/
Fake and Manipulated Reviews: What the EU Omnibus Directive Bans, and What It Means for Influencer-Posted Reviews
Guide
Influencer Marketing Basics
Both
The EU's Omnibus Directive bans two specific forms of review fraud: claiming that reviews come from consumers who genuinely used or bought the product without taking reasonable and proportionate steps to verify that (Annex I item 23b), and submitting or commissioning false consumer reviews or endorsements, or misrepresenting reviews and social media endorsements, to promote products (item 23c). Both apply regardless of whether an influencer-posted review is otherwise correctly labelled as an ad — it's a separate question about the review's authenticity, not whether it's marked as paid.
The EU's Omnibus Directive ((EU) 2019/2161) added two new items in 2022 to the blacklist of practices always considered misleading under Directive 2005/29/EC (the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, UCPD) — implemented in Denmark as Annex 1 to markedsføringsloven. Item 23b bans claiming that a product's reviews come from consumers who actually used or bought it, without taking reasonable and proportionate steps to verify that. Item 23c bans submitting or commissioning false consumer reviews or endorsements from someone else, or misrepresenting reviews and social media endorsements, to promote products. Both are a separate question about the review's authenticity — distinct from whether the content is otherwise correctly labelled as an ad.
This is practical guidance from Make Influence, not legal advice. Get a specific legal assessment if there's any doubt about a particular campaign.
Directive (EU) 2019/2161 — known as the Omnibus Directive — amended a range of EU consumer rules at once, including the UCPD's Annex I, the list of practices considered unfair in all circumstances, with no case-by-case assessment needed. Two of the new items address reviews specifically, and they have applied across the EU, including Denmark, since 28 May 2022:
The directive simultaneously added a new provision to the UCPD's Article 7 on misleading omissions: where a trader provides access to consumer reviews of products, information about whether and how the trader ensures that the published reviews originate from consumers who have actually used or purchased the products is deemed material information. Failing to disclose that is therefore itself a misleading omission.
Denmark implemented the Article 7 addition as a new provision, markedsføringsloven § 6b, in force since the same date, 28 May 2022. The provision's wording, in the original Danish, is direct:
»En erhvervsdrivende, der giver adgang til brugeranmeldelser af produkter, skal på en klar og forståelig måde oplyse, hvorvidt og i givet fald hvordan den erhvervsdrivende sikrer, at de offentliggjorte anmeldelser stammer fra forbrugere, der faktisk har anvendt eller købt produkterne.« (»A trader who gives access to user reviews of products must, in a clear and understandable way, state whether and, if so, how the trader ensures that the published reviews originate from consumers who have actually used or purchased the products.«)
§ 6b doesn't itself impose a duty to verify reviews — it imposes a duty to disclose whether and how you do. The provision reaches anyone who provides access to user reviews, whether they sit on the business's own site or with a third party like Trustpilot. The two blacklist items, 23b and 23c, are different: they're absolute bans that can't be satisfied by disclosure alone — if a review is genuinely fake or misrepresented, telling the consumer you haven't verified it doesn't fix the problem.
Annex 1 already contained a related, older item before the Omnibus Directive: item 22, banning a trader from falsely posing as a consumer. That's a different angle on the same underlying problem — an employee or someone else connected to the business appearing as an independent consumer, rather than a third party commissioned or paid to write a fake review.
The difference isn't just theoretical. On 11 December 2025, the Copenhagen City Court fined Rekom Group A/S 150,000 kr. and its subsidiary NightPay ApS 50,000 kr. (case SS 4-3086/2025) for misleading consumers through user reviews on Trustpilot. The case concerned 13 highly positive five-star reviews of the NightPay app published on Trustpilot between 10 and 16 March 2020 — written by people who were all employees of the Rekom group, without disclosing the employment relationship. The court found that an ordinary consumer could believe the reviews were written by independent consumers, and that this could affect the consumer's economic behaviour. The companies only corrected the practice on 12 November 2021, after a media inquiry.
What matters for this article: the case was decided under §§ 5 and 6, plus § 9 referencing Annex 1, item 22 — not item 23b or 23c. That makes sense: the conduct took place in March 2020, more than two years before items 23b and 23c entered into force on 28 May 2022, so the newer provisions couldn't apply. What the case does show is that Forbrugerombudsmanden and the courts actively pursue fake or concealed reviews under the annex that's now been expanded with the two newer items — and that fines of this size are a real consequence, not a theoretical risk.
