Customer Service Act

Managing a company’s reputation online is no longer what it used to be. Until recently, control over reviews depended almost exclusively on the internal policies of platforms such as Google or on each business’s ability to moderate comments. Today, at 202 Digital Reputation, we know that the landscape has changed: in 2025, we operate under a strict legal framework that oversees both the quality of customer service provided and the accuracy of what is published online.

For any company, understanding this shift is now a priority. It is essential to distinguish between two sets of regulations which, although different, operate together ,and a lack of awareness of them may result in significant financial penalties. On the one hand, the Customer Service Act focuses on how complaints are handled. On the other, Consumer Protection regulations are designed to combat misleading practices and ensure transparency in commercial communications.

The Direct Impact of the Customer Service Act

This regulation addresses the root cause of conflict. Its influence on public reviews is preventive yet decisive: poor customer service is often the prelude to a damaging review. The law introduces new standards that require companies to be more agile and customer-focused, reducing the likelihood that a dissatisfied client will turn to the internet as an outlet for frustration.

The obligations are clear. The previous one-month margin to respond to complaints is gone; the maximum resolution period has been reduced to 15 working days. In addition, customers now have the right to request personalized assistance from a human representative, putting an end to the frustration caused by automated systems, a frustration that frequently results in negative reviews born out of sheer helplessness. Free and accessible 24/7 channels for essential services complete a framework designed to resolve issues internally before they escalate into public complaints.

Consumer Protection Law as a Control Mechanism

This is where true protection against deception and fraud lies. Many companies searching for information about the 2025 law against fake reviews are in fact referring to the current updates to the General Law for the Protection of Consumers and Users. The objective of this legislation is full transparency: to ensure that those leaving reviews have genuinely purchased or used the service.

Under this legal framework, platforms are responsible for verifying the authenticity of reviews or, failing that, clearly stating when authenticity cannot be confirmed. This prohibits unfair practices such as purchasing positive reviews or posting self-authored reviews while posing as customers. For affected businesses, this represents a technical advantage: it simplifies the process of requesting the removal of comments that fail to meet these standards of accuracy and authenticity.

What is commonly searched as the “new Customer Service Law on reviews” is, in reality, the combined effect of these two forces. On the one hand, the obligation to provide excellent support reduces the volume of legitimate complaints. On the other, the law equips businesses with solid legal grounds to demand that Google remove content that does not reflect reality or violates regulatory standards.

Customer Service Act: Key Obligations and Their Impact on Reviews

Interpreting the Customer Service Act merely as an administrative burden or an additional cost means overlooking its true potential. A careful analysis reveals that it is, in fact, the most effective crisis-prevention mechanism for reputational risk available today. The relationship is undeniable: when a user feels heard and their issue is handled efficiently, the impulse to vent frustration on Google disappears. If we examine one-star reviews, most do not criticize product quality, but rather the inability to contact the company or its slow response to incidents.

The new legal framework transforms what were once quality recommendations into mandatory requirements. Adapting to these standards not only prevents financial penalties, but also neutralizes the primary driver that leads customers to leave negative reviews.

New Deadlines and Customer Service Requirements

The regulation tightens the rules to ensure that consumers are not trapped in bureaucratic labyrinths. Companies must adapt their internal processes to comply with four fundamental pillars that directly impact customer satisfaction:

• 15-Day Resolution Period: The maximum time to resolve complaints has been drastically reduced from one month to fifteen working days. This level of responsiveness is crucial in the digital environment, where patience is limited and two weeks of administrative silence often trigger public criticism.
• Guaranteed Human Assistance: While technology remains essential, the law grants users the right to be assisted by a trained human representative upon request. Prohibiting bots from being the sole point of contact eliminates the sense of helplessness that so often translates into anger expressed through online reviews.
• Telephone Waiting Time Limit: The waiting time to be assisted must not exceed three minutes in 95% of calls. This measure directly addresses one of the most recurring complaints on business profiles: the frustration of waiting indefinitely on the line.
• Free and Accessible 24/7 Channels: Providers of essential services are required to offer free telephone assistance and round-the-clock availability for incidents. This closes the door to the common justification that customers were unable to make contact through official channels.

The Firewall Effect on Online Reputation

Understanding the dynamics of the new Customer Service framework regarding reviews is essential to protecting brand image. When a business strictly complies with these deadlines and service standards, it effectively reduces the flow of legitimate negative reviews. If the private channel works, the public channel becomes unnecessary for the customer.

