Fake five-star reviews are bypassing checks on Facebook, Google and Trustpilot, with bogus paid-for glowing endorsements slipping past security nets, worrying research has shown. The Which? investigation found that the online marketplaces can be easily infiltrated through a booming industry of fake brokers peddling reviews for as little as £4.
The consumer champion went undercover with a fake business, called Gold Lion Labs, to try to find out just how robust the checks really are that many of the UK’s biggest online platforms claim to have in place to detect or prevent fake reviews from misleading customers.
The investigation found:
- A network of fake profiles on Facebook, leaving fake reviews across hundreds of businesses.
- Gaps in Trustpilot’s mechanisms for stopping fake reviews, allowing Which? to achieve an above average category TrustScore in weeks.
- Fake reviews were easily added to the Google business listing, exposing further suspicious activity.
Read more: The six signs that your Facebook customer might be a scammer
The fake business, which claimed to offer PCR testing services, was launched and Which? set about filling it with reports bought from brokers found through Google. In just five days it had racked up 19 five-star reviews on Facebook, and when it looked into the profiles of the reviewers, it found that they all reviewed a selection of the same businesses on Facebook. A similar ruse notched up 19 misleading five-star reviews and a 4.6 TrustScore on Trustpilot.
Finding fake review brokers that help to artificially inflate business listings was easy after a quick Google search, and the one chosen claimed to have created nearly 16,000 reviews for a total of 570 customers, and offers its service in nearly every country in the world.
A spokesman for Facebook owner Meta told Which? they were “working to prevent these practices”, Google said they are “blocking accounts associated with malicious activity” and Trustpilot said: “We have introduced technology that allows us to understand complex patterns of potential misuse.”
The experiment also discovered the real impact of fake reviews on businesses and customers, highlighting a small business targeted by malicious fake reviews on Facebook, and a solicitors firm misleading customers with paid-for positive reviews on Google and Facebook.
A client of a London based solicitors contacted Which? after they had paid more than £1,000 to the firm for help with a work visa. After receiving terrible service, the client left negative reviews on Google and Facebook, and requested a refund. The firm initially offered a goodwill payment of £300, but only if the negative review was removed. After hearing other similar reports about rh firstm,, Which? found a string of suspicious activity that suggested the firm had used a review broker to bolster its listing, including more than 10 reviewers on Google who had all left five-star reviews for a business in France.
And it not just consumers who suffer when platforms don’t take action against review brokers. A business owner told how his Facebook page was targeted by fake negative reviews in 2021, including ones left by the same profiles that had recommended our fake business. Across two dates, a total of 11 negative reviews were left, taking his rating from five to less than three stars overnight.
Which? concluded that the platforms are not doing enough to stop fake reviews, although all three platforms say they’re taking steps to combat fake reviews: employing dedicated teams, using artificial intelligence and flagging suspicious behaviour.
Rocio Concha, Which? director of policy and advocacy, said: “Facebook, Google and Trustpilot are failing to do enough to shut out a fake reviews industry that has been thriving and profiting from misleading reviews for years now. The government has outlined plans for a new Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Bill that would give the CMA stronger powers to protect consumers from an avalanche of fake reviews. The Bill must be introduced to Parliament by the new Prime Minister without delay.”
Now read: