CBD customer reviews: what each platform checks
No two review platforms check the same thing. Some open the form only after a confirmed order, others publish any experience that is described, with no proof of purchase. That difference in mechanism changes what a score means. In France, since 2018, a site displaying reviews has to say which of the two methods it applies.
Contents
This guide compares verification mechanisms, not shops. Each description comes from the public pages of the platform concerned, with the date of the version consulted. The last section brings together the texts applicable in France, including a standard still widely quoted although it has been withdrawn.
> Key points > > - An open platform accepts an experience without a purchase; an invitation-based platform starts from an order. > - The word "verified" has no shared definition: it covers different checks depending on the publisher. > - The NF Z74-501 standard from 2013 has been withdrawn since September 2018, replaced by NF ISO 20488. > - An aggregate score tells you nothing about the composition of a batch: that is read on a certificate of analysis.
1. Three families of platform, three ways in
Reviews shown in French online retail come from three distinct circuits, and what separates them is the door through which the form is reached.
Open platforms. Anyone can leave a review there about any business. The rules Trustpilot publishes for reviewers, in their June 2026 version, set three conditions: being 18, describing a recent experience, in principle one from the last twelve months, and having received nothing in return. They make clear that the experience does not necessarily involve a purchase: a phone call, an email or an online conversation is enough.
Business listings. Google's policy on user-contributed content asks that every contribution reflect a genuine experience. It prohibits paid or incentivised reviews, conflicts of interest arising from current or past employment or from a contractual relationship, off-topic posts, duplication across several accounts and advertising content. No proof of purchase is asked for at the door: any account can post.
Invitation-based platforms. The mechanism is reversed: the merchant passes on the order, the platform sends the invitation, and only the person invited can post. Skeepers, which publishes Avis Vérifiés, presents its collection as limited to reviews whose proof of purchase is confirmed and states that it is audited each year under the NF Avis en ligne certification. Spontaneity disappears; traceability appears.
2. What each mechanism checks, and when
| Mechanism | Who can post | Proof required at the door | Timing of the check | What the mechanism does not cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open platform | Any adult describing an experience | None, unless asked for in case of doubt | Filtering before publication, then monitoring | An invented but plausible experience |
| Business listing | Any account holder | None | After publication, on report or detection | Proof that a visit took place |
| Invitation-based collection | The person whose order is on record | The order itself | Moderation before publication | The choice of which orders trigger an invitation |
| Reviews gathered by the merchant | According to the rules the merchant publishes | According to those same rules | According to those same rules | The independence of the referee, who is also the seller |
The useful column is the last one. A solid entry check says nothing about the sincerity of the content; careful moderation says nothing about how representative the sample is. No platform provides both.
3. What the checks do not prevent
Detection remains statistical. The report Trustpilot published in May 2025 covers the year 2024: 61 million reviews submitted, 4.5 million removed as fake, that is 7 % of the total, of which 90 % were caught automatically. These figures measure what was detected, never what escaped detection.
The information is often missing. 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 sites. On 144 of them, the authorities could not confirm that the trader was doing enough to guarantee the authenticity of the reviews; 118 gave no information on preventing fake reviews; 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.
A score does not describe a product. An average aggregates impressions of delivery, packaging and service. It says nothing about the measured cannabinoid content, the Δ⁹-THC threshold or the search for contaminants, which are read on the batch's certificate of analysis. On the product pages in the CBD flowers category, those values are attached to a batch number, not to a score.
This site displays no reviews. As of 16 September 2026, the Phytogrammes home page carries the line "No reviews published to date", and the review counter on every product page stands at zero. The system exists, but it is open only to accounts that have placed an order. The about page describes the shop; recurring questions are gathered in the frequently asked questions.
4. The standard: NF Z74-501 was withdrawn in 2018
This is the most widespread confusion on the subject. NF Z74-501, published in July 2013 by AFNOR, was the first standard in the world devoted to online reviews. The AFNOR catalogue now gives it the status of a withdrawn standard: since September 2018 it has been replaced by NF ISO 20488, which covers the collection, moderation and publication of reviews.