It is important to clarify the distinction between this regulation and others to avoid confusion. While the 2025 law against fake reviews is designed to act after the fact, removing falsehoods or unfounded attacks, this regulation operates beforehand. Its function is to prevent real conflicts from arising in the first place. Ignoring these deadlines exposes companies to a double penalty: administrative fines for non-compliance and reputational damage from customers who, backed by the law, have legitimate grounds to voice their complaints publicly.

Regulation of Reviews under Consumer Law: Rules Against False Opinions

Although media attention often focuses on the Customer Service Act due to its logistical implications, the true legal frontline for combating defamation and fraud lies in another piece of legislation: the General Law for the Protection of Consumers and Users. Following recent updates derived from European regulations, Spain now has a fully active sanctioning framework that, in practical terms, functions as a strict 2025 law against fake reviews.

The shift in mindset is profound. Review management is no longer governed merely by ethical recommendations; it has become a matter of strict legality and fair competition. The regulation places transparency at the center and obliges both platforms and businesses to ensure that the information reaching users is truthful.

Commercial Practices That Are Now Illegal

Current legislation draws very clear red lines and classifies certain behaviors, once common in aggressive marketing strategies or unfair competition practices, as unlawful. The legal text leaves no room for doubt regarding actions that carry sanctioning risk:

• Fabrication of Reviews: It is explicitly prohibited for a company to publish false reviews, whether to praise itself or to discredit a competitor, as well as to commission third parties to do so.
• Manipulation of Reality: The law penalizes the distortion of what the public sees. This includes hiding negative reviews without valid legal justification or artificially highlighting only positive ones to present a biased image of the business.
• Undisclosed Purchase of Reviews: Paying users, offering free products, or granting advantages in exchange for favorable reviews is considered deceptive if it is not clearly labeled as sponsored content.

Verification as a Defensive Tool

For those seeking information about the new Customer Service framework regarding reviews, the most relevant aspect is undoubtedly the verification requirement. The regulation mandates that any platform or business publishing reviews must clearly state whether it has mechanisms in place to ensure that the reviewer has genuinely purchased or used the product or service.

If such traceability cannot be guaranteed, this must be visibly indicated alongside the review, for example through a “non-verified review” label. This requirement provides a crucial tactical advantage for companies facing reputational attacks. In the event of a wave of suspicious comments or fake profiles that were never actual customers, the business has solid grounds to demand that platforms such as Google remove those reviews for failing to meet veracity standards.

Combining compliance with the Customer Service Act and the strategic use of Consumer Protection regulations creates a robust shield. While the former prevents genuine customers from becoming frustrated, the latter provides the legal tools necessary to eliminate fabricated content that harms the company’s image.

How the Current Legal Framework Facilitates the Removal of Negative Reviews on Google

Until recently, attempting to remove an unfair review felt like hitting a wall. Google, shielding itself behind freedom of expression and its alleged neutrality, systematically rejected most requests, claiming it could not determine who was telling the truth. Fortunately, the landscape has shifted dramatically with the entry into force of new regulations. The current legal framework provides, for the first time, an objective basis that compels major technology platforms to act if they do not wish to become complicit in unlawful conduct.

We are no longer dealing with a simple “word against word” scenario between an unhappy user and a business. Today, precise legal tools allow us to transform what appears to be a subjective complaint into a potential legal violation, significantly increasing the likelihood of successfully requesting the removal of defamatory or false content.

Traceability as Irrefutable Evidence

At this stage, the Customer Service Act emerges as an unexpected yet highly effective ally in reputational defense. By requiring companies to log all incidents, assign reference numbers, and maintain a traceability system for customer interactions, the regulation generates an official digital footprint for every real exchange.

This allows businesses to dismantle false reviews using objective data. Imagine a user publishes a harsh complaint alleging poor service or an unresolved issue. If the company can demonstrate through mandatory records that the interaction never occurred or that the issue was resolved within the legal timeframe, the review becomes demonstrably inaccurate content. Google gives significant weight to documentary evidence, and presenting official records that contradict a reviewer’s claims carries far more influence than a simple inappropriate content report.

Shared Platform Liability

The effective enforcement of what is commonly referred to as the 2025 law against fake reviews removes the sense of impunity often associated with review platforms. The legislation establishes that if a platform has actual knowledge of unlawful activity and fails to act promptly to remove it, it may be held liable.

This fundamentally changes how removal requests are drafted and submitted to Google’s legal teams. We are no longer asking for a favor, but notifying the platform of a legal infringement. When it can be demonstrated that a review violates truthfulness standards, for instance if it originates from a profile that never used the service, or constitutes unfair competition, the platform must assess the legal risk of maintaining that content. Legal pressure shifts the balance significantly in favor of the affected business, often resulting in faster and more decisive action than in the past.

