In more detail
A customer discovered unauthorized reviews posted under her name on a car forum and lodged a complaint with CCCS. CCCS commenced its investigations in January 2025. In the course of its investigations, CCCS confirmed with seven other customers that fake reviews contained their names, vehicle registration numbers and vehicle photographs. CCCS found that a car detailing firm had used the relevant customers' information without their knowledge or consent.
The car detailing firm posted the fake reviews between October 2024 and January 2025, and CCCS found that it had used an AI platform to generate the customized reviews.
CCCS stated that posting fake reviews constitutes an unfair practice under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act 2023 (CPFTA) as consumers may, as a result of such reviews, be deceived or misled into thinking that the product is more well received than it actually is, and thus make misinformed purchase decisions.
The car detailing firm admitted to engaging in such unfair trade practices and provided undertakings to CCCS to do the following:
- Stop posting fake reviews
- Set up a feedback channel for a six-month period for customers to report fake reviews
- Notify customers whose details were used in reviews
- Publish notices on forums where fake reviews were posted to inform customers that it had posted fake reviews and alert them of the feedback channel
- Remove reviews verified by CCCS or itself to be fake
The car detailing firm's director has also undertaken to CCCS not to engage in any unfair practice under the CPFTA.
In the wake of the investigations, CCCS reaffirmed its commitment to taking firm action against businesses engaging in unfair practices, in view of the important role online reviews play in influencing customers' purchasing decisions and their trust. CCCS highlighted that this is the second fake review case it has uncovered.
Key takeaways
This case demonstrates CCCS' continuing strict enforcement against errant companies for engaging in unfair practices in contravention of the CPFTA. If necessary, CCCS can seek declarations and court injunctions against errant businesses. The court may also issue accompanying orders, such as requiring the business to notify its consumers about the declaration or injunction before entering into contracts with its consumers and include a statement about the declaration or injunction in every invoice or receipt. Failure to comply with the court's order may result in contempt of court.
* * * * *

© 2025 Baker & McKenzie. Wong & Leow. All rights reserved. Baker & McKenzie. Wong & Leow is incorporated with limited liability and is a member firm of Baker & McKenzie International, a global law firm with member law firms around the world. In accordance with the common terminology used in professional service organizations, reference to a "principal" means a person who is a partner, or equivalent, in such a law firm. Similarly, reference to an "office" means an office of any such law firm. This may qualify as "Attorney Advertising" requiring notice in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.