Are CBD reviews reliable? The signals to check
A review is reliable to the extent that its collection is. A verified review starts from a recorded order; a free review starts from a statement nobody has cross-checked. No French law reserves the word "verified", but since 2018 every site displaying reviews has had to state whether it checks them and how. That statement is the first signal to look for.
Contents
- 011. Verified review, free review: it all happens at collection
- 022. Six signals to look for on a review page
- 033. What the French and European authorities report
- 044. What the law requires of a site displaying reviews
- 055. The penalties involved
- 066. What a review does not replace
- 07Frequently asked questions
- 08Sources
What follows is a reading method, usable on any review page, hemp shop or otherwise. Each signal is tied to the text that makes it compulsory or to the rule published by the platform concerned. Comparisons of the mechanisms between platforms are set out in the article on CBD customer reviews.
> Key points > > - "Verified" has no legal definition: every platform puts what it likes behind the word. > - The law requires two dates to be shown: that of the review and that of the experience described. > - Chronological ranking has to appear among the sorting criteria offered. > - Whether or not anything is given in return for a review has to be stated. > - A review describes an order, never the composition of a batch, which is read on a certificate.
1. Verified review, free review: it all happens at collection
Two circuits produce the reviews shown online, and they do not ask the author the same question.
In the invitation circuit, the merchant passes the order to a provider, which sends the invitation to the person concerned. Only that person can post. The purchase is not declared, it is established beforehand. The price of that rigour is a selected sample: the platform sees only the orders the merchant passes on to it.
In the free circuit, the page is open. The rules Trustpilot publishes for reviewers, June 2026 version, ask for a recent and sincere experience, but make clear that this experience does not necessarily involve a purchase: a phone call, an email or an online conversation is enough. Google's policy on user-contributed content likewise asks for a genuine experience, with no proof of purchase at the door. These two circuits gather broader testimony, at the cost of a check that happens after the fact.
Neither one is disqualifying. What matters is knowing which applies to the page you are reading, and that is what the regulations oblige a site to state.
2. Six signals to look for on a review page
| Signal | What to look for | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| The checking procedure | A statement saying whether reviews are checked, and how | Article L111-7-2 and Article D111-17 |
| The two dates | The publication date of the review and that of the experience described | Article D111-17 |
| Chronological sorting | The option to rank from newest to oldest | Article D111-17 |
| What is given in return | A statement of whether any benefit is granted in exchange for a review | Article D111-17 |
| The grounds for rejection | The announced rule for refusing a review, and its notification to the author | Article L111-7-2 |
| Reporting | A free feature for challenging a review's authenticity | Article L111-7-2, since 17 February 2024 |
Three of these signals can be checked in seconds: the dates under each review, the sorting option, the section describing collection. Their absence is not evidence of cheating, but it does flag an obligation left unmet.
A seventh marker, which comes from no text, is worth an eye: the spread of the scores rather than the average. A distribution showing nothing but top marks, without a single reservation about lead times or packaging, describes a filtered collection rather than a unanimous clientele.
3. What the French and European authorities report
At European level. The sweep published on 20 January 2022 by the European Commission, carried out with the authorities of 26 member states, Iceland and Norway, covered 223 retail sites, marketplaces, booking sites and comparison tools. On 144 of them, the authorities could not confirm that the trader was doing enough to guarantee the authenticity of the reviews. 104 sites did not explain how reviews are gathered, and only 84 made that information reachable from the review page. 118 said nothing about preventing fake reviews and 176 did not state that incentivised reviews were prohibited on their site. At least 55 % of the sites examined were potentially in breach of European law.
In France. The ministerial answer published on 26 June 2025 to written question no. 04537 from the Sénat describes the resources of the fraud enforcement service: a tool named Polygraphe, rolled out in September 2023, analyses published reviews at scale and is used to target investigations; more than 1 200 establishments have been inspected since 1 July 2023. The question itself asserts that 92 % of French people consult reviews before buying and quotes a 2021 estimate according to which around 45 % of online reviews would be fake; that last figure is an estimate, not a count, and the ministry's answer does not take it up.
On the platform side. The report Trustpilot published in May 2025 covers the year 2024: out of 61 million reviews submitted, 4.5 million were removed as fake, that is 7 %, of which 90 % were caught by automated detection. That volume measures what was identified, never what slipped through.
