Prohibited practices

The new point 23b of Annex I prevents traders from misleading its users as to the origin of the reviews: they must not state that reviews they make available originate from real users, unless they take reasonable and proportionate steps which – without amounting to a general obligation to monitor or carry out fact-finding (see Article 15(1) e-Commerce Directive) – increase the likelihood for such reviews to reflect real users' experiences. Whether the trader’s presentation of reviews amounts to stating that they ‘are submitted by consumers who have actually used or purchased the product’ depends on how it is perceived by the average consumer. The reviews do not necessarily have to be presented in these terms – also more general references to ‘consumer’ or ‘customer/user’ reviews may lead the average consumer to perceive them as reviews by other consumers who have used or purchased the product The necessary ‘reasonable and proportionate’ steps are to be assessed taking into account, inter alia, the trader’s business model – an online marketplace that presents the reviews of its own customers may have to apply different measures than a specialised review service that invites reviews from the wider public without having a contractual relation. Also the scale of the trader’s activity and the level of risk should be taken into account for establishing what is ‘reasonable and proportionate’ for that given trader. For example, large platforms with a high risk of fraudulent activity and larger resources would be expected to deploy more significant means to counter the fraud with consumer reviews than smaller traders. However, the steps to check the origin of reviews should be proportionate also in the sense that they should not make the posting of reviews excessively difficult thus discouraging consumers who have actually purchased or used the product from submitting reviews. Recital 47 to Directive (EU) 2019/2161 explains that reasonable and proportionate steps could include ‘requesting information to verify that that the consumer has actually used or purchased the product’. Such information could be, for example, a booking number. Other ‘reasonable and proportionate steps’ could include: requiring the reviewers to register; using technical means to verify that the reviewer is actually a consumer (e.g. IP address check, verification by email); setting clear rules for reviewers prohibiting fake and non-disclosed sponsored reviews; deploying tools to automatically detect fraudulent activity; having adequate measures and resources to respond to complaints about suspicious reviews, including where the trader concerned by the reviews provides evidence that they are not submitted by consumers who actually used or purchased the product. Thanks to the information that traders will publish in accordance with Article 7(6), it is expected to be possible for both the users and the enforcement authorities to assess and to evaluate the steps taken by the trader, also comparing those with the industry best practices that may develop over time. An ISO standard is available in this area - ‘Online consumer reviews: Principles and requirements for their collection, moderation and publication’ (ISO 20488:2018). The new point 23c covers two types of unfair commercial practices: The first element aims at traders who submit or commission, including buying from others (e.g. from ‘likes factories’ or natural persons) false reviews or endorsements. It covers, in particular, the practice of engaging actual consumers who purchase the product and get remuneration for posting positive reviews. This part of point 23c applies both to the professionals and the consumers involved in these misleading activities insofar as they qualify as ‘acting in the name of or on behalf of the trader’. It does not, however, apply to those traders, in particular online platforms, that host and give access to consumer reviews without being involved in their submission (posting). The second element aims at traders, including online platforms, that give access to consumer reviews or social endorsements and misrepresent them, such as by only soliciting and making available positive reviews and obtaining the withdrawal of negative reviews. The notion of ‘endorsements’ should be interpreted broadly, covering also practices related to fake followers, reactions and views. The first element aims at ensuring that consumer reviews reflect real consumers’ opinions, findings, beliefs or experience. It therefore prohibits the practice for traders to submit, or engage other persons, such as real consumers, to submit false reviews. As regards the second element prohibiting the misrepresentation of consumer reviews or social endorsements, Recital 49 of Directive (EU) 2019/2161 gives the following examples of prohibited manipulative practices: Publishing only positive reviews and deleting the negative ones; Linking the consumer endorsements to different content than the one intended by the consumer. Further examples of manipulative practices are situations where the trader: provides consumers with pre-filled positive review templates; engages with consumers during the moderation process to incentivise them to change their reviews or withdraw the negative reviews; presents consolidated review ratings on the basis of undisclosed and/or opaque criteria. The prohibition of misrepresenting consumer reviews is without prejudice to the rights and obligation of the trader that makes reviews available to suppress fake negative reviews as part of the measures to ensure that reviews originate from consumers who have actually used or purchased the product. Whilst the new provisions in Annex I of the UCPD prohibit the respective commercial practices concerning user reviews in all circumstances, it can be noted that traders that make available reviews but suppress negative consumer reviews without valid reason may also cause the average consumers reading the online reviews to continue using the trader’s services or, in case of platforms, to take a decision to contact a trader which they would not have taken had they known that negative reviews had been suppressed. Furthermore, traders that engage with consumers and/or other traders that make reviews available to prevent negative reviews about them from being published or removing them after publication can also cause the average consumer (who has not yet been in contact with this trader) to select this trader rather than a competitor who has not engaged in such unfair commercial practices.

← d1e11530-1-1__para__3 · All articles · doc__table__237 →

Source: EUR-Lex (Cellar) · retrieved 2026-09-25 · Text as adopted (Official Journal); later amendments are not incorporated in this text.