What does the DMCC Act's fake reviews ban actually prohibit?

The DMCC Act's fake-reviews ban prohibits a defined set of review-related practices by adding them to the list of commercial practices that are unfair in all circumstances, which means they are automatically unlawful and the CMA does not need to prove that any consumer was actually harmed. According to the CMA's guidance, the banned practices include writing a fake consumer review, or commissioning or incentivising another person to write one — a 'fake' review being one that purports to come from someone with genuine experience of a product when it does not. They include publishing consumer reviews, or giving access to them, without taking reasonable and proportionate steps to ensure those reviews are genuine and to identify and remove reviews that are fake or that conceal the fact they were incentivised; this is an affirmative duty that falls on the publisher of the reviews, not only on whoever wrote them. They include offering or advertising services that write, submit or facilitate fake reviews — the review-broker business model — and they include concealing that a review was incentivised, meaning a brand that rewards customers for reviews must disclose that incentive clearly rather than presenting incentivised reviews as ordinary, unprompted feedback. The guidance also addresses misleading handling of reviews, such as suppressing genuine negative reviews or presenting an aggregate rating that does not reflect reality. A point advertisers frequently miss is that the rules reach 'consumer review information,' which is broader than individual reviews: aggregated star ratings, total review counts and product rankings derived from reviews are in scope, so a summary metric can be non-compliant even if each underlying review is authentic, for example if negative reviews are quietly excluded from the average. The affirmative 'reasonable and proportionate steps' duty is the most operationally demanding element, because it converts review moderation from a quality-of-experience nicety into a legal obligation: any business that hosts or displays reviews must have a proportionate system to detect and remove fakes and undisclosed incentives, scaled to the size and risk of its review estate. For marketers the practical consequence is that seeding reviews, buying followers-style review packages, rewarding reviews without disclosure, or curating away criticism are all now banned practices carrying direct enforcement risk. Screen review and testimonial language for risk with the Keyword Risk Checker , and confirm the precise scope against the CMA's published fake-reviews guidance because the detail of the banned-practices list governs. The organizing principle is that the Act bans creating, brokering, incentivising-without-disclosure and misleadingly curating reviews, and imposes an affirmative duty to take reasonable steps to keep published reviews genuine — covering aggregate metrics, not just individual reviews.

What are the DMCC drip pricing and total-price rules?

The DMCC Act's price-transparency rules require that, in any invitation to purchase, the trader gives the consumer the total price of the product including any mandatory fees, taxes, charges or other payments the consumer must pay in order to buy it — and where that total cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the trader must instead state how the price will be calculated. The practice these rules are designed to stop is 'drip pricing,' where a business advertises an attractive headline price and then reveals unavoidable additional charges progressively as the consumer moves through the purchase funnel, so the price the consumer actually pays is higher than the one that drew them in. Two definitional points determine how widely the rule applies. First, an 'invitation to purchase' is broad: it arises whenever a trader gives consumers information about a product and its price, which covers advertisements, online listings, marketplace search results, menus, app banners and the basket and checkout — and it does not require that the consumer can actually complete a purchase on that particular screen. That means the total-price obligation can attach at the advertising stage, not only at checkout. Second, the test for what must be in the upfront total is whether a charge is mandatory — that is, whether the consumer must pay it to buy the product. Unavoidable booking fees, compulsory service charges and non-optional administrative or delivery fees are mandatory and must be included in the headline price; genuinely optional add-ons that the consumer can decline do not have to be in the upfront figure. Where a mandatory cost genuinely cannot be quantified in advance — for example because it depends on a variable the consumer will select — the obligation shifts to clearly explaining the basis on which it will be calculated, rather than omitting it. For advertisers and e-commerce teams, the operational implication is that pricing in ads and on landing pages should reflect the real, all-in cost a consumer must pay, and that any mandatory fee currently introduced later in the journey needs to be surfaced at the point the price is first presented. This is also where the CMA chose to make an early example, taking enforcement action over an undisclosed mandatory booking fee, so the risk is not theoretical. Audit landing-page and checkout pricing with the AI Compliance Audit , and for the wider family of obscured-cost and pressure tactics see the dark patterns in ad funnels guide . The organizing principle is that any invitation to purchase must show the total price including all mandatory charges up front, so drip-feeding unavoidable fees through the funnel is non-compliant.