The End of Impunity for Anonymous Reviews

The framework established by the new Customer Service regulations and the current Consumer Protection regime significantly limits malicious anonymity. Although users may operate under pseudonyms online, the law now requires that any verified review be linked to a genuine transaction. When faced with destructive reviews lacking any transactional basis, companies can argue that such publications violate the principles of transparency and accuracy now required within the digital ecosystem, facilitating their delisting or removal for failing to meet current informational standards.

Sanctions Regime: Fines for Non-Compliance with Review Management Regulations

Disregarding the new legal framework carries risks that extend far beyond reputational harm; the financial impact can be substantial. Previously, poor review management or inadequate customer service primarily resulted in loss of trust and sales. Under the current legislation, however, companies face administrative sanctions capable of threatening their economic viability. It is essential to remember that ignorance of the law does not exempt compliance, and regulatory authorities have significantly intensified oversight.

Penalties are not uniform and vary depending on which legal provisions are breached. It is necessary to distinguish between sanctions arising from deficient customer support and those related to fraudulent review practices, as both the amounts and the responsible authorities differ.

The Cost of Poor Customer Service

The Customer Service Act classifies infringements as minor, serious, or very serious. Ignoring a complaint in the hope that a customer will eventually give up is no longer a viable strategy, as administrative silence now carries defined penalties.

• Minor infringements: Refer to isolated breaches that do not cause severe harm, such as slightly exceeding telephone waiting times or failing to provide basic information. Fines in this category range from 150 to 10,000 euros.
• Serious infringements: Include systematic failures. Not resolving complaints within the new 15-working-day limit, failing to provide personalized assistance, or charging for support services that must legally be free can significantly increase penalties, reaching up to 100,000 euros.
• Repeated serious infringements: Within a short period may escalate to very serious violations. In extreme cases, particularly when affecting a large number of vulnerable consumers, fines may reach up to one million euros.

Zero Tolerance for Review Fraud

Consumer Protection regulations, which in practice function as the 2025 law against fake reviews, take a particularly strict stance on manipulation and deception. The adaptation of European regulations has introduced a deterrent sanctions regime designed to ensure that misleading the market is never profitable.

If Consumer Inspection authorities determine that a business has purchased reviews, systematically removed legitimate negative comments, or claimed unverified ratings as authentic, the consequences can be severe. Fines may reach up to 4 percent of the company’s annual turnover or, where turnover cannot be calculated, exceed one million euros. The objective is clear: the cost of the fine must always outweigh any benefit obtained through misconduct.

Digital Stigma as an Additional Sanction

Beyond financial penalties, there is a collateral consequence often overlooked when discussing the new Customer Service and review regulations. Consumer sanctions are frequently made public. Being listed officially as a company penalized for misleading users or providing deficient service creates a digital stain that is difficult to erase. The transparency required by law operates in both directions: it protects consumers but also exposes businesses that attempt to circumvent regulatory standards.

Steps to Legally Shield Your Online Reputation Under the New Legislation

Adapting to regulatory change should not be viewed as an insurmountable obstacle but as an opportunity to strengthen internal processes. Following a clear roadmap allows businesses to transform compliance into a competitive advantage. Meeting legal requirements conveys reliability to the market and differentiates your company from competitors operating with lax standards. Navigating both the Customer Service Act and strict Consumer Protection regulations requires strategic adjustments in internal operations and digital visibility.

Audit and Adjustment of Response Times

The first step begins internally. Companies should conduct a thorough review of existing protocols to ensure their teams can realistically resolve incidents within the 15-working-day deadline established by law. If communication channels are overloaded, they must be resized to guarantee efficiency. Implementing a ticketing system that generates automatic alerts as deadlines approach can prevent minor administrative oversights from escalating into legal sanctions.

Implementation of Full Traceability

Effective defense requires evidence. When challenging an unfair review, a company’s statement alone is insufficient; solid documentation is necessary. Management software should record every call, chat, or email with a unique tracking code. This digital footprint allows businesses to demonstrate to Google or regulatory authorities that they have fully complied with Customer Service obligations. If the reviewing user does not appear in these mandatory records, it becomes significantly easier to request removal based on lack of veracity.

Review Verification System

It is advisable to anticipate the requirements of the 2025 framework against fake reviews. When requesting feedback, it is safer to do so through closed channels following a confirmed purchase, such as a post-transaction email, rather than allowing open, unverified submissions on corporate websites. Clearly explaining how reviews are collected and validated is essential to meet transparency standards. If third-party review platforms are used, they must strictly comply with European regulations; otherwise, ultimate responsibility remains with the brand.

