Hotel reviews: the law since April 2025, and a routine that satisfies every platform

Since 6 April 2025 it has been a banned practice in the UK to write, commission or publish fake reviews, or to hide that a review was paid for or rewarded. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 added both to the list, and the Competition and Markets Authority can now fine a business up to 10 per cent of its worldwide turnover without going to court. For a hotel the practical rules are short: never gate, never incentivise without saying so, ask every guest, reply to every review. Here is the routine that keeps Google, Tripadvisor, Booking.com and the CMA happy at the same time.

The law in five lines

• Submitting or commissioning a fake review, or a review that hides a payment or reward, is a banned practice under the DMCC Act 2024, in force for consumer law from 6 April 2025.
• Publishing reviews without taking reasonable and proportionate steps to stop fake ones is also banned, which applies to the reviews page on your own website.
• The CMA published its guidance on fake reviews on 4 April 2025 and said the first three months would be about helping businesses comply; that period is long over.
• Fines run to 10 per cent of global turnover or £300,000, whichever is higher, imposed by the CMA directly.
• Separately, the advertising code requires an incentivised review to say so, and Google, Tripadvisor and Booking.com each ban incentives and selective asking in their own terms, with removal of reviews or the listing as the penalty.

Gating: the mistake hotels make by accident

Review gating is asking only the guests you expect to be happy, or routing the happy ones to Google and the unhappy ones to a private form. Most hotels that do it bought a "guest feedback" tool that does it for them: the email asks "how was your stay", a four or five sends the guest to Google, a one to three opens a complaint form. Google's policy calls that discouraging negative reviews and prohibits it; Tripadvisor's terms name it as selective solicitation; and under the 2025 rules a review profile that has been filtered that way is arguably misleading in itself. The fix is one ask, the same for everyone. A private feedback channel is fine as long as it is offered to every guest alongside the public one, not instead of it.

Incentives: what "disclosed" means

A free drink for a review, a discount code, a prize draw: all of these are incentives, and Google's policy bans them outright on Google reviews whether disclosed or not. Tripadvisor bans them too. On your own site, an incentivised review is lawful only if the incentive is stated next to the review. In practice the safe rule for a hotel is that nobody is ever rewarded for a review, and the ask is the same for everyone.

The routine

1. At check-out, one sentence from whoever is on the desk: "If you have a minute later, a Google review really helps a small place like ours." No qualifier about how the stay went.
2. That evening, one email or message with one link. Alternate months between Google and Tripadvisor if both matter to you, or send Google to everyone and Tripadvisor only to guests who found you there. Booking.com guests get Booking.com's own invitation automatically; do not duplicate it.
3. A QR code on the key card holder or the breakfast table, pointing at the same link, for guests who do the review on the spot.
4. A reply to every review within 48 hours, signed with a name.
5. A complaints channel that exists for every guest, in the welcome letter, so problems reach you before they reach the internet, without ever replacing the public ask.
6. A monthly count: reviews received, average rating, replies outstanding, and the three properties above you in the hotel module with their counts.

Replying, because the next guest reads it

To a good review: thank them by name, mention the one specific thing they praised, and say you look forward to seeing them. Two lines. To a bad one: acknowledge the fact without arguing, say what you have changed or offer to talk offline, and stop. Never reveal anything about the guest's stay they did not put in the review themselves, because a reply is a publication and the data protection rules apply to it. Never post a template. The person reading is not the reviewer; it is the guest deciding whether to book, and they judge the property by how it handles a complaint.

Fake or malicious reviews against you

Check the property management system first: a reviewer who never stayed is the strongest evidence. Report it through Google's review management tool or Tripadvisor's reporting form with the facts, not the outrage. Under the 2025 rules the platforms carry a duty to take proportionate steps against fake reviews, which has made them somewhat more responsive. Reply publicly in the meantime, once, briefly, stating that you have no record of the stay and have asked the platform to look at it.

Which platform matters most

Google reviews decide the rating on the knowledge panel and in the hotel module, which is where most name searches and map searches end. Tripadvisor is where the researching guest reads the long reviews and the photos. Booking.com's score decides your rank on Booking.com and you can only move it by the stay itself. All three, and Expedia, are read by the AI assistants when someone asks them for a hotel in your town, and they quote what guests said. There is no platform to ignore; there is only the order in which to ask.

The routine takes a few minutes a day and no money. The properties above you in the hotel module are, in most towns, simply the ones that have asked every guest for longer.