Best Hotel Review Websites: What the Rules Actually Say
Contents
The rules that govern online reviews in the United States and the United Kingdom set standards for conduct rather than naming approved websites. The Federal Trade Commission and the Competition and Markets Authority regulate conduct, not reputation. The FTC‘s rule on consumer reviews binds businesses, and the CMA’s guidance sets duties on the publishers of reviews.
What they do instead is more useful: the two regimes draw the line in opposite places. The American rule binds businesses and steps back from platforms that merely host reviews. The British one puts a positive legal duty on the publisher — a category the CMA says includes booking agents and specialist review sites. Together they amount to a manual for reading any hotel review page.
Key takeaways
- The FTC’s rule sits at 16 CFR Part 465, effective 21 October 2024. It binds businesses and exempts “mere consumer review hosting” from its core fake-review provisions.
- The Commission was asked to restrict third-party review platforms and declined, calling it “beyond the scope of the rulemaking.”
- The UK inverted that. Under paragraph 13 of Schedule 20 to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, publishers carry a positive duty to prevent and remove fake reviews.
- The CMA can fine up to 10% of global turnover. As of March 2026 it has five review investigations open and states it has reached no conclusions.
- The FTC says not to trust your own eye for fakes; the CMA says a 3 or 4-star review is unlikely to be fake and is particularly useful.
Why the regulators do not hand you a list
The FTC’s Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials is codified at 16 CFR Part 465 and took effect on 21 October 2024, after publication in the Federal Register on 22 August 2024. Commenters asked the Commission to place explicit restrictions on third-party review platforms. It refused, stating the topic “is beyond the scope of the rulemaking.”
The rule goes further than silence. It states that paragraphs (b) and (c) of section 465.2 “do not apply to mere consumer review hosting, even if the business prompts review submissions or aggregates star ratings.” A site that invites hotel reviews and averages the results is not, by those acts alone, the target.
What the US rule bans
The incentive ban is wider than it sounds. Section 465.4 prohibits incentives given in exchange for, or conditioned “expressly or by implication” on, a review expressing a particular sentiment — negative as well as positive. “Purchasing” a review needs no cash: the rule defines it as providing something of value “such as money, gift certificates, products, services, discounts, coupons, contest entries, or another review.”
Section 465.5(a) makes it a violation for an officer or manager to review their own business without a clear and conspicuous disclosure. Online, that disclosure “must be unavoidable”: it fails if a reader “must take any action, such as clicking on a hyperlink or hovering over an icon, to see it.” Section 465.7(b) targets a display representing “most or all the reviews submitted” while negative ones are suppressed.
Two limits matter before assuming a hotel has broken the rule. Reviews resulting from “generalized solicitations to purchasers” are exempt, so a hotel emailing every departing guest is not caught by that act alone. And the FTC stated in August 2024 that the maximum civil penalty was then $51,744 per violation, while noting courts “may impose much lower per-violation penalties.” That figure is inflation-adjusted.
The UK put the duty on the publisher
The British prohibition sits at paragraph 13 of Schedule 20 to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, explained in CMA208, guidance dated 4 April 2025. The CMA states this element “creates a ‘positive’ obligation,” requiring anyone who publishes reviews to take effective action rather than merely refrain from a specified act.
Booking sites are named, not implied. The CMA lists the intermediaries in scope as platforms, specialist review sites, trader recommendation platforms, retailers and booking agents. Its test is simple: “A fake review is a consumer review that purports to be, but is not, based on a person’s genuine experience.”
The CMA names two minimums: a clear policy on preventing and removing banned reviews, and a risk assessment leading to “such further proactive steps as are reasonable and proportionate.” Its September 2025 guidance lists what a review site must not do — edit, withhold, remove or delay genuine negative reviews, or let businesses block reviews they dislike.
| Question | United States (16 CFR Part 465) | United Kingdom (DMCC Act 2024) |
|---|---|---|
| Who is bound | Businesses responsible for the listed deceptive practices | Publishers, expressly including booking agents and specialist review sites |
| A platform that merely hosts | Exempt from the fake-review provisions of 465.2, even if it aggregates ratings | Positive duty to take reasonable and proportionate steps to prevent and remove banned reviews |
| Ratings and scores | Regulated: reviews include ratings “regardless of whether they include any text or narrative” | Regulated: covers overall ratings, review counts and rankings |
| Incentivised reviews | Banned where sentiment is required expressly or by implication | Concealed incentivisation banned; commissioning includes free stays |
| Negative reviews | 465.7(b) bans a display implying most or all reviews are shown while negatives are suppressed | Must not edit, withhold, remove or delay genuine negative reviews |
| Penalty ceiling | $51,744 per violation as stated in August 2024; inflation-adjusted | Up to 10% of global turnover, as stated in March 2026 |
Three things that matter for hotels
The refurbished hotel. The CMA states that if a product changes over time, traders must consider whether genuine reviews published before the changes could be misleading, and says published reviews must not be outdated. A property gutted, re-branded or handed to a new operator is the travel case in point, and it cuts both ways: old complaints mislead as readily as old praise.