Legal Response Protocol

Improvisation is rarely effective during reputational crises. Companies should establish a clear action plan that quickly distinguishes between legitimate complaints deserving resolution and unfounded attacks. In cases of suspicious, defamatory, or non-customer reviews, engaging in public disputes is usually counterproductive. The most effective approach is to promptly submit a formal removal request to the platform, citing violations of truthfulness standards and unfair competition laws. Having prepared legal templates for such notifications streamlines the process and significantly increases the likelihood of successfully restoring the company’s reputation.

FAQs

Navigating overlapping regulations often generates legitimate questions among business owners and managers. It is not always clear which obligations enter into force immediately and which depend on company size or turnover. Below are the most common queries to clarify compliance requirements and help safeguard corporate reputation with confidence.

Does the Customer Service Act apply equally to all companies?

The regulation draws careful distinctions. Strictly speaking, the Customer Service Act primarily targets large companies and those providing essential services of general interest, such as water and energy supply, transport, financial services, or telecommunications, regardless of size.

However, SMEs should not lower their guard. While the strictest requirements regarding deadlines and free service channels may focus on major operators, Consumer Protection regulations concerning the accuracy of reviews apply to anyone selling online. A small local business has the same obligation as a multinational corporation not to manipulate its reviews.

Does the new law allow the deletion of any negative review?

It is important to be precise: the law protects truth, not brand vanity. Freedom of expression remains a fundamental right, meaning that a negative review based on a real experience and expressed respectfully is entirely lawful and must be accepted as part of doing business.

What the current framework facilitates, often searched as the 2025 law against fake reviews, is the removal of false content. If a review comes from someone who never made a purchase, constitutes unfair competition, or contains defamatory statements, there are now more efficient legal avenues to demand its removal. Platforms such as Google are aware that maintaining such content could make them jointly liable, which accelerates their response.

What exactly qualifies as a verified review?

For a review to display a “verified” label, the business must demonstrate that only individuals who completed a genuine transaction were invited to submit feedback. This requires a technical system linking the purchase to the comment. If a website allows anyone to post an opinion without having made a purchase, the regulation requires a visible notice stating that those reviews have not been verified. Concealing this information is considered an unfair practice and carries sanctioning risk.

How does the 15-day deadline affect review management?

The 15-working-day limit to resolve complaints under the Customer Service framework functions as a countdown to prevent reputational crises. When a company fails to provide a satisfactory solution within that period, the consumer gains moral legitimacy to escalate the complaint publicly. Responding within the deadline ceases to be merely an administrative duty and becomes the most effective containment strategy, preventing private disputes from spilling into the public domain, where reputational damage multiplies.

Conclusion

Viewing this new regulatory landscape solely through the lens of sanctions would be superficial. For professionals dedicated to protecting corporate reputation, this framework represents a historic shift. We have moved from relying on the goodwill of platforms to operating with objective legal tools that combat digital impunity. What was once governed by opaque internal policies is now subject to legislation demanding evidence, traceability, and accuracy.

At 202 Digital Reputation, we see daily how strict compliance with the Customer Service Act becomes the strongest line of defense. When a company has audited processes and controlled response times, dismantling a false review ceases to be a debate of opinions and becomes a legal procedure grounded in documented evidence. The regulation not only raises your quality standards but also compels Google and other platforms to respond when unlawful harm is reported.

A Legal and Technical Shield for Your Business

Operating securely in this environment is not about fearing fines but about developing strategic responsiveness. The effective application of Consumer Protection rules, functioning in practice as a 2025 law against fake reviews, provides an opportunity to restore clients’ reputations with a level of effectiveness that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. Activating this shield, however, requires a methodical approach.

• Professionalization of responses is essential: It is no longer enough to reply politely; responses must be supported by legal arguments and traceability records.
• Zero tolerance for falsehoods is equally critical: Distinguishing legitimate complaints from competitor-driven attacks is vital. The current legal framework supports the removal of unverified content, a mechanism frequently used to cleanse corporate profiles.
• Active prevention remains the best strategy: Adjusting customer service channels to resolve incidents within 15 days neutralizes the vast majority of conflicts before they reach the public sphere.

If your company is facing a reputational crisis or feels overwhelmed by new legal requirements, you do not have to navigate it alone. At 202 Digital Reputation, our multidisciplinary team integrates legal and technical expertise to protect your digital identity. We can assess your case confidentially and free of charge within 48 hours to define a roadmap that safeguards your business’s most valuable asset: its good name.