An influencer-posted »review« can raise up to three genuinely separate legal questions at once. Each has its own answer, and getting one right says nothing about the other two:
| Is the content labelled as an ad? | Is the review genuine, or is it fake/misrepresented? | Does it comply with the platform's own rules? | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which rule? | Markedsføringsloven § 6(4) | Annex 1, item 23b/23c + § 6b | E.g. Trustpilot's own guidelines |
| What does it decide? | Whether the audience can see there's a commercial interest | Whether the review's content genuinely reflects real, completed use/purchase | Whether the sender is even allowed to write the review on that specific platform |
| Can it be fixed by disclosure alone? | Yes — correct labelling makes the post lawful | Partly — § 6b is a disclosure duty, but items 23b/23c are absolute bans that can't be »disclosed away« | No — e.g. Trustpilot doesn't permit an incentivized review at all, regardless of labelling |
| Covered on the Academy | Influencer marketing disclosure rules | This article | Incentivized reviews on Trustpilot |
The practical problem these rules target isn't payment itself — it's letting a review present itself as a genuine, completed experience when it isn't. Two situations typically arise in an influencer collaboration:
Conversely: an influencer who has genuinely used the product and honestly describes their experience in a correctly labelled, paid collaboration isn't caught by either of these rules — payment triggers the ad-disclosure duty (§ 6(4)), but doesn't in itself make the review fake or misrepresented. It's specifically the misrepresentation of what actually happened that's banned — not the fact that money or a product changed hands.
IF the influencer has genuinely used or bought the product and describes their own, honest experience → neither of these rules is breached, regardless of whether the collaboration is paid (still mark it under § 6(4)).
IF the brand proposes or requires specific wording about an experience, testing period or effect the influencer hasn't actually had → risk of breaching item 23c, regardless of correct ad disclosure.
IF the brand displays or aggregates influencer reviews on its own website or in its own marketing → § 6b's disclosure duty about verification applies, and failing to disclose it is itself a misleading omission.
IF an employee, owner or someone else connected to the brand posts an »independent« review or comment themselves without disclosing the connection → risk of breaching the older item 22, which the Rekom/NightPay case shows is actively enforced.
The scenario below is a made-up example for illustration — not a real Make Influence customer case.
A supplement brand asks an influencer to post: »I've been taking these for 4 weeks and my energy is noticeably better« — but the influencer only received the product the week before and never opened the box. The post is correctly labelled »ad for [brand]«. The ad disclosure (§ 6(4)) is therefore in order. But the claim of a four-week testing period and an experienced effect is fabricated — it presents itself as a genuine consumer experience that never happened. That's a misrepresented endorsement under Annex 1 item 23c, independent of the correct ad disclosure, and a completely separate issue from whether an energy claim like this could be documented in the first place.
We never recommend giving an influencer specific words for an experience, a testing period or an effect unless the influencer has genuinely had that experience. That holds even when the brief is otherwise fully lawful and correctly ad-labelled — because the item-23c risk sits in the claim itself, not in the payment behind it. Our recommendation for brands that want to highlight what creators say about a product: use the influencer's own, actual words, and keep track of when and how each review was obtained, so § 6b's disclosure duty can be answered honestly if it's ever asked.
They apply broadly to any trader that uses or gives access to consumer reviews — including a brand that uses or displays an influencer's »review« in its marketing.
No. Ad disclosure (§ 6(4)) and review authenticity (Annex 1 item 23b/23c, § 6b) are two separate questions that both have to be satisfied.
Item 23b catches a trader who claims reviews come from genuine users without taking reasonable steps to verify that. Item 23c catches submitting or commissioning fake reviews yourself, or misrepresenting reviews and social media endorsements.
28 May 2022, across the EU, as part of the Omnibus Directive's implementation deadline. Denmark's implementing provision is § 6b of markedsføringsloven.
No — the case was decided under the older item 22 (falsely posing as a consumer), because the conduct took place in 2020, before items 23b and 23c entered into force. It does show that fake reviews generally are actively pursued under Annex 1.
No, the § 6b disclosure duty is directed at the trader who provides access to the reviews — typically the brand, not the individual influencer.
No, it's a related but separate question. That article covers whether a review that presents itself as independent has to be labelled as an ad. This article covers whether the review's content is genuine at all.
No, it's a different part of the same directive. The 30-day price rule covers documenting a genuine »normal price« behind a discount — not review authenticity.
Annex 1 and § 6b are statutory rules that apply regardless of platform. Trustpilot's own guidelines are a private, contractual platform rule layered on top of the law, and in some respects stricter.
Yes, a completely separate documentation duty. Even a genuine, non-misrepresented review can contain a concrete effect claim that has to be documentable before the brand reuses it as its own marketing. See using influencer content as a testimonial.
Make Influence
Find creators with real audience data, run collaborations in one place, and see clicks and sales per creator while the campaign is live.
Book a demoCreate accountMake Influence
Apply to campaigns from brands that are actively looking, follow your own clicks and sales, and get paid without chasing invoices.
Create creator profileMore creator guidesMake Influence
Briefs, agreed terms, tracking links and results sit together — so brands and creators see the same numbers.
See how it worksBrowse the Academy
