Reviews and testimonials for builders: ACL rules and state enforcement

Key takeaways

• Fake reviews and paid testimonials without disclosure breach ACL sections 18 and 29(1)(e) regardless of state.
• The 2024 ACL Unfair Trading amendments created civil penalties for incentivised reviews that fail to disclose the incentive.
• ACCC guidance treats overall impression as the test, not literal accuracy of a single review.
• Every state consumer regulator can enforce fake-review conduct, with the ACCC leading on systemic cases.
• Builders using review-management platforms need to audit filters, moderation and incentive-disclosure controls.

The ACL foundation

Section 18 of the ACL bans misleading or deceptive conduct in trade. Section 29(1)(e) bans false or misleading representations about testimonials by any person relating to goods or services. Section 29(1)(g) bans false or misleading representations that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits they do not have.

Between them, these provisions cover most fake-review and testimonial mischief. The 2024 Unfair Trading amendments to the ACL added civil penalties for undisclosed incentivised reviews as a distinct offence.

What counts as a fake review

ACCC guidance identifies several review conduct categories:

• A review written by someone who did not use the service (fake).
• A review incentivised by a benefit that is not disclosed (undisclosed incentive).
• A review filtered by the business to remove negative feedback (misleading overall impression).
• A testimonial edited beyond punctuation without the customer's consent (misleading).
• Star-rating aggregation that hides recent complaints (misleading overall impression).

A business does not need to have written the fake reviews itself. Publishing a review it knows or should have known was fake is enough.

State-level enforcement

Every state consumer regulator can take enforcement action against fake-review conduct under the ACL:

• Fair Trading NSW and Building Commission NSW
• Consumer Affairs Victoria and the Building and Plumbing Commission
• Office of Fair Trading (Qld) and QBCC
• Consumer Protection WA
• Consumer and Business Services SA
• Consumer Building and Occupational Services (Tas)
• Access Canberra
• NT Consumer Affairs

The ACCC leads on cases with systemic or cross-jurisdictional impact. In recent years the ACCC has focused on aggregator platforms and businesses running review-manipulation programs.

Review platforms and control

Builders using Google Business Profile, Product Review, Trust Pilot or similar platforms are still responsible for the overall impression their listing creates. Filtering, selective replies and moderation choices can all attract enforcement.

A review-management program should:

• Only invite verifiable customers.
• Disclose any incentive at the time of the invitation.
• Not filter out negative reviews.
• Not edit testimonials beyond punctuation or spelling.
• Keep records of consent for public use of testimonials.

What builders should audit today

• Every published review has a verifiable customer.
• Every incentivised review discloses the incentive at equal prominence.
• Aggregate star ratings reflect recent reviews and are not filtered.
• Written testimonials on websites have documented consent from the customer.
• Reply-to-negative-review policy avoids escalating into a fresh section 18 breach.