Talk:Trustpilot

COI Edit Request 1

I have a conflict of interest with Trustpilot and am looking to propose some changes and updates to improve the Trustpilot article.

For my first request, I would like to suggest:

1. Remove the paragraph about Philip Waymouth from the "History" section and add it to the "Reporting reviews" subsection in the position indicated below, as it is a notable example of a third-party company acting against an alleged inaccurate review, but not very relevant to the wider history of the company.

Reporting reviews subsection proposed change

Trustpilot reserves the right to remove reviews without any notice according to their policy. It insists that it always makes a bona fide effort to obey the law and its published policies to ensure that only authentic reviews remain on the website.

Companies are allowed to respond publicly to reviews, or report a review as invalid if they believe it violates Trustpilot's user guidelines or they have no record of the reviewer as a customer. When a company reports a review, it is automatically replaced with a message indicating that it is being assessed. If the reviewer does not provide the requested information to Trustpilot (e.g. proof of purchase) within seven days, Trustpilot removes the review. Trustpilot may take "some time" to investigate a reported review.

In February 2021, a private individual, Philip Waymouth, was ordered to pay £25,000 in libel damages after posting a negative review on Trustpilot's website. He had said in the post that Summerfield Browne of London was "another scam solicitor". The court found that Waymouth had not filed a complaint with the firm before posting. He said that he suggested that if Summerfield Browne refunded their fee, he would delete the post, but he said they did not respond.

References

2. Within the "Products and activities" section, there is a contradiction relating to Trustpilot's business model. Revenues are not generated by subscribing companies using Trustpilot's software to be reviewed by customers; all reviews are free. Businesses, however, can subscribe to Trustpilot so that review invitations can be automated, reviews can be displayed on their own company website, and to access analytics on the feedback contained in reviews. I suggest removal of the incorrect phrasing, and I have incorporated a reference which supports this change.

In addition, I have suggested tidying up the language within the "Products and activities" section as parts of it are verbose.

Product and activities section proposed change

The company Trustpilot provides companies with the tools to lets businesses collect and respond to reviews for free and offers specialized specialised marketing and analytics features in through their paid plans. It Its primary source of generates income is from subscribing companies businesses that subscribe to who use its software tools and services, to showcase reviews in their marketing be reviewed by customers and gain business acumen from reviews. consumer review insights.

References

Thank you to all who take the time to review! Caterpilaris (talk) 11:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I have altered this request as an editor has removed the Philip Waymouth paragraph from the main article. Caterpilaris (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Done Encoded  Talk 💬 22:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

COI Edit Request 2

Hi again, I am putting forward two separate requests this time.

In this first request, I would like to propose changes to the article lead, "Products and activities" and "History" sections.

1. Updating some of the company statistics across the article:

• The sentences within the lead and "Products and activities" sections regarding the number of reviews posted each month are outdated. Could this please be updated to reflect the latest figures as of June 2025.

• The figure regarding the number of employees within the "Products and activities" section.

• Within the "History" section, can a sentence be added regarding the number of fake reviews Trustpilot removed in 2024. The last figures reporting on this are currently from February 2020.

2. Specifying within the lead the year Trustpilot was listed on the London Stock Exchange.

3. Adding information about the recent share buyback programme within the "History" section.

Lead proposed change

Trustpilot Group plc, is a Danish consumer business operating a review website founded in Denmark in 2007 that hosts reviews of businesses worldwide. Nearly one-million new reviews are posted each month. As of June 2025, Trustpilot hosts 330 million reviews and 60 million monthly active users. The site offers freemium services to businesses. It has been criticised for the publication of fake reviews, and allowing companies to remove negative reviews. In 2021, Trustpilot is was listed on the London Stock Exchange and is a constituent of the FTSE 250 Index.

References

Product and activities section proposed change

Trustpilot has a licensing agreement with Google, allowing Trustpilot reviews to be listed as included in Google Seller Ratings, or "Google Stars." It employs about 700 people and roughly 1,000,000 new reviews are posted each month. It has published 50 million reviews about more than 228,000 brands As of June 2025, the company hosts 330 million reviews and has 60 million monthly active users. Trustpilot employs approximately 1,000 people.

References

History section proposed change

In March 2021, Trustpilot was first listed on the London Stock Exchange. The founders stated that London's stock market looked more attractive after a government-backed review which called for an overhaul of the U.K. listings regime.

In 2024, Trustpilot removed 4.5 million fake reviews. 90% of these were automatically taken down by AI tools.

On September 16 2025, the company announced the launch of a share buyback programme worth up to £30 million.

