The news
Britain's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) updated its case pages on September 28, 2026, to show the CMA fake reviews investigations into Just Eat, Autotrader, Feefo, Dignity and Pasta Evangelists remain ongoing. The cases, opened in March, test powers that took effect in April 2025.
The CMA opened the investigations on March 26, 2026, and announced them on March 27. Each case page now shows an initial phase of information and evidence gathering running from March to September 2026, with the next case update expected in winter 2026 to 2027. The pages describe the change as a timetable update and do not report any findings, enforcement notices or undertakings.
The regulator stresses that it should not be assumed any of the companies has broken consumer protection law, and that no finding has been made. The cases fall under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC Act), which covers how businesses publish consumer reviews and review information such as star ratings.
The Just Eat case, against Just Eat.co.uk Limited, examines whether the platform's ratings system inflated some restaurants' and grocers' star ratings, giving customers a potentially misleading view of quality. A linked pair of cases against Autotrader Limited and Feefo Holdings Limited asks whether a number of 1-star reviews, moderated by Feefo, were left unpublished on Autotrader's platform and excluded from its star ratings.
The Dignity case, against Dignity Group Holdings Limited, examines whether the company asked staff to write positive reviews of its crematoria services. The Pasta Evangelists case asks whether customers were offered discounts on future orders in exchange for 5-star reviews on delivery apps without that being disclosed.
If the CMA finds an infringement, it can require changes and impose fines of up to 10% of global turnover, according to its March press release, and up to 5% for breaching undertakings given to the regulator. Chief executive Sarah Cardell said at the launch, "Fake reviews strike at the heart of consumer trust."
The numbers
- Businesses under investigation
- 5
- Maximum fine for a consumer-law infringement
- Up to 10% of global turnover
- Maximum fine for breaching undertakings
- Up to 5% of global turnover
- Review publishers in the CMA's compliance sweep
- Over 100
- Firms sent advisory letters
- 54
- UK online retail spending in 2023 that reviews contributed to (CMA figure)
- £217 billion
Why CEOs should care
For any business that shows star ratings to UK customers, the five cases map the practices the regulator is testing: how a rating is calculated, which reviews are filtered out, who writes reviews and whether incentives are disclosed. Legal and product teams should document the rating formula, the rules for rejecting or hiding reviews, and any discounts or rewards tied to reviews, and check each against the DMCC Act guidance the CMA published.
For buyers of review software, the Feefo case matters as much as the Autotrader one. The CMA opened a separate case against Feefo, which moderated the reviews at issue, as well as against Autotrader, the site that displayed them. Procurement and legal teams should ask review vendors for their moderation criteria, logs of rejected reviews and clear contract terms on who is responsible for compliance.
For CFOs and boards, the exposure is large and the process sits with the regulator. According to law firm Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (BCLP), the CMA can decide infringements through its own administrative process without first going to court and can order consumer redress. Boards should ask whether review practices are covered in consumer-law compliance reporting, and whether marketing teams run any review incentives that have not been disclosed.
The bigger picture
The investigations follow a period in which the regulator worked on compliance before enforcement. The CMA said it swept over 100 review publishers and sent advisory letters to 54 firms, 90% of which made changes, and that it had earlier secured changes from Google and Amazon to strengthen how they identify and remove fake reviews. BCLP noted that the CMA gave businesses a three-month adjustment period after publishing guidance in April 2025, and that the first fine of its kind under the new regime, £473,000, went to a car park provider for not complying with a legal information notice.
What’s next
The CMA's next scheduled update on all five cases is due in winter 2026 to 2027. Watch for whether any case moves to a provisional finding, whether companies offer undertakings to change their practices, and whether the regulator opens further review cases in other sectors.
What “Fact-checked” means
Fact-checking means testing a story’s facts against the evidence before it is published. This story went through at least two separate checks before this version was published.
- What we checked
- Its names, figures, dates, job titles, quotes and who said what were checked against the story’s sources, including its main source where it could be opened. The headline was checked for accuracy and overstatement.
- How
- A first check reviewed the whole story. If it passed, a second, skeptical check went back to the sources to look for mistakes in the most important facts. If a check flagged the story, it was edited to fix the problems found, and a separate re-check then reviewed the whole story again.
- Who
- The checks are made by our newsroom, as steps kept separate from the writing, under rules set by our editor, Hussein Mukhtar. A story the checks still flag is held for the editor, who decides whether it is fixed, published or dropped.
- If something is wrong
- “Fact-checked” does not mean error-free. If a material error is found after publication, we correct the story and add a note saying what changed. Report an error
