next

CMA to reconsider Lidl and Aldi’s restrictive land clause exemption

Today’s news in brief-4/3/25

CMA nears approval for Topps Tiles’ acquisition of CTD Tiles

CMA appoints Doug Gurr as interim chair

Today’s news in brief-20/1/25

CMA to reconsider Lidl and Aldi’s restrictive land clause exemption

Today’s news in brief-4/3/25

CMA nears approval for Topps Tiles’ acquisition of CTD Tiles

CMA appoints Doug Gurr as interim chair

Today’s news in brief-20/1/25