References

Thank you! Caterpilaris (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Done Encoded  Talk 💬 22:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

COI Edit Request 3

I would like to put forwards changes to the "Criticism" section. To begin with, I think that aspects of the first paragraph do not meet some of Wikipedia’s criteria. I suggest the removal of:

1. The sentence:

• "This may violate certain laws or regulations" regarding the filtering of reviews:

• It is not mentioned within the Estate Agent syndicated Times article.

• Use of the Xanthos reference is synthesis and WP:FUTURE, as the exact wording is:

" For instance, Trustpilot allows for businesses to display certain reviews on their website, which could now be considered breaching certain laws or regulations. However, whether this is set to change in the near future is unclear, and no doubt this probe will come to a conclusion when this is reviewed."

• In addition, the article on Xanthos is a blog post, and as such does not meet the threshold for WP:RS.

2. The sentence:

• "Fake reviewers often steal the identities of real people to falsely build up reviewed companies' reputations" is not cited, hard to quantify, only tangentially connected to Trustpilot, and the rest of the paragraph still reads effectively without it.

3. The "See also" Wikilink:

• This is again only tangentially connected to Trustpilot and leads to the "Fake reviews" subsection where there is a mention of Trustpilot as a medium used in one instance with an external link which would not meet WP:RS.

4. Rebalancing the sentence starting "There is controversy..." to include Trustpilot's documentation of safeguarding efforts within its 2025 Trust Report for context on the response to this issue.

5. I suggest that the wording relating to companies using Trustpilot's technology to filter reviews is rephrased to remove conjecture. The phrasing of the original Times quote is:

"Subscribers can use the company's technology to filter the reviews they place on their own website or corporate Facebook pages, allowing customers to read only favourable posts".

6. In addition, the language referring to Trustpilot publishing fake reviews for Bizzyloans infers that Trustpilot uploaded the reviews. Can "published" therefore be altered to "featured".

Criticism section proposed change 1

See also: User review § Fake reviews

There are independent investigations that suggest that review websites such as Trustpilot may have fake reviews. There is controversy about the legitimacy of some of Trustpilot's and other consumer review websites' reviews and the way that it deals with complaints about them. although Trustpilot claims, however, that it strives to only include genuine reviews and has documented its safeguarding efforts, including the removal of fake reviews, in its Trust Report. Trustpilot allows businesses to pay them to access its Trustpilot's paid marketing services and allow businesses to use Trustpilot technology to filter customer reviews —normally selecting with the option to display only favourable posts—that customers place on their own Web web site or other places official social media profiles. This may violate certain laws or regulations. Trustpilot published featured fake reviews for Bizzyloans; it deleted them after they were brought to light by KwikChex, an online investigations company. Fake reviewers often steal the identities of real people to falsely build up reviewed companies' reputations. Trustpilot denies that it permits any known fraudulent reviews on its site.

References

Thank you again for reviewing! Caterpilaris (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Partly done: The paragraph in-article appears to have changed so some content is moved/not there any more, feel free to modify and reopen. Thanks, Encoded  Talk 💬 19:24, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

The paragraph looks far more balanced and reads far better so thank you @Encoded. Just checking on point 3, was it ok to remove the Wikilink at the top of this section? It is only tangentially connected to Trustpilot, and the external link citing the one mention of Trustpilot within the article does not meet WP:RS.

Would it also be possible to change the language referring to Trustpilot publishing fake reviews for Bizzyloans from "published" to "featured" . This is because it implies that Trustpilot, not Bizzlyoans uploaded the reviews. Caterpilaris (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I've moved it inline so it's not so prominent. I agree that it is a bit much and only tangentially connected so I agree that the big "see also" bar is not appropriate. However, it could be useful for some readers so I have linked the existing "fake reviews" text to that page which is more subtle. I've also changed the language as requested. Thanks, Encoded  Talk 💬 15:44, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

COI Edit Request 4

Hi again! I am again putting forward three separate requests regarding the "Criticism" section.

In this request, I would like to address:

1. Within the paragraph on the Times' reporting of Purplebricks and Foxtons "gaming" of Trustpilot, could I suggest a sentence is added representing Trustpilot's response. The paragraph is currently unbalanced, and the response is also mentioned within the Times article.

2. The "pro-profit vs pro-consumer business model" sentence. Can this be removed as it is referenced by a blog post in contrary of WP:RS.

Criticism section proposed change 2

On 14 September 2017, Trustpilot issued an open letter clarifying its review policy following allegations concerning the 'validity of reviews of [online estate agent] Purplebricks by customers'.

