A business partner asks for a “minor concession": the right to remove one negative review per quarter. The sales team sees a compromise. The lawyer sees a clause from the blacklist of prohibited practices, which UOKiK prosecutes without examining whether consumers have suffered harm.
If you operate a marketplace platform, booking portal or service aggregator featuring user reviews, this scenario will probably happen to you – or already has. Negotiations with business partners regularly touch on the issue of control over reviews. The problem is that what looks like a minor negotiating concession may expose the entire platform to an administrative penalty from UOKiK and a breach of obligations under the Digital Services Act (DSA).
In this article, I explain why your platform cannot agree to a clause allowing reviews to be removed at a partner’s request, which specific provisions prohibit it and – most importantly – what to offer the partner instead so that you can close the negotiations without risk.
Key terms you need to know
Before we get to the heart of the matter, here are a few terms that appear later in this article:
| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Omnibus Directive | EU Directive 2019/2161, which strengthened consumer protection in online commerce. In Poland, it was implemented on 1 January 2023 through amendments to the Act on Counteracting Unfair Market Practices (u.p.n.p.r.) |
| Blacklist of prohibited practices | An exhaustive list of practices deemed unfair in all circumstances – without the need to examine whether a specific consumer has suffered harm (Article 7 of the u.p.n.p.r.) |
| DSA (Digital Services Act) | EU Regulation 2022/2065, fully applicable since 17 February 2024. It governs the obligations of online platforms, including content moderation rules and transparency of terms and conditions |
| Notice-and-action | A procedure for reporting content considered illegal on a platform (Article 16 DSA). A partner reports a specific review, the platform assesses it against published criteria and issues a reasoned decision |
| Content moderation | Any action taken by a platform in relation to user content: removal, reduction in visibility or suspension – whether automated or manual (Article 3(t) DSA) |
| Digital Services Coordinator | The national authority responsible for supervising the application of the DSA. In Poland, this role is temporarily performed by the President of UKE pursuant to the Council of Ministers’ resolution of 13 May 2025 |
Why a clause allowing reviews to be removed at a partner’s request is prohibited
The Omnibus blacklist has no de minimis threshold
Article 7(23b) of the u.p.n.p.r. prohibits misrepresenting consumer reviews in order to promote products. Selectively removing negative reviews at a seller’s request falls squarely within this prohibition.
A quantitative limit does not make the situation any better. Even “only one review per quarter" still means selecting reviews based on their sentiment – negative reviews are removed on request, while positive ones remain. The provision does not establish any de minimis threshold. Recital 49 of Directive 2019/2161 expressly identifies “publishing only positive reviews and deleting the negative ones" as prohibited.
Moreover, Article 7(23a) of the u.p.n.p.r. prohibits claiming that reviews originate from actual users without taking “reasonable and proportionate steps" to verify them. If your platform states, “We verify that reviews originate from actual customers", while an agreement with one partner contains a clause allowing that partner to remove reviews, the statement made to consumers becomes false.
UOKiK is already imposing penalties for review manipulation
UOKiK has issued at least five decisions concerning the sale or manipulation of fake reviews:
| Decision | Date | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| RPZ-1/2023 | 31.01.2023 | PLN 40,000 |
| RKR-3/2023 | 31.01.2023 | PLN 30,000 |
| RPZ-6/2024 | 20.06.2024 | PLN 50,618 |
| RPZ-8/2024 | 04.07.2024 | PLN 35,000 |
| no ref. | before 23.09.2026 | PLN 40,000 |
The decisions issued to date concerned entities selling fake reviews, not marketplace platforms. However, Article 7(23a) of the u.p.n.p.r. also covers “commissioning" – a platform that removes negative reviews at a partner’s request may be classified as an entity misrepresenting reviews in order to promote a product. The maximum penalty for infringing collective consumer interests is 10% of the turnover generated in the preceding year (Article 106(1)(4) of the u.o.k.k.).
The DSA requires moderation transparency – an agreement with a partner is no substitute
Moderating content according to predetermined, objective criteria is one thing; removing a review because a partner wants it removed is another. The former is lawful. The latter is prohibited.
Article 14 DSA requires the terms and conditions to describe content restrictions and moderation rules in clear and understandable language. The grounds for removing reviews must be published – they cannot stem from an individual B2B agreement with a partner.
Article 17 DSA requires a statement of reasons to be provided to the author of the content for every moderation decision. It is difficult to provide such a statement when the only genuine reason for removing the review is a request from a business partner.
Article 20 DSA gives the author of the review the right to appeal through an internal complaint-handling system. A decision with no basis in the terms and conditions will automatically fail on appeal.
Recital 67 DSA additionally prohibits practices that “distort or impair the ability of the recipients of the service to make autonomous and informed choices". Selectively removing negative reviews at a partner’s request is the functional equivalent of a dark pattern – except that it is implemented through a contractual clause rather than an interface.
