Authored By: Shirley Gao
SOAS University of London
- Abstract
The rapid expansion of e-commerce has transformed consumer transactions in the United Kingdom by providing greater convenience, wider choice, and faster access to the goods and services. It has also created new opportunities for peoples to work while also posing risks. A key issue arising in e-commerce is online misrepresentation, where misleading information, false claims, or fraudulent practices has undermined consumer trust and protection. This legal article will examine the existing legal framework governing misrepresentation in e-commerce under English law, including statutory provisions under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008[1] and the Consumer Rights Act 2015[2], as well as judicial approaches to digital misrepresentation. It will further evaluate the challenges posed by cross-border transactions, digital platforms, and evolving technology. Finally, it suggests reforms and a way forward to strengthen consumer protection in the online marketplace.
- Introduction
E-commerce has become a significant feature of modern commerce with consumers in the United Kingdom increasingly relying on digital platforms for everyday purchase.[3] According to the Office for National Statistics, online sales accounted for over 25% of total retail sales in 2025, reflecting the integral role of digital transactions in the UK economy.[4] However, this digital shift has also introduced significant issues particularly in the form of online misrepresentation.
In contract law, misrepresentation means a false statement of fact or law made by one party to another which induces the other party to enter a contract.[5] False advertising, deceptive product descriptions, fake reviews, and hidden terms all contribute to consumer harm.[6] Given the asymmetry of information and the often-anonymous nature of online vendors, consumers are at high risk.[7]
This legal article will explore how UK law addresses online misrepresentation in e-commerce. The article will begin by outlining the legal framework, then moves to judicial interpretation, critically analyses existing gaps, and considers recent developments. It concludes with recommendations for reform to ensure consumer rights remain robust in the digital era.
- Research Methodology
This legal article adopts a doctrinal and analytical approach. It draws from statutory instruments such as the Consumer Rights Act 2015[8] and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008[9], case law, regulatory reports by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), and academic commentary on digital consumer protection. Furthermore, a comparative perspective is also adopted where relevant, particularly by reference to EU and international approaches to online misrepresentation.
- Main Body
Legal Framework
Statutory Provisions
The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 implement the EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and prohibit misleading actions or omissions by traders.[10] Misrepresentation in online product descriptions, false claims about availability, and manipulated reviews fall within their scope. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 consolidates and modernises consumer rights, including implied terms relating to goods being of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose, and as described.[11] Online misrepresentation directly breaches the ‘as described’ standard. Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 regulate information requirements for online service providers, mandating transparency regarding identity and contact details.[12]
Common Law Principles
In addition to statutory protection, traditional contract law principles of misrepresentation (fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and innocent misrepresentation) remain relevant.[13] Where false statements are made by online traders inducing consumers into contracts, remedies such as rescission and damages may apply.[14]
Judicial Interpretation
English courts have traditionally applied misrepresentation principles in consumer contexts, though digital-specific case law is still developing. The Smith v Land and House Property Corp (1884) case while not an e-commerce case it illustrated how statements of opinion may amount to misrepresentation if they imply underlying facts.[15] This case was held that “the statement was not one of opinion because the claimant had sufficient knowledge of the tenant and its business practices to be able to state, as a matter of fact, whether it was a desirable tenant. The claimant also knew that large amounts of rent were owing from the tenant and therefore, the statement as to the tenant’s quality was false. The statement constituted a misrepresentation, and the contract could be rescinded.”[16] For instance, a seller’s statement that a tenant was “most desirable” was held to be misleading, as it concealed material facts about the tenant’s financial instability.[17] This principle is highly relevant to online platforms, where product descriptions and consumer reviews may purport to be opinions but in fact mislead by implying factual accuracy.[18]
Furthermore, the Esso Petroleum v Mardon [1976][19] case held that the “contract could not be voided for misrepresentation as the defendants presented the inflated figure as an estimate rather than as a fact. On the other hand, as the defendant had taken it upon themselves to employ experts for the purpose of providing an estimate of sales, they owed a duty of care to the plaintiff to ensure that this was done based on accurate information. The plaintiff was therefore able to recover the losses which he had suffered because of the defendant’s negligent misstatement.”[20] Esso Petroleum v Mardon is a significant case because it clearly illustrated that businesses cannot escape liability by arguing that misleading claims are ‘mere opinions’ or ‘forecasts’.[21] Where traders present figures, reviews, or claims in a way that consumers are likely to rely on, they can be held accountable if those statements are made negligently or without reasonable grounds.[22] Applied online, this reasoning is particularly relevant to product performance claims, shipping guarantees, or digital platform assurances.[23] The judiciary thus recognises that consumer protection requires broad interpretation of misleading conduct.