On 22 March 2019, The Times reported that estate agents Purplebricks and Foxtons are were "gaming" Trustpilot feedback by paying it to help gain better scores. In August 2016 five reviews of Foxtons were published on Trustpilot, with an average score of 2.2 stars out of five: the following month there were 467 reviews, 90% of them awarding five stars. Trustpilot stated that it had found evidence that some companies had attempted to game its system and said it had a "zero tolerance" policy towards such tactics.

On 6 February 2020 industry publication Property Industry Eye reported that Trustpilot was looking into reviews of estate agents 'at large' after claims from property review website allAgents that 70% of their reviews could be fake.

In May 2020, an episode of Joe Lycett's Got Your Back ran an experiment in which a fake company was created on Trustpilot, demonstrating the various ways of manipulating reviews on the site. Trustpilot published an online response, noting the value of the show's experiment in highlighting fraud on the site, and promising to implement changes to tackle the problem better.

There are a number of articles in the press and discussions e.g. on Reddit which outline the Trustpilot's pro-profit vs pro-consumer business model when businesses have to create a paid account after a malicious review about the business has been posted.

References

Thank you again for looking into this request! Caterpilaris (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I have altered this request as an editor has removed the "pro-profit vs pro consumer business model" sentence from the main article. Caterpilaris (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Done Encoded  Talk 💬 19:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

COI Edit Request 5

Could I please suggest that within the "Criticism" section, the "Reporting reviews" subsection is moved to the "Products and activities" section. This subsection explains a function of the site and contains no criticism of the company. It is therefore currently incorrectly placed for the information it represents.

Could the language also be altered to make the subsection clearer.

Criticism section proposed change 3

[...]

It employs about 700 people and roughly 1,000,000 new reviews are posted each month. It has published 50 million reviews about more than 228,000 brands

Reporting reviews

According to Trustpilot's published policies, the company reserves the right to remove reviews without any notice if they breach its guidelines. according to their policy. It states that it aims to comply with applicable insists that it always makes a bona fide effort to obey the law and its own guidelines so published policies to ensure that only authentic reviews remain on the website.

Businesses can Companies are allowed to respond publicly to reviews or report a review as invalid if they believe it violates Trustpilot's user guidelines or if they have no record of the reviewer as a customer. When a business company reports a review, it the review is temporarily automatically replaced with a message indicating that it is being assessed. If the reviewer does not provide the requested documentation (for example, information to Trustpilot e.g. proof of purchase) within seven days, Trustpilot removes the review. Trustpilot states that it may take "some time" to investigate a reported review.

References

Thanks for reviewing! Caterpilaris (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Done Encoded  Talk 💬 19:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I have moved this to within the "Product and activities" section on the main article as I think this was missed but please let me know if I'm overstepping! Caterpilaris (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for letting me know, and apologies for missing that bit of the request! :) Encoded  Talk 💬 17:39, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

COI Edit Request 6

Hi there again,

I would like to put forward some further changes to the "Criticism" section. I would like to suggest the removal of the "Hiding negative reviews" subsection because of:

1. Undue balance and repetition. These allegations are already covered within the opening paragraph of the "Criticism" section and are not worthy of their own subsection. In addition, the final sentence within "Trustbox feature" part of the subsection is already mentioned within the "History" section.

2. Tone. The subsection reads as a description of features which Trustpilot offers, rather than actual criticism.

Criticism section proposed change 4

[...]

Hiding negative reviews

Facebook plugin

Users of Trustpilot's Facebook plugin (for their Pro subscribers, paying $599 per month) have the option to display only reviews giving a certain score: "Choose the number of reviews that you want to display from the drop-down menu, then select the rating that the displayed reviews will have".

Trustbox feature

Paying Trustpilot subscribers using the "Trustbox" feature (which allows a website to show embedded Trustpilot reviews) can ensure only reviews with a minimum star rating will be displayed: there is a setting that "Displays the star ratings that you select, for example, all 3-, 4-, and 5-star reviews".

Trustpilot concedes "[by using Trustboxes] you don't show consumers the full, accurate picture of all your customers' opinions".

Trustpilot's own Plans & Pricing page shows the Trustbox in action, displaying reviews of their own platform, configured to display 4- and 5-star reviews only, beneath the slogan "Trustpilot is a universal symbol of trust".

In 2020, according to Trustpilot's first transparency report, it harboured more than 2 million fake reviews on its platform, all of which ultimately had to be removed.

