Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
The Unfair Commercial Practices (UCP) provisions in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) replaced and updated the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (the CPRs). One such UCP related to misleading consumer reviews and came into force on 6 April 2025. To reflect this change, new rules were added to the CAP Code:
3.44: Marketing communications must not contain fake consumer reviews.
“Consumer review” means a review of a product, a trader or any other matter relevant to a transactional decision.
A fake consumer review is a consumer review that purports to be, but is not, based on a person’s genuine experience*.
3.45: Marketing communications must make clear where consumer reviews have been incentivised.*
3.46: Marketers must not publish consumer reviews, or consumer review information, in a misleading way in marketing communications. Publishing in a misleading way includes (for example):
- Failing to publish, or removing from publication, negative consumer reviews whilst publishing positive ones (or vice versa)
- Giving greater prominence to positive consumer reviews over negative ones (or vice versa)
-
Omitting information that is relevant to the circumstances in which a consumer review has been written (including that a person has been commissioned to write the review)
“Consumer review information” means information that is derived from, or is influenced by, consumer reviews*.
The following guidance explores aspects of these new rules and how they may overlap with principles derived from previous ASA rulings. The example cases below are used for illustration of these principles only, due to a lack of ASA precedent.
Do not use fake consumer reviews
Do not publish consumer reviews, or consumer review information, in a misleading way
Ensure that relevant information about the circumstances of a review is made clear
Make clear where consumer reviews have been incentivised
Do not incentivise only positive reviews
Do not give greater prominence to positive reviews over negative ones
Do not use fake consumer reviews
Marketers must not publish fake consumer reviews, or commission others to do so. A “fake consumer review” is a consumer review that purports to be based on a person’s genuine experience, when that is not the case. Examples might include where a marketer writes reviews of their own products from the perspective of a consumer or independent party.
The ASA has previously ruled against several ads that used product reviews that appeared to have come from independent review websites, but had actually been written by the marketers. The website names were “Trustworthy Reviews” and “Wellness Explorer”, which implied that they were independent buyer’s guides or review websites. The websites placed the marketers’ products at the top of their recommendation lists, and gave comparatively negative reviews to competitors’ products. The marketers also used quotes from their own reviews in paid ads (HeyNutrition Ltd, 27 July 2022 and Purolabs Nutrition Ltd t/a Purolabs, 27 July 2022). See also ‘Company names and URLs’.
The ASA has also ruled against ads where the marketer misleadingly implied that their product had a genuine endorsement. The marketer used footage from a competitor’s appearance on Dragon’s Den, but they had spliced in their own branding. This editing made it appear as if the Dragons were commenting positively on the marketer’s product. This created the impression of an endorsement of the marketer’s product that was not genuine (Simmer Ltd, 17 July 2024).
See ‘Recognising marketing communications: Overview’, ‘Testimonials and endorsements’, and ‘Claims in testimonials and endorsements’ for further information.
Do not publish consumer reviews, or consumer review information, in a misleading way
“Consumer review information” is information that is derived from, or is influenced by, consumer reviews. Such information could be a score or star rating based on aggregated reviews, or the number of reviews.
Rule 3.46 gives some examples of “publishing in a misleading way”. One such misleading publication practice would be failure to publish (or remove from publication) negative reviews whilst publishing positive ones (or vice versa).
The ASA has previously upheld against ads where the complainants had submitted negative reviews of the product, but they were not published alongside the other reviews on the product page.
In one case, the advertiser was unable to provide data as to how the product’s star rating had been calculated and did not provide an explanation as to why the consumer’s review was not published (Candy Coat Ltd, 24 April 2019). In a similar case, the advertiser claimed that they had a system to moderate reviews, which would automatically prevent publication if it flagged a review as false or containing bad language. The ASA considered that such a moderation policy may have been acceptable, but the complainant’s review was relevant to the product and did not contain offensive material. The ASA concluded that any moderation which removed genuine reviews that were relevant to the product and did not contain offensive material was unlikely to be acceptable (Not Guilty Food Co Ltd t/a The Skinny Food Co, 23 December 2020).
Ensure that relevant information about the circumstances of a review is made clear
Relevant information about the circumstances of a review will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Information that might be relevant to the circumstances of a review could include the fact that the reviewer has a commercial relationship with the advertiser. For example, an ad that contained a positive quote about the product failed to mention that the quote came from one of the advertiser’s investors (ZOE Ltd, 14 August 2024).
Other information might include whether there is a relevant difference between the reviewer’s experience and what a consumer can expect. An ad used a score for a new video game, attributed to a professional reviewer. The complainant objected that the reviewer’s score was misleading, because it was based on a pre-launch version of the game played on an internal server, and the consumer’s experience of the game had been significantly different due to high profile bugs that occurred at the game’s launch. While the professional reviewer’s experience had been different to consumers’ experience, the ASA Council concluded that the use of their score was not misleading. The ASA Council considered that consumers would understand that the professional reviewer’s score would have been based on the game functioning correctly, and would have accounted for any inherent faults in the game, rather than temporary bugs that occurred upon launch (Electronic Arts Ltd, 29 May 2013).
Make clear where consumer reviews have been incentivised
Making incentivised reviews clear may be an area that crosses over with influencer marketing, and other forms of advertorial, disclosure. By definition, both involve a third party creating content about the marketer’s product in exchange for a benefit. However, if the marketer has any editorial control over material published by the third party themselves, the content would be considered advertising, rather than an incentivised review. See ‘Remit: Advertisement features’, ‘Recognising Ads: Overview’ and ‘Recognising ads: Social media and influencer marketing’ for more information.
Do not incentivise only positive reviews
While providing incentives to encourage people to leave genuine, unbiased reviews and testimonials could potentially be considered acceptable, directly and explicitly incentivising consumers to leave positive reviews or testimonials is likely to be considered problematic.
The ASA ruled against the use of testimonials in an ad where the advertiser offered to refund a sum for leaving a “nice review”. In the absence of any indication on the website that consumers were remunerated for leaving positive reviews, the ASA ruled that the use of the testimonials gave consumers a skewed picture of consumer’s attitudes to the advertiser’s services i.e. believing them to be more positive than they were (Official iPhone Unlock Ltd, 19 September 2018).
In 2018, a promoter offered consumers the opportunity to “DOUBLE YOUR ENTRY” if they left a 5-star review on Facebook. The ASA ruled the additional favourable reviews for the business were likely to mislead prospective customers (Vindicta Digital, 26 September 2018).
Guidance from the CMA sets out that marketers must not interfere with the ability and willingness of reviewers to leave negative feedback, or limit the impact of negative reviews.
Marketers should also consider removing reviews have become outdated if there have been material changes to the product since the review
Do not give greater prominence to positive reviews over negative ones
Highlighting reviews that give an inaccurate impression of what consumers can expect, and suppressing or hiding accurate reviews, is unlikely to be acceptable.
None of the cases described above are direct precedent on these new rules, but they show how the ASA has ruled on matters that may have been considered similar previously.
For more information, see ‘Remit: Advertisement features’ and ‘Testimonials and endorsements’.