How much can the CMA fine a business under the DMCC Act?

Under the DMCC Act's direct consumer-enforcement powers, the CMA can impose a penalty of up to 10% of a business's global turnover, or £300,000 if that is greater, for breaching consumer protection law — and crucially it can now do this itself, through an administrative process, without first having to take the business to court. This is the change that most reframes the risk for advertisers, because it both raises the ceiling and shortens the path to a penalty. The process is administrative rather than judicial: the CMA can issue a provisional infringement notice setting out its view that consumer law has been breached, consider the business's representations, and then issue a final infringement notice with directions and penalties. Alongside the headline 10%-of-global-turnover or £300,000 maximum for the substantive breach, the regime provides for further penalties in connected situations — for example for breaching undertakings the business has given or directions the CMA has imposed, which can attract additional turnover-based and daily penalties, and for failing to comply with the CMA's information notices and investigation requirements, where penalties expressed as a percentage of turnover can apply. Individuals are also exposed, with fines of up to £300,000 possible. The practical effect is that a business cannot treat a CMA consumer-protection investigation as a slow civil matter that may eventually reach court; it is now a process that can end in a direct, turnover-scaled fine. On timing and posture, the CMA signalled a measured rollout: after the regime took effect in April 2025 it ran an initial period focused on supporting compliance with the new fake-reviews obligations rather than immediately penalising, giving businesses time to adjust their systems, before moving to active enforcement. It then used the new powers in practice — its first drip-pricing case under the direct regime, announced in April 2026, produced a multi-million-pound fine that was reduced for early settlement, together with refunds to affected consumers over an undisclosed mandatory fee, and it opened fake-review investigations into several businesses. Some of the more granular penalty mechanics, including any fixed-amount alternatives for specific procedural breaches, should be confirmed against the CMA's published direct-enforcement guidance rather than assumed, but the core exposure — up to 10% of global turnover, imposed directly — is settled and significant. Map multi-jurisdiction exposure with the Legal Compliance Scan , and track enforcement actions on the Policy Change Tracker . The organizing principle is that the CMA can now fine up to 10% of global turnover for consumer-law breaches through its own administrative process, making fake-review and drip-pricing non-compliance a direct and material financial risk.

Who has the CMA investigated or fined so far under the new powers?

Since the DMCC Act's consumer regime took effect in April 2025, the CMA has moved from a compliance-support posture into active use of its direct enforcement powers, opening pricing and fake-review investigations and imposing its first fine, so the regime is demonstrably operational rather than dormant. The most significant single action to date is the CMA's first drip-pricing case under the new direct-enforcement powers, announced in April 2026, concerning driving-school businesses that had omitted a mandatory booking fee from their upfront prices. The outcome included a multi-million-pound fine — reduced from a higher figure to reflect early settlement — alongside refunds to a large number of affected learner-driver consumers, because the undisclosed mandatory fee meant customers had paid more than the advertised headline price. This case is instructive precisely because the breach was a single, unavoidable fee dripped into the funnel rather than an exotic scheme, which signals that ordinary pricing practices many businesses still use are squarely within the CMA's enforcement focus. On the pricing side more broadly, the CMA launched a set of investigations in late 2025 — its first wave under the new powers — into online pricing practices including fees, misleading time-limited or urgency offers and automatically opted-in charges, naming a range of well-known businesses across sectors such as ticketing and retail. On fake reviews, after the initial period in which it focused on helping businesses comply, the CMA opened investigations in 2026 into several businesses over fake and misleading reviews, spanning review platforms and consumer brands, which brought the total number of businesses under scrutiny using the new consumer powers into double figures. The exact count and the current status of individual investigations should be checked against the CMA's live announcements, since cases progress and the headline framing of how many businesses are involved can differ from the named parties, but the direction of travel is unambiguous: the CMA is using the powers, it started with the most common and demonstrable practices — drip pricing and fake or misleading reviews — and it has shown willingness to combine fines with consumer redress. For advertisers, the lesson is that enforcement is targeting mainstream practices, not edge cases, so the prudent response is to audit pricing presentation and review handling now rather than waiting to see where the next investigation lands. Track new CMA actions on the Policy Change Tracker , and stress-test pricing and claims with the Keyword Risk Checker . The organizing principle is that the CMA has already fined for drip pricing and opened multiple pricing and fake-review investigations into well-known businesses, so the new regime is being actively enforced against common, mainstream practices.

