DMCCA review rules put firms at risk of turnover-based fines

UK businesses publishing customer reviews risk penalties of up to £300,000 or 10% of annual worldwide turnover, whichever is higher, if they mislead consumers by suppressing genuine criticism under rules in force since April 2025.

Legal and communications specialists consulted by Startups.co.uk warn that efforts to protect an online reputation can breach the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA). The Competition and Markets Authority can enforce the rules directly, without first taking businesses to court.

What happened

The legislation prohibits businesses that publish reviews from presenting a distorted account of customer experience. That includes removing authentic negative feedback, reducing its visibility or giving favourable comments selective prominence to create a misleading impression.

The restrictions also cover commissioning fabricated reviews and concealing rewards given to reviewers. A business cannot counter criticism by arranging endorsements from people whose comments do not reflect a real experience of its products or services.

Offering an incentive for a review is not automatically prohibited. A discount or free product can, in principle, be offered where the feedback is genuine and the reward is clearly and prominently disclosed.

The customer must remain free to give a critical or neutral assessment. An arrangement that pays out only for a favourable rating crosses the boundary identified by the experts, even if the customer has genuinely bought from the business.

Disclosure requirements extend beyond cash payments. Free goods and loyalty points can also make a review incentivised, so businesses need to make that relationship clear rather than treating non-cash benefits as outside the rules.

Selecting customers on the basis of how satisfied they appear creates a separate risk. Asking only happy buyers to post publicly, while directing dissatisfied customers into a private complaints channel, can filter out the very experiences other consumers need to see.

The background

The commercial consequences of a poor rating now extend beyond the original review platform. AI-powered search services can retrieve an individual complaint, summarise it and repeat it in answers, allowing one customer's account to reach audiences elsewhere.

That wider circulation increases the pressure on businesses to intervene, but the DMCCA makes review handling a consumer-law and governance issue as well as a communications task. Decisions about what appears publicly are no longer simply a matter of managing a company's reputation.

One particular hazard arises when a business tries to resolve a complaint with a refund. Providing a remedy is distinct from making that remedy dependent on the customer withdrawing or rewriting their account of what happened.

The guidance discussed by the experts identifies refunds or gift cards offered in exchange for changing a negative review as a banned practice. The legal risk lies in the condition attached to the offer, rather than in compensating a customer for a problem.

Requests for feedback also need to be distinguished from requests for a specific result. Businesses can encourage customers to contribute, but influencing who receives an invitation or steering them towards a preferred score can undermine the authenticity of the process.

What people are saying

Julia Ellis, senior commercial solicitor at Harper James, advises businesses against using payments, discounts or other benefits to secure the deletion or alteration of genuine criticism. She also warns against commissioning inauthentic endorsements to overwhelm unfavourable feedback.

Daniel Mohacek, chief executive of TruthEngine, identifies pressure on customers not to publish negative comments as another problem. His approach is to seek an assessment of the customer's experience without trying to determine the rating they should award.

For Anne Cantelo, fractional communications director and owner of Onyx Media and Communications Ltd, the first task after a complaint appears is establishing what happened. A service failure, differing expectations and a customer confusing one business with another require different responses.

Ellis recommends a concise public acknowledgement that addresses the concern, includes an apology where justified and explains that the business is examining the matter. It should also give the reviewer a straightforward way to contact the company directly.

Cantelo cautions against publicly alleging that a reviewer is a competitor or is acting out of revenge without supporting evidence. Personal criticism and prolonged arguments can compound the reputational problem rather than resolve the underlying complaint.

Where the review cannot be shown to be fabricated or contrary to the platform's rules, she favours a restrained response confined to the facts. The distinction matters because suspicion alone does not establish grounds for challenging a customer's account.

An apology should address the particular failure rather than offer a vague expression of regret, Cantelo says. Any statement about additional checks, revised procedures or staff training must reflect action the business has actually taken.

Ellis notes that the audience includes prospective customers, not just the person who complained. A considered response to criticism can provide reassurance about how the business deals with problems, rather than leaving readers to judge the rating alone.

What happens next

The experts recommend making requests for honest feedback part of normal customer service, rather than starting a drive for favourable reviews after criticism appears. Invitations should be open to customers regardless of whether their experience was positive, neutral or negative.

Where there is evidence that a review is fabricated, comes from someone who was not a customer or breaches platform rules, businesses can use the platform's reporting process. Any challenge should be supported by evidence rather than an unsupported demand for removal.

Discussions involving account information or contested details should move to a private channel. Mohacek stresses that private contact should serve to resolve the customer's problem, not become a means of making the public review disappear.

Ellis advises against publishing personal information or screenshots to defend the business. Where allegations appear false and could cause serious damage, she recommends obtaining legal advice before deciding how to respond.