Risks created by a review removal clause
| Risk category | What it involves | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| UOKiK penalty | A blacklisted practice – UOKiK does not have to demonstrate harm to a specific consumer. Penalty of up to 10% of turnover | High |
| Conflict with the verification policy | A statement to consumers about review verification becomes false when a mechanism for removal at a partner’s request operates behind the scenes | High |
| Successful consumer appeals | No basis in the terms and conditions to justify removing the review – the consumer wins the complaint under the DSA system | Medium |
| Loss of control over documentation | Individual clauses in agreements with different partners create chaos – making it impossible to update policies consistently | Medium |
| Risk of a “zombie clause" | A clause agreed years earlier in a single contract can take on a life of its own long after the review policy has changed – this is the point that most often fails an audit | Medium |
The DSA consistently positions a marketplace platform as the guardian of consumer information – from verifying traders (Article 30), through interface design (Article 31), to providing information about illegal products (Article 32). A clause allowing reviews to be removed at a partner’s request conflicts with this role because the platform actively degrades the quality of information available to consumers.
This is not a purely hypothetical or reputational risk. It is a risk of an administrative penalty under consumer law and a systemic risk under the DSA.
How to refuse a partner without derailing the negotiations
The partner threatens to walk away from the negotiations unless they are given control over reviews. What should you do?
Instead of a review removal clause, propose a notice-and-action procedure – a lawful mechanism that gives the partner genuine input into review moderation, but within the limits of the law.
The notice-and-action procedure step by step
- The partner reports a specific review through a dedicated electronic form (Article 16 DSA requires an easily accessible electronic reporting mechanism)
- The report must include the specific content concerned and the reasons for the report – for example, the review concerns a booking that was never completed, contains false information or infringes third-party rights
- The platform assesses the report against a published list of criteria (not according to the partner’s wishes)
- The platform issues a reasoned decision without undue delay – stating the legal and factual grounds
- The platform informs the author of the review of the decision and the reasons for it (Article 17 DSA)
- The author of the review may appeal through the internal complaint-handling system (Article 20 DSA)
Example: how it works
A hotel chain reports a review submitted by someone who never actually made a booking. Instead of relying on a removal clause, the partner uses the notice-and-action procedure. The platform checks its system, confirms that no booking was made, removes the review with a statement of reasons (“the review was not submitted by a person who used the service") and notifies the author – all in compliance with the DSA.
The partner achieves the same operational result. The platform remains compliant with the law.
What the review policy must contain to protect the platform
An exhaustive list of grounds for removing reviews is the cornerstone that distinguishes lawful moderation from prohibited misrepresentation. If the list does not include “negative sentiment" or “partner request" as grounds, the platform has a documented basis for refusing such a request.
Elements of a review policy compliant with the DSA and Omnibus Directive
- Information about authenticity verification – whether and how the platform checks that reviews originate from people who actually used the service (a requirement arising from the implementation of the Omnibus Directive in the u.p.n.p.r.)
- An exhaustive list of grounds for removal – consisting solely of criteria that are neutral as to the sentiment of the review:
- the review concerns a booking or order that was never completed
- the review contains information that the platform has verified as false
- illegal content (e.g. threats or hate speech)
- offensive content or content infringing third-party rights
- spam or duplicate content
- content unrelated to the product or service
- content containing personal data without a legal basis
- automatically generated or fake content
- Description of the moderation procedure – who makes the decision, on what basis and within what timeframe
- Appeal mechanism – how the author of a review may challenge a removal decision (Article 20 DSA)
- Information about content reporting rules – how users and traders can submit reviews for verification (Article 16 DSA)
The review policy is a public document – not a B2B agreement. Its content must be consistent with how the platform actually moderates reviews. If the policy says one thing while an agreement with a partner permits something else, the platform loses credibility with consumers and supervisory authorities.
Checklist: what to do now to mitigate the risk
| No. | Action | Priority |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Review all current agreements with business partners for clauses giving a partner the right to request the removal, concealment or modification of reviews – remove every such provision at the next renegotiation | Urgent |
| 2 | Expand the review policy to include an exhaustive, objective list of grounds for removal (see the section above) | Urgent |
| 3 | Implement or improve the notice-and-action procedure for business partners | Urgent |
| 4 | Publish clear information for consumers about the verification of review authenticity – and make sure that this information reflects actual practice | Urgent |
| 5 | Implement an internal system for handling complaints against moderation decisions (Article 20 DSA) | Urgent |
| 6 | Adopt the following rule: the General Terms and Conditions remain uniform, while any individually agreed deviations are included only in the specific agreement with the relevant partner | Recommended |
| 7 | Train the sales team on the boundaries for negotiating review-related matters – so that a “review removal" clause does not reappear as a negotiating concession | Recommended |
Article 30 DSA gave platforms until February 2025 to adapt their relationships with existing partners. Review removal clauses in legacy agreements should have been identified during this process. If they were not – the audit must be carried out now.
It is worth remembering that the platform has tools to exert pressure on a partner regardless of any review clause. Article 30(3) DSA gives the platform the right to suspend the provision of services to a partner who fails to provide the required information. There is therefore no need to agree to a review removal clause as a “negotiating concession" – the platform already has a strong position.