How do the UK DMCC rules compare with the US FTC fake reviews rule?

The UK DMCC regime and the US FTC fake-reviews rule both moved against fabricated and undisclosed-incentivised reviews in the same period and share most of their substantive prohibitions, so a business operating in both markets can largely adopt a single standard — but they differ sharply in enforcement structure, and understanding that difference helps calibrate where the operational risk is highest. On substance, the regimes converge: both ban fake reviews, including AI-generated reviews presented as genuine consumer experiences; both ban undisclosed incentivised reviews, requiring that any material connection or reward behind a review be disclosed; and both target deceptive handling of social proof. The US rule, codified as a trade regulation rule at 16 CFR Part 465 and effective from 21 October 2024, is notably explicit on certain points — it expressly addresses insider reviews from employees or relatives, the buying and selling of fake indicators of social-media influence such as followers and views, and the use of unjustified legal threats to suppress genuine negative reviews. The UK regime, in force from 6 April 2025 as part of the DMCC Act's banned-practices list, covers the same fabrication and incentive-concealment ground but adds a distinctive affirmative duty: anyone who publishes or gives access to consumer reviews must take reasonable and proportionate steps to ensure they are genuine and to remove fakes and concealed incentives. That publisher duty is more operationally demanding than the FTC's framing, because it requires a proactive moderation system rather than simply prohibiting specific bad acts. The starkest difference, though, is enforcement. The FTC pursues its rule through a civil-penalty model with per-violation penalties, generally via a court process, which can produce very large aggregate numbers when many violations are stacked but runs through the courts. The UK CMA, by contrast, can now act administratively under its direct consumer-enforcement powers and impose penalties of up to 10% of global turnover without first going to court, which compresses the timeline and ties the maximum to the size of the business rather than to a per-violation count. For a global advertiser, the sensible response is to build to the stricter elements of both: adopt the FTC's explicit prohibitions on insider reviews, fake influence metrics and review suppression, and adopt the UK's affirmative obligation to operate a proportionate system that keeps published reviews genuine, with clear incentive disclosure everywhere. For the detailed US picture, see the FTC fake reviews rule guide , and to check disclosure adequacy across markets use the disclosure checker . The organizing principle is that the UK and US ban the same core conduct, but the UK adds an affirmative publisher duty and can fine up to 10% of global turnover administratively, so a single global standard should meet the stricter elements of each.

UK DMCC Act 2026: Fake Reviews Ban & Drip Pricing Rules

Quick Answer

The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC Act) is the UK law whose consumer-protection regime took effect on 6 April 2025 and which, for advertisers and marketers, does two consequential things: it bans fake reviews and drip pricing as unfair commercial practices, and it gives the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) power to decide that consumer law has been broken and to impose fines directly, without first going to court. According to the CMA's guidance, the fake-reviews rules prohibit writing, commissioning or incentivising fake consumer reviews, publishing consumer reviews without taking reasonable and proportionate steps to ensure they are genuine and to remove fake or concealed-incentive reviews, offering services to write or facilitate fake reviews, and concealing that a review was incentivised — and they reach not just individual reviews but aggregated ratings and rankings. The price-transparency rules require that, in any invitation to purchase, the total price including any mandatory fees, taxes or charges the consumer must pay is shown up front, so 'drip pricing' that adds unavoidable fees later is non-compliant. The enforcement change is the headline: under its new direct consumer-enforcement powers the CMA can impose penalties of up to 10% of a business's global turnover (or £300,000 if greater) for breaching consumer protection law, with individuals exposed up to £300,000. The CMA ran an initial period focused on supporting compliance, then moved to active enforcement — its first drip-pricing case under the new powers resulted in a multi-million-pound fine and consumer refunds, and it has opened fake-review investigations into several businesses. Screen review and pricing copy with the Keyword Risk Checker, map the cross-border legal layer with the Legal Compliance Scan, and for the US parallel see the FTC fake reviews rule guide.

