CMA launches 5 x investigations into fake and misleading review practices

The question

What do the recent investigations launched by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) tell us about how businesses should be setting up their customer review processes?

The key takeaway

The CMA has recently launched five investigations into potentially banned practices in respect of fake and misleading customer reviews using its new powers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA). The investigations span various stages of the online review process and a wide range of commercial sectors. Businesses should review whether they are compliant with the DMCCA in respect of every aspect of their customer review systems. 

The background

Under the DMCCA, submitting or commissioning fake consumer reviews or consumer reviews which do not disclose that they have been incentivised is automatically considered an unfair commercial practice. It is also unfair for businesses to publish consumer reviews "in a misleading way" or without "taking such reasonable and proportionate steps as are necessary" to prevent and remove fake or concealed incentivised reviews. The CMA's detailed guidance to businesses, as published last year, explains that consumer review information includes "overall ratings, overall summaries, review counts and rankings".

The development

On 27 March 2026, the CMA announced investigations into five companies, to assess whether they had infringed the prohibitions in the DMCCA: Autotrader; Feefo; Dignity; Just Eat; and Pasta Evangelists. The investigations are currently in the information and evidence gathering stage, with further updates expected in September 2026. In its press release announcing the investigations, the CMA indicated that it was "looking at the key stages in the online reviews ecosystem - from how reviews are obtained, to the way they are moderated and displayed, to the star ratings people so often rely on".

In particular, we know that the CMA is investigating whether Dignity asked its staff to draft positive reviews about the business, and whether Pasta Evangelists offered customers ordering via delivery apps discounts on future orders in return for them providing five-star reviews. The CMA is also investigating whether Autotrader – and Feefo, acting as moderator – failed to publish certain one-star reviews on the Autotrader platform and to factor these reviews into the Autotrader platform's star ratings. The CMA's investigation into Just Eat will seek to establish whether the platform "inflated" the star ratings displayed for some retailers.

Why is this important?

The scope of these investigations suggests that the CMA is seeking to enforce the prohibition in the DMCCA across each of the "key stages" it has identified in the online review process. It also suggests a willingness to investigate potential breaches throughout a wide range of commercial sectors. The investigations into Autotrader, Feefo and Just Eat, in particular, suggest that the CMA is focused on the practical workings of consumer review systems to ensure that the information provided to consumers is not misleading. Businesses should therefore be mindful of the need for compliance at every stage of the review process.

Any practical tips?

Businesses will wish to familiarise themselves with the detailed guidance published by the CMA on these banned practices, including the useful examples it provides. Some of the key takeaways from this guidance include:

• implement and clearly signpost a comprehensive review policy: businesses must establish a clear, plain-English policy that explicitly prohibits fake reviews and outlines the company's precise stance on incentivised reviews. This policy must not be hidden away in dense terms and conditions; it should be highly visible and easily accessible to both consumers and third-party traders from relevant parts of the website or platform;
• deploy multi-layered proactive detection measures: do not rely on consumers or users to flag suspicious content. Instead, businesses should utilize a combination of proactive detection strategies, such as applying automated software or third-party tools to spot suspicious spikes or matching IP addresses, conducting manual sample audits, and implementing verification controls to confirm the reviewer actually used or experienced the product;
• ensure full disclosure of incentivised content: while incentivising customers to leave feedback is allowed, any review that involves a direct commercial relationship or a benefit (such as freebies, discounts, event invites, or refunds) must be explicitly, prominently, and unambiguously labelled (e.g., as an "advert"). The disclosure cannot be hidden behind vague links like "learn more", and the content of the review must still reflect a genuine, uncoerced consumer experience;
• avoid misleading practices like "cherry-picking" and "catalogue abuse": businesses should never suppress or selectively withhold genuine negative reviews simply because they damage a product's reputation. Similarly, companies must avoid "review hijacking" or merging the ratings of two distinct products to artificially boost a product's review score, unless the specifications are so equivalent that the consumer experience remains materially identical.
• enforce deterrent sanctions and promptly update aggregated data: when a business identifies or confirms a fake review through an investigation, it must act swiftly to prevent consumers from being misled. This means immediately removing the fake review, dynamically updating any aggregated consumer information (such as star ratings, review counts, or AI summaries), and applying firm, deterrent sanctions (such as account bans, public warnings on vendor pages, or reporting systematic offenders to the CMA).

Summer 2026