Consumer protection: new measures on fake reviews, hidden fees and other pricing issues

As expected, the consultation proposes to make it an unfair practice to submit a fake review or commission or incentivise any person to write or submit a fake review.  However, businesses will also be expected to take "reasonable and proportionate steps" to prevent consumers being exposed to fake reviews or any information (such as aggregated ratings) which may have become misleading as a result of fake reviews.  The key question here is what lengths businesses will be expected to go to.  Whilst the consultation promises that the Competition and Markets Authority will produce guidance on this point, it seems likely that some measure of proactivity is envisaged and that it will not be sufficient to have purely reactive "notice and takedown" procedures.

The Government is also proposing to prohibit traders from misrepresenting reviews;   it envisages that this would outlaw practices such as deleting or suppressing negative reviews, only publishing positive reviews and applying different weightings to reviews based on the source consumer.

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (CPRs) outlaw a wide range of behaviour, particularly around the sales practices adopted by businesses when dealing with consumers.  However, at present, consumers can only claim damages or other forms of redress for e.g. misselling where the conduct involved either a "misleading action" or an "aggressive action".  The Government is consulting on whether the right to redress should be extended to misleading omissions, breach of the general obligation on businesses to use "professional diligence" and any blacklisted practice as set out in Schedule 1 to the CPRs. 

Whilst it is relatively rare for individual consumers to resort to court action, we are seeing more instances of group litigation on behalf of large numbers of consumers – a recent example being claims brought against vehicle manufacturers over the diesel emissions scandal.  An extension of rights of redress would provide further legal bases for claims of this type.

For more discussion of group litigation/collective claims more generally, see our Dispute Resolution Yearbook.

The Government is also considering the following measures which will affect bricks-and-mortar retailers (although the first two will affect online retailers as well):

• Unit pricing:  Mandating unit prices on certain products so that consumers can compare similar items more easily and tightening up requirements on legibility and prominence.  This will be particularly significant in the grocery sector.
  
  
• Offers and promotions:  Tightening up requirements on offers such as multi-buys or loyalty card discounts, again so that consumers can more easily compare the cost of similar items.  One concern here is that some promotions do not give an actual promotional selling price but merely state that e.g. there is a 10% saving with a loyalty card.  Another concern is that unit pricing is not always given in relation to the promotional price, making comparisons more difficult.
  
  
• Small shops exemption:   Shops with a relevant floor area not exceeding 280 square metres are exempt from some aspects of the current pricing legislation.  The Government is consulting on whether this remains appropriate, particularly for small shops belonging to national chains.
  
  
• Deposit return schemes:  the Government is proposing to introduce a deposit return scheme for drinks containers (both bottles and cans) in October 2025.  As regards pricing, the Government is proposing that the deposit cost should be displayed separately from the price of the drink.