Phorest and Fresha software lets firms screen reviews before Google

Phorest and Fresha, two business management platforms used widely by salons and wellness businesses, offer features that let companies filter customer feedback before it ever reaches public review sites like Google. The practice, known as review gating, works by selectively inviting only satisfied customers to post public reviews — and it sits on shaky ground with both platform policy and Australian law.

Google's policy explicitly prohibits businesses from "discouraging or prohibiting negative reviews, or selectively soliciting positive reviews from customers." Trustpilot and Tripadvisor have similar bans. The software features raise the question of whether the tools themselves breach those rules, and what responsibility providers bear for how their features are used.

How does review gating actually work?

Phorest published documentation this year explaining how businesses can set rating thresholds to determine which customers get invited to leave public reviews. Fresha goes further with a feature called Google Rating Boost: businesses set a minimum star rating, and only customers who rate their experience at or above that threshold are prompted to share their review on Google. Anyone below the threshold simply isn't asked to post publicly.

These platforms aren't niche products. Business management software with review-management capabilities is used across hospitality, retail, real estate, automotive services, trades, beauty and wellness. The filtering can create misleading pictures of customer satisfaction on major review sites.

Reputation management or manipulation?

Industry insiders acknowledge the tension. Brian Logan, founder of SEO North Sydney, described review gating as a "grey area" but said it could still be a "good tactic" for businesses protecting their online reputations.

"As long as you're doing things that aren't explicitly dodgy, it's fine," Logan said. He argued businesses were "fighting fire with fire", pointing to customers who threaten negative reviews to get their way.

Logan also rejected the idea that online solicitation differs from old-fashioned word of mouth. "I mean, you'd ask people in person, I don't see why there's no difference to asking them online, like sending follow-ups to them," Logan said.

The distinction between protecting a business's reputation and misleading consumers is less clear-cut than that defence suggests.

What does Australian law say?

Australian Consumer Law doesn't specifically name review gating. But businesses that selectively filter reviews risk breaching laws against misleading or deceptive conduct.

There's already a precedent. In 2017, the Federal Court found Meriton Suites had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by manipulating which guests were invited to leave TripAdvisor reviews. The case established that presenting consumers with a distorted picture of customer satisfaction carries real legal risk.

Jason Castellano, digital consultant at Knight Design, said most small businesses probably don't know they're in danger. "I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of businesses don't even realise they're doing anything wrong, especially if the software itself is offering the feature," Castellano said.

"Why would businesses even question it when they should be able to trust the software they're using?" he said.

What happens next?

Google, Phorest, Fresha and the ACCC were all contacted for comment. None had responded at the time of publication, leaving the policy and enforcement questions unanswered for now.

The gap between what the software enables and what the law permits remains the story. Small businesses chasing better Google ratings through these built-in features may be taking on legal exposure they never knew existed — a hidden cost that only emerges if a regulator or court comes calling.