Just Eat and Autotrader among firms investigated in fake reviews probe

In the era of a digital economy based on trust, rating systems have become the currency that determines the success or failure of almost every business. However, this currency is increasingly being forged. The British market regulator, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), has just announced the launch of a large-scale investigation targeting five major market entities. Established companies such as food delivery giant Just Eat and the popular automotive site Autotrader are in the crosshairs. The allegations are serious: from manipulating average ratings and hiding negative opinions to paying for reviews with discounts.

The scale of the problem is enormous. According to data from research firm TruthEngine, up to 50% of reviews on the internet may be fake. In a world where online reviews influence spending worth billions of pounds annually, every manipulation directly hits consumers' wallets. Sarah Cardell, CEO of the CMA, emphasizes that in the face of growing pressure on household budgets, users must have access to reliable information, not a "curated image" designed to lure them into making the wrong choice.

Manipulation mechanisms under the regulator's microscope

The CMA investigation does not focus on a single model of abuse but exposes various techniques used by companies to improve their image. Each of the investigated entities must respond to different allegations, showing how creative marketing departments can be in bypassing market ethics. The regulator is analyzing the processes of acquiring, moderating, and presenting reviews to check whether consumer law has been violated.

In the case of Just Eat, doubts have been raised about a rating algorithm that may have artificially inflated the star rankings of selected restaurants and grocery stores. Meanwhile, Autotrader and the feedback platform Feefo are suspected of using selective moderation. According to the CMA, these companies may have deprived consumers of a "full picture" of other users' experiences by intentionally omitting or hiding negative reviews. Such a practice creates an illusion of service flawlessness, which in reality makes it impossible to make an informed purchasing decision.

• Just Eat: Suspected of systemic inflation of ratings for selected partners.
• Autotrader and Feefo: Analysis regarding the concealment of critical consumer opinions.
• Dignity: Allegation of encouraging staff to write positive reviews for cremation services.
• Pasta Evangelists: Suspected of offering discounts in exchange for 5-star ratings without disclosing this fact.

Ethics in the shadow of discounts and internal PR

The cases of Dignity and Pasta Evangelists seem particularly controversial. The former, operating in the funeral industry, must answer allegations regarding involving its own employees in creating a positive company image. Encouraging staff to post flattering reviews about cremation services is striking given the nature of the industry, where clients are in an exceptionally difficult emotional situation. In turn, the Pasta Evangelists chain may have offered customers discounts on subsequent orders in exchange for maximum ratings in delivery apps, which, without a clear "sponsored review" label, constitutes a direct deception.

All the mentioned companies have declared full cooperation with the regulator. Just Eat ensures it is working to make their system "transparent and easy to use," while Feefo is holding talks aimed at demonstrating the "integrity and structural nature of their moderation processes." Although the CMA notes that no final conclusions regarding law-breaking have been drawn at this stage, the mere fact of launching formal proceedings is a warning signal for the entire e-commerce industry.

A new era of penalties and the fight against tech giants

This investigation is one of the first such clear displays of the CMA's strength after gaining new powers in April last year. Currently, the regulator can impose high financial penalties on companies violating consumer law without the need to take the case to court. This is a significant change, as the institution was previously criticized for being too lenient toward tech giants. Examples include Amazon and Google, which in the past avoided formal decisions on law violations by only agreeing to voluntary commitments to improve their systems.

It is worth noting that regulatory pressure is yielding results. In January 2025, both Google and Amazon agreed to introduce significant changes to their review verification processes. However, the problem does not only concern large corporations. Fake reviews have also become a criminal tool – in 2024, cases were recorded of criminal groups blackmailing small, independent restaurants, threatening to flood their profiles with negative ratings if a protection fee was not paid. This shows that the rating system, instead of protecting the consumer, has become a battlefield where reliability is a scarce commodity.

How to recognize manipulation in a thicket of stars?

In the face of the trust crisis in 5-star systems, the CMA has issued a set of recommendations for users. The key is to move away from relying solely on the average rating in favor of a thorough reading of the review content. The regulator warns against reviews generated by artificial intelligence – if the text seems "too smooth" or unnaturally perfectly phrased, there is a high probability it was not written by a human. Instinct proves to be a better advisor than an algorithm here.

Paradoxically, three- or four-star ratings are often the most reliable. As the CMA notes, real customers are rarely uncritical – they might deduct a point for a minor delivery delay or a damaged package, which paradoxically validates the rest of their positive opinion. The strategy of checking multiple independent sources instead of relying on a single platform is now becoming the only effective way to avoid the trap of marketing manipulation.

"Investigations are a welcome first step, but enforcement will be key. The regulator must be ready to play hard and impose stiff penalties if companies don't follow the rules," says Sue Davies from the consumer organization Which?.

The current CMA offensive against Just Eat, Autotrader, and the other companies sets a new standard in digital market oversight. The era where platforms could "clean" comment sections of inconvenient facts or buy user favor with discounts with impunity is coming to an end. In the coming months, we will see if the regulator's new powers to impose direct financial penalties will be enough to restore reviews to their original function – being a reliable guide for the consumer, not a tool for sales engineering.