Online reviews: from test purchases to the crackdown on reviews in exchange for benefits – the Competition Authority’s guidelines

A link to submit a review only once the service has been provided, a QR code on the restaurant table, or a receipt attached as proof. These are some of the tools that hotels, restaurants and platforms can use to demonstrate that the reviewer has actually stayed in that room or eaten at that table. The Italian Competition and Market Authority has adopted the guidelines on online reviews provided for under Article 21 of the annual law on SMEs, which have just been published in the Weekly Bulletin.

This brings to a close a process that began at the end of June. The draft, which received preliminary approval on 23 June, was subject to public consultation from 30 June to 15 July; the Authority then sought the views of AGCOM, the Data Protection Authority, the Ministry of Enterprise and the Ministry of Tourism on the text. The law was awaiting precisely these operational guidelines. The scope covers tourism and the catering sector, but the Competition Authority also provides ‘general guidelines’ which, in principle, apply to every sector, aimed at all professionals ‘wherever they are based’ who operate in the Italian market.

At the heart of the text are the ‘reasonable and proportionate measures’ for verifying authenticity, which are to be tailored to the size of the business and divided into three categories. The means of proving a purchase include: tax documentation, credit card statements, booking numbers, and reviews collected solely in the customer’s private area. Here, the presumption established by law carries weight: a review accompanied by evidence of tax documentation is deemed authentic, unless proven otherwise. Then there is the traceability of the author, through registration, confirmation emails and IP address checks. Finally, there are automated systems that detect anomalies, such as a large number of reviews posted in a short space of time from the same IP address or repetitive linguistic patterns. In the event of an alert, the system ‘should not automatically delete the review’, but suspend it pending a swift verification.

Crackdown on paid reviews: ‘Reviews whose content is the result of an incentive provided by the trader are always unlawful’. Where the benefit does not influence the judgement, the guidance is to inform the consumer in any case and to mark the review with ‘graphic elements that are clearly recognisable’. One should also avoid removing or concealing critical comments, providing pre-filled templates for positive reviews, or publishing average scores based on criteria that are not explicitly stated.

Platforms hosting third-party reviews are required to handle complaints promptly: if the unlawful nature of a review is immediately apparent, they should remove the content without delay, and the person making the report is not required to prove the falsity of a review for which no supporting documentation is provided. As regards timing, a review is valid if posted within thirty days of the end of the service; however, late publication does not in itself constitute a breach of the Consumer Code. The Authority will review the guidelines within one year of their publication.