Quoting "the NF Z74-501 standard" in 2026 therefore means quoting a withdrawn text. The reference in force is NF ISO 20488, turned into a certification by the NF522 scheme, known as NF Avis en ligne, awarded by AFNOR Certification. That certification is voluntary: it is imposed on nobody.
Two consequences follow. A site claiming to follow "the standard" without saying which one deserves checking, and the absence of certification is not an offence: the obligations come from the law.
5. What French law requires, text by text
Article L111-7-2 of the code de la consommation (the French consumer code), in its version in force since 17 February 2024, applies to anyone who collects, moderates or publishes online reviews. 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, and notification to the author of the reasons for a rejection. It adds 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 how that applies. Article D111-16 defines an online review as the expression of a consumer's opinion about their consumption experience, and excludes expert reviews from it. Article D111-17 lists what has to appear next to the reviews: whether or not a checking procedure exists, the publication date of each review along with the date of the experience concerned, and the ranking criteria, among which chronological ranking must appear. An accessible section must state whether anything is given in return for posting, and the maximum period for publication and retention.
These rules come on top of the seven statements a shop has to publish, described in the article on a legal CBD site.
6. The European level: two texts, two roles
Directive (EU) 2019/2161, applicable since 28 May 2022 and transposed by ordonnance no. 2021-1734 of 22 December 2021 (an executive order), inserted two prohibitions into the list of practices deemed misleading under Article L121-4 of the code de la consommation. 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, directly or through an intermediary. Article L121-3 makes the information about that verification material: staying silent about it is itself punishable.
Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, the Digital Services Act, plays a different role. Applicable to all platforms since 17 February 2024, it does not define a fake review: it organises the reporting of illegal content, appeals against removal, traceability of sellers on marketplaces and the ban on interfaces designed to deceive. The directive says what is prohibited, the regulation says how to report it. Loi no. 2024-449 of 21 May 2024 (a French statute) adapted French law accordingly.
Frequently asked questions
What exactly is a "verified" review?
No legal definition fixes that word. Depending on the platform, it flags either a review posted after a confirmed order, or a review for which supporting evidence was provided at the publisher's request. The code de la consommation does not require that term: it requires a statement of whether checks exist and what their main features are.
Can a site delete a negative review?
It can refuse to publish a review, but Article L111-7-2 of the code de la consommation requires it to tell the author the reasons for that rejection. Deleting a sincere review for the sole reason that it is unfavourable, or altering its content, falls under point 28° of Article L121-4, which places that practice among those deemed misleading.
Why do some shops display thousands of reviews and others none?
Volume depends on how long the shop has traded and on the collection mechanism: an invitation sent after every order mechanically produces more reviews than spontaneous posting. A high count indicates activity, not product quality; a recent shop may display none at all.
Should you rely on a [CBD](/wiki/cbd) shop's average score?
An average tells you about the ordering experience: lead time, packaging, how customer service replied. It tells you nothing about the compliance of the product, which is checked on the batch's certificate of analysis, nor about the site's legal notices.
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 (information shown next to reviews)
- Légifrance, décret no. 2017-1436 of 29 September 2017
- Légifrance, Article L121-4 of the code de la consommation (points 27° and 28°)
- AFNOR, standard NF ISO 20488 (September 2018, in force)
- AFNOR, standard NF Z74-501 (July 2013, withdrawn)
- Trustpilot, guidelines for reviewers (version 2.2, June 2026)
- Trustpilot, Trust Report 2025 (2024 data)
- Google, policy on user-contributed content
- European Commission, press release of 20 January 2022 on the online review sweep
- EUR-Lex, Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of 27 November 2019
- EUR-Lex, Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 on digital services
- Skeepers, introduction to Avis Vérifiés (collection and certification)
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.