UK DMCC Act in 2026: The Fake Reviews Ban, Drip Pricing Rules and CMA Direct Enforcement

What the DMCC Act Changed for Advertisers

The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 received Royal Assent in May 2024, and its consumer-protection regime came into force on 6 April 2025, replacing the older Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations. For advertisers and marketers, two parts of that regime matter most: a new statutory ban on fake reviews and drip pricing, and a dramatic upgrade to how the Competition and Markets Authority can enforce consumer law.

The change is not only what is prohibited but how it is policed. Before the Act, the CMA generally had to go to court to act against a business that breached consumer law. Under the Act's direct consumer-enforcement powers, the CMA can now decide for itself that a breach has occurred and impose substantial fines, which compresses the time from investigation to penalty and raises the stakes for non-compliant advertising and pricing.

"The penalty can be up to 10% of your business' global turnover or £300,000 (whichever is greater).
— CMA guidance on its direct consumer enforcement powers"

This guide explains the fake-reviews ban, the drip-pricing and total-price rules, the CMA's new fining powers, and how the UK regime compares with the US FTC's approach. Ground the e-commerce dimension with the e-commerce and DTC compliance guide, and define terms in the compliance glossary.

The Fake Reviews Ban

The Act adds a set of review-related practices to the list of commercial practices that are unfair in all circumstances — the "banned" practices for which no proof of consumer harm is needed. The CMA published dedicated guidance on what this covers, and the scope is broad.

What Is Prohibited

Practice	Status under the DMCC Act
Writing, or commissioning/incentivising someone to write, a fake consumer review	Banned
Publishing consumer reviews without reasonable and proportionate steps to ensure they are genuine	Banned — a duty on the publisher
Offering or advertising services to write or submit fake reviews	Banned
Publishing an incentivised review without disclosing the incentive	Banned
Concealing negative reviews or presenting a misleading aggregate rating	Banned

Two features stand out for marketers. First, the rules reach "consumer review information" — not only individual reviews but aggregated star ratings, review counts and rankings — so a misleading summary metric is in scope even if each underlying review is real. Second, the publisher duty is affirmative: anyone who publishes or gives access to reviews must take reasonable and proportionate steps to prevent and remove fake or concealed-incentive reviews, which turns review moderation into a compliance obligation rather than an optional quality measure. Screen review and testimonial copy for risk with the Keyword Risk Checker, and for the US treatment of the same problem see the FTC fake reviews rule guide.

Drip Pricing and the Total-Price Rule

The second advertiser-facing change targets how prices are presented. The Act's price-transparency rules attach to the concept of an "invitation to purchase," which arises whenever a trader gives consumers information about a product and its price — in an ad, a listing, a search result, a menu or a checkout — even if the consumer cannot buy on that exact screen.

The Total-Price Requirement

Show the total up front: in an invitation to purchase, the trader must state the total price, including any mandatory fees, taxes, charges or other payments the consumer must pay to buy the product.
Explain unavoidable variable costs: where the total cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the trader must state how the price will be calculated.
Mandatory means mandatory: a charge the consumer cannot avoid — a booking fee, an unavoidable service or admin charge — belongs in the headline price, not added later in the funnel.
Genuinely optional charges are different: costs the consumer can choose to avoid do not have to sit in the upfront total.

"Drip pricing" — revealing mandatory fees stage by stage so the headline looks lower than the real cost — is the practice these rules are designed to stop, and it is exactly where the CMA's first enforcement landed. For the broader pattern of obscured costs and pressure tactics in conversion funnels, see the analysis of dark patterns in ad funnels, and audit landing-page and checkout copy with the AI Compliance Audit.

CMA Direct Enforcement and Fines

The enforcement architecture is what makes the DMCC Act a step-change rather than a restatement of existing consumer law. The CMA can now run an administrative process — issuing a provisional infringement notice, considering representations, then a final infringement notice — and impose penalties itself.

The Penalty Levels

Breaching consumer protection law: up to 10% of a business's global turnover or £300,000, whichever is greater.
Individuals: can be fined up to £300,000.
Breaching undertakings or directions: further penalties, including turnover-based and daily penalties, can apply.
Breaching information or investigation requirements: additional penalties, expressed as a percentage of turnover, can apply for failing to comply with the CMA's information notices.

