Review Reporting: Guidance for Authors

We have updated our review reporting guidelines In line with the recently published Fake and Incentivised Reviews policy. The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is clear in its guidance that reviews should reflect genuine customer feedback, freely given and not influenced or pressured, including through attempts to have reviews removed. This guidance has been written with this in mind. 

You retain the ability to report a review; however, the criteria for removal has been clarified in line with CMA guidance. You may find that reviews that would previously have been removed will now remain public.

This approach supports: 

• Genuine customer feedback 

• Balanced representation of experiences 

• Compliance with CMA expectations 

The key principle throughout this guidance can be simplified as: 

Reviews are assessed based on whether they reflect a genuine customer experience, and not on whether the author agrees with the feedback or believes it to be fair.

Reviews that may be removed 

 

1. Fake or non-genuine reviews 

Please refer to the Fake and Incentivised Reviews policy for full definitions. In short, we may remove reviews that are not based on a genuine customer experience.  

To report a fake or non-genuine review, you must provide: 

• A clear explanation of why you believe the review is not genuine 

• Supporting evidence  

Unsubstantiated or general claims will not be investigated. 

 

2. Incentivised Reviews 

Please refer to the Fake and Incentivised Reviews policy for full definitions. 

We do not allow incentivised reviews in any form.  

To report an incentivised review, you must provide: 

• A clear explanation of why you believe the review was incentivised 

• Supporting evidence

Unsubstantiated or general claims will not be investigated. 

 

3. Factually Inaccurate Reviews

This is one of the most misunderstood reasons for reporting resource reviews. Please read the below information carefully.

We will only consider claims about factually inaccurate reviews where the claim is objective and there is no reasonable ambiguity. 

To report a factually inaccurate review, you must provide: 

• The exact statement(s) in the review that you believe to be factually incorrect 

• A clear explanation of why the statement is objectively inaccurate, with evidence 

Unsubstantiated or general claims will not be investigated. 

 

Important requirement for authors  Do not edit or replace the resource or make any amendments to the upload until we have concluded investigations. This includes but is not limited to the files themselves, the title, description or previews, and any tagging.   If changes are made before we review the issue:  We cannot reliably determine what the buyer originally received  We cannot confirm whether the issue existed  We may, as a result, be unable to support a removal request

 

 

Where removal may be considered:  

• When a review makes a definitive factual statement that is clearly and objectively incorrect 

• When a review claims that content is absent where it is clearly present 

• When a claim made in a review cannot reasonably be explained by interpretation or user experience, including when the user interpretation or experience may be seen as wrong or unfair 

It is important to recognise that users may interpret content in different ways. If a review is based on reasonable interpretation of the title, description or content, it is not considered inaccurate and will not be removed.  

For example, a ’12-page’ resource may contain 12 pages in total, including cover and credits pages. If a reviewer perceives that fewer pages contain core content and comments accordingly, this is considered a difference in interpretation, not a factual inaccuracy. 

Where removal will not be considered:

• Quality based claims: Statements about level of detail, depth, or quality are treated as subjective opinions, not factual claims. 

• Expectation vs listing clarity: Reviews based on unmet expectations will not be treated as factually inaccurate, even where the listing is technically correct. 

• Perception signals: Where a review uses ambiguous language, this will be treated as subjective perception rather than a definitive factual claim. 

Where there is reasonable ambiguity between a factual claim and user perception, we will default to treating the review as a genuine experience and it will remain. 

 

Mixed Reviews 

Where a review contains both disputed and undisputed elements, the review will remain unless the central claim is clearly and demonstrably false and materially misleading. 

A single contested point does not invalidate a review that otherwise reflects genuine experience. 

 

4. Legal Violations 

We may remove reviews that breach legal or safety standards. These include: 

• Defamation of character (false or misleading allegations presented as fact without evidence) 

• Use of hate speech, harassment or profanities 

• Disclosure of personal or confidential information 

• Illegal content 

To report a review for a legal violation, you must provide: 

• The exact statement(s) in the review that you believe breaches a legal or safety standard 

• A clear explanation of why the statement(s) breaches legal or safety standards 

Unsubstantiated or general claims will not be investigated. 

Note: Criticism of quality, value or usefulness is not considered defamation. 

 

5.  Irrelevant or Duplicate Reviews

We may remove:  

• Reviews unrelated to the resource  

• Reviews that include spam or promotional content 

• Duplicate review submissions 

To report an irrelevant or duplicate review, you must provide: 

• The exact statement(s) in the review that you believe is duplicated or irrelevant. 

• Supporting evidence 

 

6. User Technical Issues

If a user reports a technical issue and you believe that the error is a fault of the user, please report this to us.  

Where we can clearly verify that an issue raised in a review was not caused by an author error and that the resource is technically sound, we may remove the review. 

Important requirement for authors  Do not edit or replace the resource or make any amendments to the upload until we have concluded investigations. This includes but is not limited to the files themselves, the title, description or previews, and any tagging.   If changes are made before we review the issue:  We cannot reliably determine what the buyer originally received  We cannot confirm whether the issue existed  We may, as a result, be unable to support a removal request

 

Reviews that we will not remove  

We do not remove reviews that are wholly:  

• Negative or critical in a way that the author disagrees with 

• Based on opinion 

• About value or price 

• About level of detail or quality 

• Based on reasonable expectations not being met 

• About usability  

• Based on the user’s reasonable misunderstanding 

• Outdated but accurate at the time (e.g. issue has been fixed) 

Note: Reviews that are brief or lacking constructive detail will not be removed. There is no obligation for reviewers to provide fully detailed constructive feedback. 

Common author misconceptions 

• “This review is unfair” - Not removed  

This is an unsubstantiated claim. You would need to explain why you believe the review breaches our policy and provide supporting evidence. 

Fairness is subjective, and reviews are expected to reflect individual user experiences, which may vary. 

• “The reviewer has not used the resource as intended” - Not removed 

We do not remove reviews based on how a user has engaged with a resource. Differences in interpretation and usage form part of genuine user experience. 

• “It’s been fixed now” - Not removed  

The review is genuine and reflects the user experience at the time that it was left. Removing such reviews would be deemed as suppressing feedback. We will not remove these reviews. 

• “Other customers are happy” - Not removed   

User experience is expected to vary. Other users being happy with the resource does not invalidate the experience of this user. 

• “This will impact my sales” - Not removed 

Commercial impact is not a moderation factor. Reviews must reflect genuine customer experience and should not be removed because they may affect sales. 

• “This review is misleading” - Not removed  

You must clearly demonstrate which specific factual statement in the review is misleading and provide supporting evidence. Disagreement, interpretation, or negative perception does not make a review misleading. 

 

Responding to feedback  

If a review cannot be removed, we recommend that you take the following steps:  

Respond Constructively 

• Clarify any misunderstanding 

• Provide factual context 

• Acknowledge feedback professionally  

• Highlight any updates or improvements  

Avoid 

• Challenging or dismissing the reviewer 

• Suggesting the reviewer is incorrect in a confrontational way  

• Requesting that the reviewer remove the review; this is a violation of CMA guidelines 

Example response 

Thank you for your review and for sharing your experience with this resource.

I appreciate all feedback and I am sorry to hear that the resource did not fully meet your needs. To help future users, I would like to clarify that [insert neutral factual information about the resource].

I understand that different users may have different expectations and teaching contexts, and I value the insight your feedback provides. I will consider your comments as part of my ongoing efforts to improve my resources.

Thank you for taking the time to leave a review.