This Policy provides information on what is and is not allowed when you submit a review for publication on our Site. If you do something that is not allowed, this might result in us refusing to publish your review or removing your review from our Site. In serious cases, you might also be suspended or banned from accessing the Site. If we do this in a way that is not in accordance with this Policy, you have the right to raise a complaint with us. For more information on how to do this, see [insert link to complaints procedure].In summary, this Policy states: • In order to submit a review for publication, you must have a user account with us. • Fake reviews, being reviews that do not represent your genuine experience of a product or business, are banned. When we refer to ‘product’ in this Policy, we mean any goods, services or digital content you have used or experienced. • [If you have been paid to submit a review, whether in the form of money or via ‘gifted’ items

This Practice Note considers the use of consumer reviews (including fake reviews and concealed incentivised reviews) and their regulation as a prohibited unfair commercial practice under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA 2024). It also considers the requirements of the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing (CAP Code). Introduction Consumer reviews play an important role in helping consumers decide whether or not to buy a product or service. When used effectively and lawfully, they can provide detailed insights into the genuine experience of others and can be leveraged by businesses to evidence trust and reliability. When used unlawfully, they may manipulate search rankings, mislead consumers as to the genuine efficacy of a product or otherwise create a misleading impression that may influence a consumer’s transactional decision. Although consumer reviews can be published online and offline, the e-commerce industry has developed a heavy reliance on reviews and rankings, such as through the creation of online marketplaces that seek to compare products or businesses themselves.

Law360, London: The Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) new Consumer Duty rules might unintentionally complicate parallel plans to sharpen the boundaries between financial advice and guidance, potentially causing advisers to opt for caution over actively dispensing tailored investment counseling.

Introduction This Practice Note addresses frequently asked questions concerning the standards that traders must meet when supplying services to consumers and the remedies available where those standards are not met. The principal framework is contained in Part 1, Chapter 4 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015), which treats specified standards and information as contractual terms and provides statutory remedies for non-conforming services. Sector-specific legislation may impose additional or alternative requirements for particular services. For further information, see Practice Notes: • Consumer Rights Act 2015—services • Consumer Rights Act 2015—unfair terms • Distance, doorstep and on-premises sales • Consumer remedies and redress This Practice Note addresses the following frequently asked questions: • What standards must a trader meet when supplying services to a consumer? • What happens if the parties did not agree the price or the time for completing the service? • Are statements made by a trader about a service legally binding? • When can a consumer require repeat performance? • When can a consumer claim a price reduction, and how is the reduction calculated? • Can

This Practice Note sets out the issues to consider in respect of incorporating business-to-consumer (B2C) standard terms and conditions. It considers the common law principles, the incorporation of terms online, and the impact of the unfair terms provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015) on creating enforceable terms. EU case law before and after Brexit This Practice Note refers to a number of EU cases relating to the interpretation of Directive 93/13/EEC (OJ L 95/29), the EU Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive (EU UTCCD), which the CRA 2015 re-implemented into UK law. Broadly, EU judgments handed down on or before 31 December 2020 continue to be binding on UK courts and tribunals (even if the EU courts later depart from them) until the UK courts exercise their powers to diverge. This means that UK court and tribunals must take into account any criteria provided by the Court of Justice when assessing fairness or transparency, where such criteria is set out in case law predating 1 January 2021. For the most part, EU

This Practice Note sets out the advertising and marketing context, as opposed to pure legal framework, when drafting consumer standard terms and conditions which are subject to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015) (in the context of non-broadcast advertising). It considers the advertising and marketing framework in which the terms and conditions operate and how lawyers can add value to them. For more information on advertising generally, see: Advertising law and regulation—overview. For our suite of template business-to-consumer (B2C) contracts and drafting tips, see ‘Drafting contracts with consumers’ in: Trading with consumers—overview and also Drafting consumer contracts—checklist. For information on the drafting of boilerplate clauses in B2C contracts, see Practice Notes: Boilerplate clauses in business-to-consumer contracts—general principles and Boilerplate clauses in business-to-consumer contracts—specific clauses. Advertising regulation The main source of regulation for non-broadcast advertising is the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing (CAP Code), written by the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) and enforced by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). The CAP Code operates alongside

This Practice Note looks principally at the business context, as opposed to pure legal framework, when drafting consumer standard terms and conditions which are subject to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015). As well as providing brief details on the consumer legislation that applies (and links to relevant Practice Notes), it also looks at the business context in which the terms and conditions operate and how lawyers can add value to them and the business which they are advising. For our suite of template business-to-consumer (B2C) contracts and drafting tips, see ‘Drafting contracts with consumers’ in: Trading with consumers—overview and Drafting consumer contracts—checklist. For information on the drafting of boilerplate clauses in B2C contracts, see Practice Notes: Boilerplate clauses in business-to-consumer contracts—general principles and Boilerplate clauses in business-to-consumer contracts—specific clauses. Background—consumer legislation In comparison with contracts concluded between two businesses, the room for manoeuvre when drafting terms and conditions for consumers and implementing them is considerably limited. This is because of the rules on unfair terms in consumer contracts set out in CRA 2015. CRA

Law360: The UK's specialty antitrust court gave the go-ahead on 30 July 2024 for a partial appeal of its June decision scrubbing as time-barred a swath of claims from a £10bn (US$12.7bn) class action against Mastercard, while concluding some grounds of appeal have no 'real prospect of success'.

Law360: Britain's antitrust court dealt a blow to consumers 26 February 2024 in a £10bn class action over Mastercard's fees by ruling that the credit card titan's European interchange fees didn't influence its domestic rate in the UK.

Law360, London: An environmental consultant told Britain's antitrust tribunal on 23 September 2024 that a landmark £800m claim by millions of customers, who allege six water companies misled regulators by underreporting spills, should be allowed to go ahead as the first environmental class action in the UK.

Law360: Representatives of more than 45 million UK consumers confirmed on 3 December 2024 that they had settled a multibillion-pound claim against Mastercard over its fees, which is likely to end one of the first cases to test the boundaries of Britain's collective proceedings regime.

Law360, London: Consumers bringing a test case on motor finance commissions told the UK Supreme Court in a hearing on 2 April 2025 that car dealers arranging financing for the purchase of vehicles were acting as 'classic' credit brokers and owed a duty to act in borrowers' best interest.