Serbia’s new rules on online consumer reviews: lessons from Italy’s guidelines

On 13 October 2026, the Italian Competition Authority (“AGCM”) adopted guidelines on online consumer reviews. The Italian regulator builds on the European Commission’s 2021 guidance on the EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (2005/29/EC), as amended by the Omnibus Directive (2019/2161) (“EU Guidance”), and further develops its recommendations in certain areas.

The AGCM guidelines are also relevant to Serbian businesses. The new Consumer Protection Act, applicable since 2 August 2026, introduced obligations concerning online reviews, mirroring EU rules. Although the AGCM guidelines have no binding effect in Serbia, they offer practical recommendations that businesses can use to comply with the new requirements.

Under the Serbian Consumer Protection Act, traders must:

• disclose whether and how they ensure that published reviews originate from actual purchasers or users (Article 19(3)(2));
• take reasonable and proportionate verification measures if they claim that reviews originate from actual purchasers or users (Article 20(1)(26)); and
• refrain from submitting or commissioning fake consumer reviews or endorsements, or misrepresenting them to promote products (Article 20(1)(27)).

These provisions correspond to Article 7(6) and Annex I, points 23b and 23c of the EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.

01Information about the handling of reviews (Article 19(3)(2))

To ensure transparency, the AGCM recommends that traders explain:

• how reviews are collected or obtained, selected for publication, managed, ranked, and moderated;
• how the authenticity of reviews is verified; and
• how average review scores are calculated, including whether they are influenced by incentivised reviews or other contractual relationships.

This information should be clear and easily accessible and available in the same interface where consumers can read reviews, either directly or through a clearly labelled link.

Beyond the EU Guidance: outdated reviews

The AGCM goes beyond transparency requirements from EU Guidance by also recommending how outdated reviews should be managed. Specifically, traders should:

• clearly explain any policies for managing outdated or no longer relevant reviews;
• use objective and relevant criteria for managing them, taking into account the characteristics of the products or services concerned; and
• apply the same criteria to positive and negative reviews to prevent manipulation of the overall impression created by reviews.

02Measures for ensuring authenticity of reviews (Article 20(1)(26))

To ensure that reviews originate from genuine consumers, the AGCM's recommended measures include:

• requesting evidence of purchase or use, such as receipts, debit or credit card statements, or order or booking numbers;
• sending review links to the email address used for the purchase, but only after the order has been completed, delivered or fulfilled, and to all customers without selection;
• collecting reviews through customer accounts, in sections dedicated to completed orders, bookings or transactions;
• using dedicated review channels authenticated through QR codes, one-time passwords or similar systems;
• requiring reviewers to register, confirming their email addresses or checking IP addresses; and
• request supporting evidence, such as proof of an attempted booking or an order placed, where the review concerns a genuine consumer interaction that did not result in a completed purchase or use of the product.

Beyond the EU Guidance: fraudulent reviews and suspicious reviews

While the EU Guidance generally recommends automated fraud-detection tools, the AGCM identifies specific warning signs that such tools may detect, including:

• numerous reviews from the same IP address within a short period;
• repetitive language patterns;
• reviewer profiles that cannot be linked to real consumers; and
• anomalies in documentation submitted to support reviews.

EU Guidance recommends adequate procedures for responding to complaints about suspicious reviews. The AGCM further specifies that traders should:

• avoid automatically deleting reviews when they detect anomalies;
• promptly conduct further checks before deciding whether to publish a review flagged as suspicious;
• contact reviewers, where appropriate, to request evidence of their actual experience; and
• publish reviews that were temporarily blocked or removed if further checks confirm their authenticity.

The key point is that businesses should investigate suspicious reviews before deciding whether to remove them, rather than automatically removing every suspicious review.

03Prohibition of fake and manipulated reviews (Article 20(1)(27))

To prevent fake or manipulated reviews, the AGCM recommends that businesses refrain from:

• submitting or commissioning fake consumer reviews or endorsements;
• removing or concealing negative reviews;
• discouraging consumers from publishing negative reviews;
• attributing consumer endorsements to content different from that intended by the consumer;
• providing pre-filled templates for positive reviews;
• inducing consumers to modify or delete their reviews;
• presenting aggregated ratings based on undisclosed or non-transparent criteria.

Beyond the EU Guidance: incentivised reviews

The AGCM distinguishes between incentives that merely encourage consumers to submit reviews and those that determine their content. Reviews whose content results from an incentive are unlawful, even if the business discloses the incentive.

Where businesses offer incentives for submitting reviews, the AGCM recommends that they:

• ensure that the nature, manner, or timing of an incentive does not compromise the authenticity of the review;
• clearly inform consumers that reviews have been incentivised;
• identify incentivised reviews through clearly visible labels or other graphical elements.

In other words, businesses may encourage consumers to leave reviews, but must not use incentives to influence what those reviews say. Disclosure alone does not make such practices lawful.

04Additional recommendations on managing reviews

In addition to the three specific obligations above, the AGCM guidelines also address broader aspects of managing consumer reviews.

Beyond the EU Guidance: recordkeeping and handling complaints

While the EU Guidance generally emphasises transparency about verification procedures, the AGCM goes further by recommending that businesses maintain internal records of:

• the origin of reviews;
• verification checks performed;
• indicators of potentially fraudulent activity;
• decisions to publish, reject or remove reviews;
• the handling of subsequent complaints.

The EU Guidance recommends that traders have adequate measures and resources for handling complaints about suspicious reviews.  This applies both to traders publishing reviews of their own products or services, and to platforms hosting reviews of other traders’ products or services. The AGCM goes further by providing more detailed recommendations for these platforms, advising them to:

• handle complaints promptly and transparently;
• remove unlawful reviews without delay when their unlawfulness is immediately apparent or competent authorities have already established it;
• require complainants to submit sufficiently precise and reasoned removal requests;
• not require complainants to prove that a review is unlawful if the review lacks evidence of purchase or use; and
• allow both reviewers and complainants to provide evidence supporting their positions when a complaint is not clearly unfounded.