Fake-review research UK: how to source a claim

What to take away

What a fake-review claim has to prove

A vague claim that the reviews are fake bundles four tests. Provenance asks who wrote a review. Procurement asks whether the business paid, rewarded or arranged it.

Effect asks whether the review changed a purchase. Control asks whether the business knew and could act. UK rules bite hardest on procurement and control.

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 ban misleading commercial practices, and the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 adds fake reviews to the practices banned outright. The CMA can now decide certain consumer breaches itself and impose penalties.

Testing a claim against CMA material

The CMA's case page records its work on fake and misleading online reviews: Online reviews - GOV.UK.

Undertakings are commitments rather than fines, but they are enforceable and they name the practice a business agreed to stop.

The CMA looks beyond invented reviews. Undisclosed incentives, edits that change a review's meaning and a curated overall impression all fall inside its scope.

Testing a claim against ASA rulings

ASA rulings decide whether review and testimonial claims in advertising mislead. Each ruling names the advertiser, quotes the claim and records the evidence supplied: ASA rulings.

They are CAP Code decisions, not law, but they bind advertisers and they are citable.

Recurring tests are whether a review score is verifiable, whether a testimonial is typical and whether the overall impression is representative.

One advertiser's ruling does not transfer automatically to another sector, so apply the same CAP Code tests to your own advertising before it goes live.

The evidence screen: claim, source, proof, limit

Claim is the exact assertion in one sentence. A dated pattern, such as twelve reviews in March from accounts created that week, is testable. A general claim that a reputation is under attack is not.

Source names the document that tests the claim. Proof states only what that document establishes. Limit states what it cannot establish, and teams often skip it.

Most removals happen under platform policy rather than law. Google Business Profile prohibits fake engagement and incentivised reviews, Trustpilot's review guidelines require reviews to be genuine and unbiased, and Tripadvisor's review policy bans paid or promotional reviews. Each sets its own evidence bar, which is why reputation-management software that logs review dates, accounts and outcomes is worth keeping beside the screen.

Where review and reputation-management software fits

The screen only works if a dated record sits behind it. Trustpilot, Feefo and Reviews.io host the reviews themselves, and their business dashboards hold the invitation records, review timestamps and report outcomes that a claim has to cite.

Review and reputation-management software such as BrightLocal, Birdeye and ReviewTrackers then collects the reviews from the platforms it supports into one dashboard, keeps the original dates and reviewer details, and exports the log. That export is what turns an assertion into a sourced claim, and it is what a case team or an investigator can check against the platform's own records.

Two limits carry over from the screen. No tool can show who wrote a review or why, and none can decide whether a practice is banned; that decision stays with the regulator or a court. Software records what a platform reported, when it reported it and what happened next.

When comparing tools, ask for dated, exportable review logs, a report history with outcomes and a clear audit trail, rather than a single average rating.

What such a claim cannot prove

It cannot prove intent. Reviews can be fake without the business knowing.

It cannot prove effect. A fake review does not mean a changed purchase, which needs separate evidence about how buyers use reviews.

It cannot prove a breach, because only a regulator or a court decides that.

It cannot prove a whole score is meaningless. Our note on what UK fake-review research can and cannot show explains how to read those figures.

Reporting a fake review to the CMA

Use the CMA's report a problem guidance for documented conduct rather than a general complaint about a rival, because case teams assess evidence: Report a problem to the CMA.

The CMA may open a case, fold the issue into existing work, refer it to a partner regulator or take no action. You will not always receive a detailed outcome. Reports naming a platform, a period and a pattern are easier for case teams to assess.

Keep a dated record, because a later case page can make your own timeline useful.

Platform removal is usually faster than regulatory action but produces no public finding. Our guide to removing fake Google reviews in the UK sets out the evidence each route expects.

Common questions

These come up most often once a claim has to be sourced rather than asserted.

Can a fake-review claim prove intent?

Only with evidence of procurement or control, such as platform data, a payment trail or a regulator finding.

How strong is an ASA ruling compared with a CMA case?

An ASA ruling binds the advertiser it names. A CMA case can produce enforceable undertakings and, since the 2024 Act, direct penalties.

What should I do with a claim the screen cannot source?

Mark it unverified and revisit it if a named source or regulator outcome appears.