The free stay. The CMA lists “free stays” among its examples of commissioning, alongside money, commissions, discounts, freebies and event invitations. A hosted or press-trip review is therefore incentivised under UK law, and concealed where the fact is not made apparent, including through hidden disclosure. The FTC is candid about the limits of labels: readers will not always know whether a reviewer received something, and “how you weigh those reviews is up to you.”
The number itself. Both regimes treat the score as regulated content: the FTC rule states consumer reviews include ratings whether or not they carry text. The CMA counts overall ratings, review counts and rankings as consumer review information, and names two failures: a rating that “fails promptly to update” after fake reviews are removed, and rankings influenced by commissions paid for prominence.
Pro tip
Before weighing any hotel score, look for two disclosures on the site. FTC staff guidance says platforms should clearly and conspicuously disclose how they collect, process and display reviews and how they determine overall ratings. The CMA says review sites must prominently disclose commercial relationships with the businesses listed. A site answering both has told you how to discount its number.
How the regulators say to read a review page
The FTC’s consumer article, dated October 2022, tells readers to check how recent reviews are and to watch for a burst of reviews over a short period, which can mean they are fake. It says to check the reviewer’s history: an account apparently created just to write one review may be fake. It also warns that fake reviews are not always positive: a company might post fake negative ones to harm a competitor.
The CMA’s March 2026 advice adds three tests. A review that “feels a bit too slick, reads like it’s been perfectly crafted, or uses very similar wording to others” may not reflect a real customer’s experience. Check multiple sites, because looking across several helps you spot patterns. And one line worth carrying to any listing: “It’s unlikely that a 3 or 4-star review is fake, so they can be particularly useful.”
Verified-stay gating is not the safeguard it looks like. FTC staff guidance notes that some platforms are open and others limit collection to verified buyers, and that “neither system is immune to fake reviews.” The CMA says publishers should not stop users leaving reviews merely because they did not buy the product themselves, and separately treats a hotel stay cut short because the reviewer felt unsafe as still a genuine review.
Common mistake
Assuming you can spot a fake by reading it. The FTC states: “Don’t assume that, just by looking, you can spot the difference between a real review and a fake one. Some reviews may look suspicious, and some may look real, but it can often be nearly impossible to tell for sure.” Structural checks — recency, reviewer history, clustering, cross-site patterns — survive that warning. Gut feeling does not.
Enforcement as of March 2026
The UK provisions became banned practices in April 2025, and the CMA states that where it finds an infringement it can impose fines of up to 10% of global turnover. On 24 January 2025 Google signed undertakings covering detection, sanctions and reporting, and will report to the CMA over a three-year period. Under them, businesses found boosting star ratings via fake reviews get prominent warning alerts on their profiles, where review scores are shown. On 6 June 2025 Amazon gave undertakings covering “catalogue abuse”: sellers hijacking reviews of well-performing products and attaching them to a different product.
The CMA also measured the field. It swept over 100 review publishers and issued advisory letters to 54 firms, reporting that 90% made changes in response. On 27 March 2026 it opened investigations into five businesses, including Just Eat over allegedly inflated star ratings and Autotrader and Feefo over 1-star reviews allegedly not published. The CMA states it has not reached any conclusions about whether consumer law has been broken. Those cases are live, so check the regulators’ current pages.
Frequently asked questions
Is any hotel review website officially approved by a regulator?
Not by the two authorities covered here. The FTC regulates business conduct and expressly declined to restrict third-party review platforms. The CMA sets duties for publishers rather than ranking them.
Who breaks the law when a fake hotel review appears on a US site?
Generally the party that created, bought or sold it. The rule states that paragraphs (b) and (c) of section 465.2 do not apply to mere consumer review hosting, even where the business aggregates star ratings.
Does a UK review site have to remove fake hotel reviews?
The CMA describes the duty as a positive obligation requiring publishers to take effective action rather than merely refrain from an act. Every publisher needs a clear policy and a risk assessment leading to further proportionate steps.
Is a free hotel stay in exchange for a review against the rules?
The CMA lists free stays among its examples of commissioning, so a hosted stay produces an incentivised review, concealed where the incentive is not made apparent. Under the FTC rule, a disclosure a reader must click or hover to see is not clear and conspicuous.
Can you tell whether a hotel review is fake just by reading it?
The FTC says not to assume you can, noting it is often nearly impossible to tell for sure. The CMA suggests caution with unusually polished or repetitively worded reviews, and points to 3 and 4-star reviews as unlikely to be fake.
Do verified-stay systems remove the problem?
FTC staff guidance states that neither open systems nor closed systems limited to verified buyers are immune to fake reviews. The CMA separately says publishers should not stop people reviewing merely because they did not buy the product.