References

Thank you again! Caterpilaris (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Partly done: Removed final sentence of trustbox feature since that is covered in history. I believe that reducing the section to just the mention in the paragraph would not give it enough weight, and that it is important to retain the information. To avoid duplication I've removed the sentence in the paragraph. You're welcome to reopen this request if you disagree to gain more consensus. Encoded  Talk 💬 18:20, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the final sentence! The reason I suggested the removal of this whole subsection is because:

1. Sourcing. The information is solely cited from the Trustpilot website, which is not ideal for WP:RS.

2. Accuracy and balance. Some of these products like the Facebook plugin no longer exist, dating the information. Regarding balance, I think there is already ample mention of companies manipulating negative reviews on Trustpilot, including two paragraphs using real estate companies as examples, but also the full quote is "Keep in mind that when you select reviews for TrustBoxes, you don't show consumers the full, accurate picture of all your customers' opinions. Although your TrustBox always displays your TrustScore and star rating, we still recommend displaying all your reviews— even the negative ones." The way it's quoted now presents the feature as a criticism, but there aren't actually any reliable third-party sources criticising it.

Whenever you have a moment, would appreciate your two cents before reopening since I do not want to unnecessarily add to the COI queue (which seems very long so incredibly grateful to you again!) if I am flogging a dead horse. Caterpilaris (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Caterpilaris, apologies I've re-read the section and agree with your points here. I still believe that removing the section as a whole is not ideal, however I have substantially cut it down, added better sources, and removed the outdated Facebook plugin information. Many thanks, Encoded  Talk 💬 16:10, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

COI Edit Request 7

Hi again. I would like to put forwards some updates to the infobox. Could I please suggest:

• Addition of a line stating the approximate number of employees.

• The alteration of the "Area served" line to "Global" from "North America, Europe" as Trustpilot operates globally.

Trustpilot Group plc

Type of site	Public limited company
Traded as	LSE: TRST
Founded	2007 (2007)
Headquarters	Copenhagen, Denmark
Area served	North America, Europe Global
Owner	Publicly traded
Founder	Peter Holten Mühlmann
Key people	Zillah Byng-Thorne (Chair) Adrian Blair (CEO) Hanno Damm (CFO)
Revenue	US$210.8 million (2024)
Operating income	US$3.8 million (2024)
Net income	US$6.2 million (2024)
Total assets	US$144.5 million (2024)
Total equity	US$41.4 million (2024)
Employees	c. 1,000
URL	www.trustpilot.com

References

Thank you for taking the time to review! Caterpilaris (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Done Encoded  Talk 💬 22:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

COI Edit Request 8

Hi there and thank you again to @Encoded for answering some of my previous requests! I would like to put forwards two further separate requests.

For the first one, could I suggest that the "Business model" section is merged with the "Products and activities" section. This is to remove unnecessary section duplication since much of Trustpilot's business model is already covered within the "Product and activities" section.

The sentence within the current "Business model" section could open the "Products and activities" section, albeit shortened to remove language referring to how Trustpilot earns most of its revenue to avoid repetition.

Further, would it be possible to incorporate the term "SaaS" to better clarify Trustpilot’s business model. I have included a third-party reference which supports that the company operates this type of business model.

Products and activities section proposed change

Trustpilot operates a freemium SaaS business model. Trustpilot It provides companies with the tools to collect and respond to reviews for free and offers marketing and analytics features through their paid plans.

[...]

Criticism

[...]

References

Thanks again to those for reviewing! Caterpilaris (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: Leaving this open for a second opinion. Not too sure about the language here but don't want to decline before getting another thought. Encoded  Talk 💬 19:20, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

The portion regarding SaaS certainly feels promotional. I'm in favor of declining that part atleast. Mustbeotherwise (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Partly done: I mostly implemented this though I think it is rewritten clearly as is without sales WP:JARGON Czarking0 (talk) 03:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

COI Edit Request 9

Within the "History" section, could I please suggest that language is added regarding the well-publicised board room changes which took place in 2023. This consisted of the company founder, Peter Mühlmann, stepping down as CEO and moving into a role as a non-executive member, with Adrian Blair appointed in July 2023 to replace him.

History section proposed change

[...]

In March 2021, Trustpilot was first listed on the London Stock Exchange. The founders stated that London's stock market looked more attractive after a government-backed review which called for an overhaul of the U.K. listings regime.

In March 2023, Mühlmann announced his resignation as CEO, moving into a role as non-executive board member. Adrian Blair was appointed to replace Mühlmann as CEO in July 2023.

In 2024, Trustpilot removed 4.5 million fake reviews. 90% of these were automatically taken down by AI tools.

[...]

References

Thanks all for taking the time to review! Caterpilaris (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Done Encoded  Talk 💬 18:10, 17 December 2025 (UTC)