Customer reviews in advertising: authenticity and evidence

The first step is to identify the exact sentence used. “Our customers rate us 4.8 out of 5” may create a different impression from “4.8 out of 5 from verified purchases”. The second statement contains an additional claim about authenticity. It needs a factual basis and a process that can support the claim in a traceable way.

Section 2(2) UWG treats the commercial practices listed in the Annex as misleading in any event. Annex I item 23b concerns the claim that reviews come from consumers who actually used or acquired the product when no reasonable and proportionate steps were taken to verify that proposition. Item 23c covers submitting fabricated reviews, commissioning other persons or businesses to do so and falsely presenting consumer reviews on social media to promote sales.

Material information under section 2 UWG must also be correct and accessible. Where a business makes consumer reviews available, information on whether and how authenticity is ensured is material. It should not be hidden on a difficult to find page when the reviews appear directly next to an offer.

The statute does not prescribe one technical verification method. Reasonableness and proportionality depend on the number of reviews, the business model, the risk of manipulation, the platform used and the particular advertising claim. A small business with a few reviews requires a different process from a marketplace publishing thousands of entries automatically.

A practical process should combine several elements. These can include a traceable route for submitting a review, linking it to a purchase or use, safeguards against multiple submissions, checks for unusual patterns and a process for reviews whose origin cannot be adequately clarified. Each measure should be recorded with its date and responsible person.

A control does not have to eliminate every possible manipulation. It must genuinely address the authenticity claim being made. A business that merely imports a star rating without knowing the source or verification path cannot support a strong authenticity statement solely by referring to the software used.

Particularly risky are offers promising a certain number of stars, pre-written texts or a positive review in exchange for money or benefits. This also applies where an agency manages the process. An agency contract transfers an operational task, but it does not automatically remove the risk that the business uses the content to promote sales.

Employees, affiliated businesses or people who never used the product must not be presented as independent customers. A real customer may give a voluntary review. If a particular text is required or a positive review is made a condition of a benefit, the precise arrangement needs separate assessment.

For platforms and agencies, the contract file should therefore cover the service description, approval process, review origin and audit rights. If origin, selection and the handling of anomalies cannot be traced, the advertising should not make an unrestricted authenticity claim.

Many businesses receive reviews through an external system. The platform sends invitations, filters contributions and displays the stars. An agency may then select material for a website, newsletter or social media. The assessment must distinguish these roles: who collects the review, who checks its origin, who selects it and who writes the advertising claim?

A technical interface is not yet a legal evidence trail. The business should record what information the platform actually supplies, how complaints are handled and whether reviews are changed, shortened or translated. If only favourable voices are selected, the overall impression must not suggest complete or representative customer satisfaction.

The connection with the specific product also matters. A review of an older model, a single branch or a free trial must not be used for another offer without explanation. The advertising should make clear which experience the review concerns.

The stars are not the only relevant element. The heading, selection, image, placement, sorting, business response and link to the offer work together. “Confirmed by our customers” may go further than simply reproducing individual reviews. A statement such as “verified purchase” must also match the actual verification process.

The advertising claims self check helps organise the claim, audience, evidence and limitations. For review advertising, the file should additionally state which reviews were selected and whether negative or unclear entries are systematically excluded.

Related forms of advertising need their own assessment. Influencer cooperation raises separate questions about disclosure under section 26 Media Act and section 2 UWG. Our article on influencer advertising addresses that setting. Comparative claims about reviews are also not automatically supported merely because individual reviews are genuine.

A reliable review file starts with the planned claim. Record which review channels are included, which conditions apply to publication and who approves the advertising. Save the version used with its date, channel and target audience. For dynamic widgets, document the technical display and sorting logic as well.

The file should include the description of the review process, samples or other controls, anomalies and their treatment and communications with platforms and agencies. A short note should explain why the selected measures appear suitable for the business model. The records should allow an outside person to reconstruct the process later.

A change in data or criteria requires fresh approval. This includes replacing purchase verification with a simple email invitation, changing the platform, appointing a new agency or using stronger wording. Historical records should remain available rather than being silently overwritten.

After an objection, first preserve the challenged advertising, the complete letter and the review data. An operational change may be sensible, but it should not erase the original display or its approval file. Assess separately whether the objection concerns authenticity, selection, wording or the information about verification controls.

The article on a UWG cease and desist letter provides the general framework for a competitor or association objection. Depending on the facts, an injunction or interim relief may also matter where the display continues. Our topic on injunctions and interim relief explains the relevant evidence questions.

An internal correction should address the concrete error. It does not replace checking whether other advertising formats, campaign variants or agency work are affected. Where there are wider economic effects, the topic on damages for competition infringements provides a separate framework.

The most common error is a strong authenticity statement without a documented verification path. Another is assuming that a platform or agency bears all responsibility merely because it supplies the technical system. Businesses also often preserve only the current star rating, while the selection, sorting and exact advertising version can no longer be reconstructed.

A further error is mixing different review sources. Reviews of another product, branch or free trial are presented as one customer experience. Systematically hiding negative or unclear contributions can also change the overall impression, even if the remaining reviews are genuine.

Finally, information about the verification process is placed where users cannot easily find it. If verified reviews are advertised next to an offer, the explanation of the controls should be accessible in the same context. Hidden information may not adequately qualify the main claim.