4. What the law requires of a site displaying reviews
Article L111-7-2 of the code de la consommation (the French consumer code) applies to anyone who collects, moderates or publishes online reviews, merchant and platform alike. In its version in force since 17 February 2024, it requires fair, clear and transparent information on how reviews are published, a statement of whether checks are carried out and what their main features are, display of the date of the review and of its updates, notification to the author of the reasons for a rejection, and a free feature allowing a reasoned doubt about a review's authenticity to be reported.
Décret no. 2017-1436 of 29 September 2017 (an implementing decree), in force since 1 January 2018, sets out the display. Article D111-17 requires, next to the reviews, whether or not a checking procedure exists, the publication date of each review and that of the experience concerned, and the ranking criteria, among which chronological ranking must appear. An accessible section must show whether anything is given in return for posting, and the maximum period for publication and retention.
These obligations come on top of the statements every retail site has to publish, listed in the article on a legal CBD site.
5. The penalties involved
Publishing fake reviews is not a communications slip, it is a named offence. Since 28 May 2022, the date Directive (EU) 2019/2161 became applicable, transposed by ordonnance no. 2021-1734 of 22 December 2021 (an executive order), Article L121-4 of the code de la consommation places two behaviours among the commercial practices deemed misleading. Point 27° covers stating that reviews come from consumers who have actually used or bought the product without having taken the steps needed to verify it. Point 28° covers publishing fake reviews or fake endorsements, whether the trader posts them itself or has a third party post them. Article L121-3 makes the information about that verification material, so that silence is itself punishable.
The ministerial answer of June 2025 recalls the tougher regime brought in by loi no. 2024-420 of 10 May 2024 (a French statute): misleading commercial practices committed through a digital service carry up to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 750 000 euros.
6. What a review does not replace
A review describes an order: a lead time, a package, a reply from customer service. It does not describe a batch. Cannabinoid content, compliance with the 0.30 % Δ⁹-THC threshold, and the search for heavy metals and pesticides belong to the certificate of analysis, issued by a third-party laboratory on an identified batch number. The product pages in the CBD flowers category attach those values to their batch.
As of 16 September 2026, no review is published on this site: the home page carries the line "No reviews published to date" and the review counter on every product page stands at zero. The system is in place and restricted to accounts that have placed an order. The about page introduces the shop, and the frequently asked questions gather the recurring queries.
Frequently asked questions
Does a "verified" review guarantee a real purchase?
Not necessarily. The word has no legal definition and covers different checks: with some providers it means a review posted after an order passed on by the merchant; elsewhere it flags that supporting evidence was provided at the publisher's request. The only obligation is to describe the main features of the check applied, under Article L111-7-2 of the code de la consommation.
How can you spot a fake review?
No single clue is enough on its own. Start with the framework: does the page state whether reviews are checked, does it show the date of the review and that of the experience, does it offer chronological sorting, does it say whether anything is given in return. Those statements are often missing: 118 of the 223 sites examined said nothing about preventing fake reviews.
Is a shop allowed to publish only the good reviews?
No. It may refuse a review, but Article L111-7-2 requires it to give the author the reasons, and the grounds for rejection have to be announced. Filtering out unfavourable reviews or altering their content to promote a product falls under point 28° of Article L121-4, among the practices deemed misleading.
Why does this site display no reviews?
Because no order has yet been delivered and then rated by its recipient. The module accepts only accounts that have genuinely ordered, which rules out any spontaneous posting, any review imported from another platform and any paid review. The first reviews will appear once that condition is met.
Sources
- Légifrance, Article L111-7-2 of the code de la consommation (version in force since 17 February 2024) (consulted on 16 September 2026)
- Légifrance, Article D111-17 of the code de la consommation (statements shown next to reviews)
- Légifrance, décret no. 2017-1436 of 29 September 2017 on online reviews
- Légifrance, Article L121-4 of the code de la consommation (points 27° and 28°)
- Sénat, written question no. 04537 and the ministry's answer of 26 June 2025
- European Commission, press release of 20 January 2022 on the online review sweep
- EUR-Lex, Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of 27 November 2019
- Trustpilot, guidelines for reviewers (version 2.2, June 2026)
- Trustpilot, Trust Report 2025 (2024 data)
- Google, policy on user-contributed content
- AFNOR, standard NF ISO 20488 (September 2018), which replaces NF Z74-501
Written by the Phytogrammes team
Every article in this journal draws on primary sources (ANSM, EFSA, EUR-Lex, peer-reviewed publications) and on the lab's own practice: batch-by-batch HPLC analyses, measured cannabinoid profiles. Our approach.
Article published on . CBD is not a medicine.