Critical Analysis
Despite the existence of a relatively strong statutory framework, several challenges continue to undermine the effectiveness of consumer protection in the digital marketplace. One issue is the cross-border nature of e-commerce, as many online traders operate outside the UK, making enforcement against misrepresentation difficult and leaving consumers with limited practical remedies against foreign sellers.[24] Another concern is platform liability, particularly in relation to intermediaries such as Amazon and eBay, which often facilitate transactions but disclaim responsibility for misrepresentations made by 3rd party sellers. Current UK law provides only limited mechanisms to hold such platforms directly accountable, thereby creating gaps in consumer protection.[25] Furthermore, evidentiary challenges complicate misrepresentation claims in the digital sphere; proving reliance and causation is increasingly difficult in an environment where automated transactions occur rapidly, often with minimal consumer engagement.[26] Finally, the emergence of artificial intelligence and manipulated digital content introduces new risks, with AI-generated reviews, deepfake advertising, and algorithmic targeting creating sophisticated forms of deception that existing legal tools may not adequately capture.[27] Collectively, these issues highlight the limitations of the current framework and the urgent need for reform to adapt consumer protection law to the evolving realities of e-commerce.[28]
Recent Developments
Recent regulatory and policy actions demonstrate the UK’s recognition of these challenges. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has undertaken a series of investigations into online reviews and endorsements, addressing concerns that fake or manipulated reviews mislead consumers and distort fair competition.[29] These actions demonstrate an increasing willingness to hold digital platforms accountable for failing to ensure transparency.[30] Moreover, the introduction of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (2023) represents a significant step forward, as it proposes to expand the CMA’s enforcement powers by enabling it to impose direct financial penalties on traders that breach consumer law, rather than relying solely on court proceedings.[31] This reflects a broader shift towards proactive regulatory enforcement, tailored to the rapid pace of e-commerce.[32] Additionally, the post-Brexit legal landscape has required the UK to re-evaluate its consumer protection regime, with the government indicating a strong commitment to maintaining high standards despite divergence from EU frameworks. Collectively, these developments highlight a momentum toward strengthening consumer protection in digital markets.
- Suggestions / Way Forward
To address the identified gaps, the following recommendations are proposed:
- Stronger Platform Accountability: Introduce statutory duties for online marketplaces to monitor and remove misleading listings, like EU Digital Services Act obligations.
- Enhanced Cross-Border Cooperation: Establish bilateral agreements or strengthen participation in international consumer protection networks to improve enforcement against foreign traders.
- Evidentiary Presumptions: Adopt legal presumptions favouring consumers in misrepresentation claims where traders fail to provide clear evidence of truthful advertising.
- AI Regulation: Extend consumer protection laws to explicitly address AI-generated reviews, deepfake advertising, and algorithmic manipulation.
- Consumer Education: Increase public awareness campaigns on recognising online misrepresentation and ensuring consumers exercise caution.
6.Conclusion
In conclusion, the rise of e-commerce in the UK has reshaped consumer law, creating both opportunities and risks. While statutory instruments such as the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008[33] and the Consumer Rights Act 2015[34] provide strong foundations against misrepresentation, online contexts expose new vulnerabilities. Cross-border transactions, platform dynamics, and emerging technologies complicate traditional enforcement models.
Judicial and regulatory bodies have responded by adapting existing principles and introducing reforms such as the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill. These measures are aimed at keeping pace with rapid technological advancements and the increasingly complex nature of digital marketplaces. However, sustained effort is required to ensure consumer protection remains effective in the evolving digital landscape. As new forms of online interaction emerge and technologies like artificial intelligence become more integrated into commercial activities, regulators must remain vigilant and proactive.