The CMA ran an initial period after April 2025 focused on supporting compliance with the new fake-reviews obligations before active enforcement, then moved to using its powers. Its first drip-pricing case under the direct regime, announced in April 2026, resulted in a multi-million-pound fine — reduced for early settlement — together with consumer refunds for an undisclosed mandatory booking fee, and it has since opened fake-review investigations into several businesses. The exact penalty mechanics and any fixed-amount alternatives should be confirmed against the CMA's published guidance before relying on them, but the headline 10%-of-global-turnover ceiling is the figure that reframes the risk. Track enforcement developments on the Policy Change Tracker, and map multi-jurisdiction exposure with the Legal Compliance Scan.

How the UK Rules Compare to the US FTC

The UK and US both moved against fake reviews in the same period, and comparing them helps advertisers operating in both markets calibrate a single, defensible standard rather than two divergent ones.

UK DMCC vs US FTC

Dimension	UK (DMCC Act / CMA)	US (FTC)
Instrument	Primary legislation; banned-practices list	16 CFR Part 465 trade regulation rule
In force	6 April 2025	Effective 21 October 2024
Fake / AI reviews	Banned	Banned
Undisclosed incentivised reviews	Banned	Banned
Publisher "reasonable steps" duty	Yes — distinctive UK feature	Not framed this way
Enforcement	Direct CMA fines up to 10% global turnover, no court needed	Civil penalties per violation, court process

Both regimes ban fabricated and undisclosed-incentivised reviews, so a global brand can adopt one rule: no fake or insider reviews, clear disclosure of any incentive, and honest aggregate metrics. The biggest structural difference is enforcement — the CMA can fine directly up to a percentage of global turnover without a court, and uniquely imposes the affirmative "reasonable and proportionate steps" duty on anyone publishing reviews, a higher operational bar than the FTC's per-violation model. For the US detail, see the FTC fake reviews rule guide.

DMCC Compliance Checklist

[ ] Stopped writing, commissioning or incentivising any fake consumer reviews
[ ] Implemented reasonable and proportionate steps to detect and remove fake or concealed-incentive reviews you publish
[ ] Disclosed every incentive clearly where a review was rewarded
[ ] Ensured aggregate ratings, counts and rankings are not misleading
[ ] Stopped concealing or suppressing genuine negative reviews
[ ] Shown the total price including all mandatory fees in every invitation to purchase
[ ] Moved unavoidable booking, service or admin fees into the headline price
[ ] Explained how the price is calculated where it cannot be set in advance
[ ] Reviewed exposure to CMA fines of up to 10% of global turnover
[ ] Confirmed the current rules against the CMA's published guidance and the Act

Don't miss the next policy change.

Create a free account — track every policy change across 8 platforms, get instant alerts, and access every free compliance tool. Or try our Meta Rejection Predictor first.

Create Free Account

Report Keywords — Run AI Compliance Audit

#DMCC Act#Fake Reviews#Drip Pricing#CMA#Consumer Protection#Ad Compliance#E-commerce#Price Transparency#UK Regulation#2026 Policy#Advertisers#Compliance Guide 2026

Share This Report

Tweet Share

UK DMCC Act in 2026: The Fake Reviews Ban, Drip Pricing Rules and CMA Direct Enforcement

What the DMCC Act Changed for Advertisers

The Fake Reviews Ban

What Is Prohibited

Drip Pricing and the Total-Price Rule

The Total-Price Requirement

CMA Direct Enforcement and Fines

The Penalty Levels

How the UK Rules Compare to the US FTC

UK DMCC vs US FTC

DMCC Compliance Checklist

Don't miss the next policy change.

Report Keywords — Run AI Compliance Audit

Share This Report

Related Posts

EU Political Advertising Regulation (TTPA) in 2026: Transparency Notices, Targeting Limits and the Platform Exit

South Korea's Fair Labeling and Advertising Act in 2026: False Claims, Disclosure and AI-Generated Content

South Korea's AI Advertising Law in 2026: Labeling Rules, KFTC Enforcement and Misleading-Claim Penalties

Related Resources

All Tools

Platform Guides

Knowledge Hub

Policy Tracker