FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Marketing and PR agencies
Using AI to write fake reviews, or offering that service to clients, is banned under the DMCC Act from 6 April 2025. Agencies are directly in scope, not just the brands whose products are reviewed.
Part of: AI in Marketing and PR agencies
In short
Schedule 20 paragraph 13 of the DMCC Act 2024, in force from 6 April 2025, bans fake consumer reviews, concealed incentivised reviews, misleading publication of reviews and failure to take reasonable steps against fakes. Paragraph 13(4) also bans offering services to traders to do any of these, which captures agencies selling AI review generation or drafted testimonials. CMA208 explains the regime without expressly mentioning AI. Fines are generally uninsurable, and PI may exclude deliberate wrongdoing, so the safest course is to withdraw any review-writing service.
Reviews can drive conversion, and clients may ask agencies to help them get more. AI makes some tempting shortcuts very easy: drafting testimonials "in the customer's voice", generating batches of five-star reviews, writing review responses that hide a negative story, or seeding marketplace listings. Legitimate uses also exist, such as summarising genuine reviews, analysing sentiment, or drafting polite requests asking real customers to leave feedback. The legal line runs between helping genuine customers review and manufacturing or distorting reviews.
Schedule 20, paragraph 13 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force on 6 April 2025 (SI 2025/272). It treats the following as banned practices:
Paragraph 13(4) is the critical one for agencies. An agency selling AI review generation, or drafting testimonials for clients to post as if written by customers, is offering a banned service in its own right. The CMA's fake reviews guidance (CMA208), published on 4 April 2025, explains the regime; it does not expressly address AI, but nothing in the law excuses reviews written by a machine. The IPA/ISBA principles also rule out fraudulent ads and expect human oversight.
Illustrative scenario: a small digital agency offers a "reputation boost" package. A tool drafts reviews from product descriptions, and junior staff post them through accounts the client provides. A rival reports the pattern. The CMA opens an investigation into the client and asks about the agency's role. The client terminates the retainer, refuses to pay outstanding fees and threatens to claim its legal costs and lost sales from the agency, saying it was told the service was compliant.
Less obvious traps include incentivising reviews without disclosure, filtering out negative reviews before publication, and using AI to rewrite genuine reviews so they read better, which may make them misleading.
Regulatory fines and penalties are generally uninsurable in the UK as a matter of public policy, and policies may exclude them expressly; see are AI regulatory fines insurable?. A client's civil claim against the agency is different, and PI may respond if it alleges negligent advice or service. However, wordings may exclude deliberate, dishonest or knowingly unlawful acts, and an agency that knowingly ran a fake review operation may find cover excluded. Defence costs for an investigation are a separate question that depends on whether the policy includes regulatory or investigation costs at all. See PI or media liability for AI claims.
Review responses posted automatically on social channels need the same care; see AI social media management. Testimonials quoted in ads also count as claims that need evidence, as explained in AI copywriting and unsubstantiated claims. For how the DMCC Act sits alongside the CAP Code and the IPA/ISBA principles, read AI ad rules for agencies, or return to the marketing and PR agencies hub. If a client asks for something that looks like review manipulation, a short written refusal that cites paragraph 13 is also useful evidence of your agency's own compliance later.
How Apex helps: Apex arranges PI for marketing agencies running review and reputation services. A broker can review how your policy treats regulatory investigations and claims linked to review work.
Not if they are presented as genuine customer reviews. Writing reviews that do not reflect a real consumer's experience is a banned practice under Schedule 20 paragraph 13 of the DMCC Act, and offering that service to traders is banned too.
Generally yes, if replies are accurate, come from the business and do not mislead. Replies should not misrepresent the reviewer's experience or hide relevant facts. Keep a human check before publishing, as IPA/ISBA principle 10 expects.
Generally no. Fines and penalties are generally uninsurable as a matter of public policy and may be excluded. Some policies may contribute to defence costs for an investigation, depending on the wording.
The ban in Schedule 20 paragraph 13 came into force on 6 April 2025 under SI 2025/272, alongside the CMA's fake reviews guidance (CMA208), published on 4 April 2025.
Tell us about your firm and the work you do. A broker will review how your current PI treats AI-assisted work, or arrange new cover. No fee for a quote. Or call 0117 325 0027.
Start a PI quote Request a callbackApex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England and Wales, company number 07014570. This page is general information about how AI is used in the profession and how insurance may respond. It is not legal, regulatory or insurance advice on your circumstances, and it does not guarantee that cover will be available or on what terms.