Strengthening platform accountability is crucial, as online intermediaries play a central role in connecting consumers with goods and services. By holding these platforms to higher standards, authorities can reduce the risk of harmful practices and ensure that consumers have access to accurate information and fair treatment. Additionally, addressing AI-driven deception is becoming increasingly important as sophisticated algorithms can be used to manipulate consumers or obscure the true nature of products and services. Enhanced enforcement cooperation—both domestically and internationally—will be vital for tracking cross-border infringements and ensuring that consumer rights are upheld regardless of where businesses are based.
Ultimately, consumer trust is the cornerstone of digital markets, and ensuring robust protection against misrepresentation will be central to sustaining the growth of e-commerce in the UK. Building this trust will require ongoing vigilance, adaptability in regulatory approaches, and a commitment to transparency and fairness. By prioritizing these efforts, the UK can foster a digital marketplace that is innovative, competitive, and, above all, safe for consumers
- Reference / Bibliography
Primary Sources:
Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
Consumer Rights Act 2015
Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (2023).
Cases:
Esso Petroleum v Mardon [1976] QB 801.
Smith v Land & House Property Corporation (1884) 28 Ch D7.
Secondary Sources:
Business Bliss Consultants FZE, ‘Smith v Land and House Property Corp’ (Lawteacher.net, September 2025) <https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/smith-v-land-and-house-corp.php?vref=1> accessed 23 September 2025.
Business Bliss Consultants FZE, ‘Esso Petroleum v Mardon – 1976’ (Lawteacher.net, September 2025) <https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/esso-petroleum-v-mardon.php?vref=1> accessed 23 September 2025.
Competition and Markets Authority, Amazon gives undertakings to CMA to curb fake reviews (6 June 2025) < https://www.gov.uk/government/news/amazon-gives-undertakings-to-cma-to-curb-fake-reviews?utm_source=chatgpt.com> accessed 23 September 2025.
Ewan McKendrick, ‘Contract Law’ (15th edn, Hart Publishing, 2023) 267.
Retail Sales Team, ‘Internal sales as a percentage of total retail sales (ratio) (%)’ (ONS, 19 September 2025) https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/retailindustry/timeseries/j4mc/drsi 23 September 2025.
Rashid S. Kaukab, ‘Consumer Protection and E-Commerce’ (IISD, July 2025) 5.
[1] Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.
[2] Consumer Rights Act 2015.
[3] Retail Sales Team, ‘Internal sales as a percentage of total retail sales (ratio) (%)’ (ONS, 19 September 2025) https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/retailindustry/timeseries/j4mc/drsi 23 September 2025.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ewan McKendrick, ‘Contract Law’ (15th edn, Hart Publishing, 2023) 267.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Consumer (n 2).
[9] Protection (n 1).
[10] Ibid.
[11] Consumer (n 2).
[12] Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002.
[13] Ewan (n 5) 267.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Smith v Land & House Property Corporation (1884) 28 Ch D7.
[16] Business Bliss Consultants FZE, ‘Smith v Land and House Property Corp’ (Lawteacher.net, September 2025) <https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/smith-v-land-and-house-corp.php?vref=1> accessed 23 September 2025.
[17] Smith (n 15).
[18] Ibid.
[19] Esso Petroleum v Mardon [1976] QB 801.
[20] Business Bliss Consultants FZE, ‘Esso Petroleum v Mardon – 1976’ (Lawteacher.net, September 2025) <https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/esso-petroleum-v-mardon.php?vref=1> accessed 23 September 2025.
[21] Esso (n 19).
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Rashid S. Kaukab, ‘Consumer Protection and E-Commerce’ (IISD, July 2025) 5.
[25] Competition and Markets Authority, Amazon gives undertakings to CMA to curb fake reviews (6 June 2025) < https://www.gov.uk/government/news/amazon-gives-undertakings-to-cma-to-curb-fake-reviews?utm_source=chatgpt.com> accessed 23 September 2025.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Rashida (n 24).
[28] Ibid.
[29] Competition and Markets Authority, CMA acts to maintain trust in online reviews and endorsements (Press release, 19 June 2015) https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-acts-to-maintain-trust-in-online-reviews-and-endorsements accessed 23 September 2025.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (2023).
[32] Ibid.
[33] Protection (n 1).
[34] Consumer (n 2).