A subjectively unfair review – can it be removed?
This is the question that comes up most often in negotiations: “The review is unfair, but it is not technically false. Can I remove it?"
The answer is generally no. A review that is subjectively negative but contains no false factual information, does not violate the law and does not meet any of the criteria on the exhaustive list cannot be removed without exposing the platform to an allegation of misrepresenting reviews.
The platform may, however:
- Allow the partner to post a public response to the review – visible to other users
- Label the review as “verified" or “unverified", depending on whether the author actually used the service
- Apply a ground for removal if the review concerns a booking that was never completed – but only after verifying this in the system
The dividing line is clear: moderation based on neutral, pre-published criteria is lawful. Removing reviews because a partner does not like them is prohibited.
Audit of agreements and the review policy – how we can help
A clause agreed two years earlier in a single agreement can take on a life of its own long after the review policy has been revised. This is the point that most often fails an audit.
If your platform hosts user reviews and enters into B2B agreements with business partners, you need three things:
- A review of partner agreements for review-related clauses – including legacy agreements that may not have been updated when the policy changed
- A review policy compliant with the DSA and Omnibus Directive – with an exhaustive list of grounds, a moderation procedure and an appeal mechanism
- A notice-and-action procedure – so that partners can report problematic reviews through lawful channels and your team knows how to assess them and document its decisions
We combine experience in e-commerce law, contract law and digital law. We work with marketplace platforms, booking portals and service aggregators – we understand what negotiations with business partners look like and where risks most often arise.
If you would like to check whether your agreements and review policy comply with the DSA and Omnibus Directive – contact us.
Summary: removing reviews at a partner’s request is a risk that benefits no one
A clause giving a business partner the right to request the removal of a consumer review breaches the Omnibus rules (the blacklist of prohibited practices) and the DSA (moderation transparency obligations). A quantitative limit does not save it, nor does describing it as a “minor concession". The rules apply now – every new agreement containing such a clause creates risk from the moment it is signed.
There is a lawful alternative. A notice-and-action procedure, an exhaustive list of moderation grounds and an internal complaint-handling system allow partners to report problematic reviews – and platforms to make reasoned decisions without breaking the law.
Review your agreements, update your review policy and train your sales team. If you need support – contact us.
Frequently asked questions
Can I give a business partner the right to remove at least one review per year if I impose a limit?
No. Article 7(23b) of the u.p.n.p.r. prohibits misrepresenting consumer reviews in order to promote products – with no de minimis threshold. Even one review removed at a partner’s request amounts to selection based on sentiment, which falls within the blacklist of prohibited practices. UOKiK does not have to demonstrate harm to a specific consumer in order to impose a penalty.
What should I do if a partner threatens to walk away from the negotiations unless I give them control over reviews?
Propose a notice-and-action procedure. The partner reports a specific review and provides reasons (e.g. the review was posted by someone who never made a booking), the platform assesses it against published criteria and issues a reasoned decision. The partner gains genuine input into moderation – but within the limits of the law. It is also worth reminding the partner that a review removal clause exposes both parties to risk: the platform risks a UOKiK penalty, while the partner risks losing access to the platform if the infringement comes to light.
Who is liable – the platform or the partner – if a review removal clause is included in the agreement?
Liability towards consumers and UOKiK rests with the platform – it is the platform that publishes reviews and presents them to consumers. The platform is the entity misrepresenting the overall picture conveyed by the reviews, even if it does so at a partner’s request. The partner may be liable for “commissioning" an unfair practice (Article 7(23a) of the u.p.n.p.r.), but this does not release the platform from its own obligations under the DSA and Omnibus Directive.
Do I have to inform the author of a review why it was removed, even if the review did in fact violate the policy?
Yes. Article 17 DSA requires a statement of reasons to be provided to the author of the content for every moderation decision – stating the legal and factual grounds. Article 20 DSA gives the author the right to appeal through an internal complaint-handling system. These obligations apply to every removal, regardless of whether the review actually violated the policy. Failure to provide reasons or an appeal mechanism constitutes a separate infringement of the DSA.
How should the notice-and-action procedure be designed from a technical perspective so that a partner can lawfully report problematic reviews?
Article 16 DSA requires an easily accessible electronic reporting mechanism. The partner should have access to a dedicated form in which they identify the specific review and provide reasons (e.g. “the review concerns a booking that was never completed" or “the review contains false information about the conditions of the stay"). The platform acknowledges receipt of the report, assesses it against the published list of criteria, issues a reasoned decision without undue delay and informs both the partner and the author of the review of the outcome. Reports from trusted flaggers (Article 22 DSA) must be processed as a priority.
Can a review that is subjectively unfair but contains no false facts be removed?
Generally, no – unless it meets one of the criteria on the exhaustive moderation list (e.g. it concerns a booking that was never completed, contains illegal content or constitutes spam). The platform may, however, allow the partner to post a public response to the review or label it as “verified" or “unverified", depending on whether the author actually used the service.
