\nspecifically outlaws fake and misleading consumer reviews. This law
\ncame into force in April 2025. The Competition and Markets
\nAuthority (CMA) issued guidance<\/a> to businesses on the new law in April
\n2025, carried out a compliance sweep of various websites in July
\nand has recently warned of enforcement action on this
\ntopic.<\/a><\/p>\n
Consumer review information also typically includes aggregated
\ninformation in the form of overall star ratings, overall summaries,
\nreview counts and rankings.<\/p>\n
Because of the weight placed on this information by consumers in
\ntheir decision-making, it is important that this information is
\naccurate. It is a banned practice (strict
\nliability offence) under the DMCC Act to publish consumer review
\ninformation that is false or misleading, and to present that
\ninformation in a misleading way.<\/p>\n
As well as the DMCC Act and CMA guidance, the CAP Code also
\nincludes rules about misleading advertising and substantiation as
\nwell as testimonials… so the ASA sometimes has a thing or two to
\nsay on this topic too.<\/p>\n
Take a seat<\/p>\n
For example, this week, the ASA published the results of its
The ads referenced words like “Excellent”, “Based
Say aaaaargh!<\/p>\n The complainant challenged the ads because they understood ZING
Drilling into the details<\/p>\n ZING said that when the ads were created the Trustpilot rating
Make sure you get in between the gaps<\/p>\n This cut no ice with the ASA, which took the view that the ad
The ASA told ZING Oral Care Ltd not to claim or imply that they
Look into this mirror…<\/p>\n In this case, the ASA took action and ZING managed to get away
However, it is really important that businesses make sure that
Rinse your mouth out<\/p>\n Businesses involved in writing, procuring or publishing consumer
\ninvestigation into a complaint<\/a> about ads from ZING Oral Care. The
\nad promoted Zing’s toothpaste.<\/p>\n
\non 13,183 reviews” and “Loved by 67,000+ UK
\ncustomers”, and showed five white stars in green squares with
\na cut-in below the right-hand point.<\/p>\n
\nToothpaste did not have the number of reviews claimed in the ads,
\nor an overall five-star rating on Trustpilot.<\/p>\n
\nand number of reviews were accurate. They explained that they later
\nmoved to a new review software provider, which caused their
\noriginal Trustpilot reviews and five-star rating to disappear. They
\nsaid they had not realised the switch would reset their Trustpilot
\nprofile. Zing said that since the change they had received over
\n1,000 reviews, 85% of which were five stars. Therefore, they
\nbelieved the claims in the ad accurately reflected customer
\nfeedback. They also said Trustpilot had given them permission to
\ncontinue using star ratings in their ads.<\/p>\n
\nwas misleading because the ad appeared to claim a five-star
\nTrustpilot rating for the company based on 13,183 reviews in two of
\nthe ads and over 67,000 in the other ad, and it had not seen
\nevidence that ZING Toothpaste had an overall Truspilot rating of
\nfive stars or those numbers of reviews on Trustpilot.<\/p>\n
\nhad a five-star Trustpilot rating if they did not hold evidence to
\ndemonstrate that this was the case.<\/p>\n
\nwith a slapped wrist, because it was an ASA ruling rather than an
\ninvestigation by the CMA (or Trading Standards). The had to be
\nremoved or amended, and can’t run again.<\/p>\n
\nyour star ratings and claims based on customer reviews are
\naccurate, as the CMA can now levy hefty fines<\/a> and will seek
\nto surgically remove consumer reviews that are misleading, as well
\nas giving you a hefty bill in the process!<\/p>\n
\nreviews or using information derived from reviews, such as ratings,
\nshould arrange for a check up with their legal team.<\/p>\n
![\"1745706.jpg\"\/](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/1745706.jpg\")
<\/p>\n