Sales Intelligence Platform
Hello, I have my team using Sales Intelligence daily, but as I have mentioned previously, it would be extremely helpful if I could gain access to the area where I can manually set the Monthly goals for each agent, as well as the weekly goals for SI Reports generated. These two areas, in their current status, are very prohibitive, as outlined in the Loom video below: https://www.loom.com/share/1b8281a0f5fd4acaa4c089dc4db7d0ee Lastly, I have submitted a few use cases for why a dedicated URL for each Sales Agent is important. This helps with tracking which prospects are selecting to either schedule a demo or speak directly to the person who sent out the report. This function already exists within the Self-Serve Lead Capture form.
Review Pulse 360 1 day ago
📥 Feedback
Sales Intelligence Platform
Hello, I have my team using Sales Intelligence daily, but as I have mentioned previously, it would be extremely helpful if I could gain access to the area where I can manually set the Monthly goals for each agent, as well as the weekly goals for SI Reports generated. These two areas, in their current status, are very prohibitive, as outlined in the Loom video below: https://www.loom.com/share/1b8281a0f5fd4acaa4c089dc4db7d0ee Lastly, I have submitted a few use cases for why a dedicated URL for each Sales Agent is important. This helps with tracking which prospects are selecting to either schedule a demo or speak directly to the person who sent out the report. This function already exists within the Self-Serve Lead Capture form.
Review Pulse 360 1 day ago
📥 Feedback
Yelp Integration not working
Hello, I’ve had a few customers complaining that the platform was tracking their Yelp reviews. I went into an existing account and tried to connect Yelp myself, but with no success. Upon adding the proper ‘slug’ to the integration field, the ‘Connect’ button does nothing. Please reference the Loom video below: https://www.loom.com/share/779880c4180346a3ba0a5d2848f74bba
Review Pulse 360 1 day ago
🐛 Bug Reports
Yelp Integration not working
Hello, I’ve had a few customers complaining that the platform was tracking their Yelp reviews. I went into an existing account and tried to connect Yelp myself, but with no success. Upon adding the proper ‘slug’ to the integration field, the ‘Connect’ button does nothing. Please reference the Loom video below: https://www.loom.com/share/779880c4180346a3ba0a5d2848f74bba
Review Pulse 360 1 day ago
🐛 Bug Reports
CSV Toggle
I'm adding this here for visibility, but I want to flag that this is more urgent than a standard feature request. This is not a request for a redesign or additional complexity—just a small but important safety and usability change that I believe needs addressing as soon as possible. At the moment, the default configuration allows the blue toggle to be ON (no limit) and the numeric field has no safe default. This creates a real risk for new users who are not familiar with the system and may unintentionally send a very large number of requests immediately after setup. A simple adjustment would resolve this: Set the blue toggle to OFF by default Pre-fill or suggest a safe default value of 10 in the limit field (or use a placeholder indicating 10) This reduces the chance of accidental high-volume sends during initial setup, which can lead to negative outcomes for clients (deliverability issues, account flags, or perception of spam behavior). Separately, the button labeled “Import” is functionally acting as a “Start Campaign” action. This is slightly misleading at first glance and could benefit from clearer labeling to reflect what actually happens when it is clicked. To clarify, I am not requesting a redesign—just small default and labeling adjustments to reduce the risk of user error during onboarding. This has come up in user discussions as well, and I’ve personally had to add onboarding guidance specifically warning users not to leave this enabled or unchanged on first use. The goal here is simply to prevent avoidable mistakes for new users who may not yet understand the implications of these settings. Thanks for considering this.
RevuApp 2 days ago
💡 Feature Request
CSV Toggle
I'm adding this here for visibility, but I want to flag that this is more urgent than a standard feature request. This is not a request for a redesign or additional complexity—just a small but important safety and usability change that I believe needs addressing as soon as possible. At the moment, the default configuration allows the blue toggle to be ON (no limit) and the numeric field has no safe default. This creates a real risk for new users who are not familiar with the system and may unintentionally send a very large number of requests immediately after setup. A simple adjustment would resolve this: Set the blue toggle to OFF by default Pre-fill or suggest a safe default value of 10 in the limit field (or use a placeholder indicating 10) This reduces the chance of accidental high-volume sends during initial setup, which can lead to negative outcomes for clients (deliverability issues, account flags, or perception of spam behavior). Separately, the button labeled “Import” is functionally acting as a “Start Campaign” action. This is slightly misleading at first glance and could benefit from clearer labeling to reflect what actually happens when it is clicked. To clarify, I am not requesting a redesign—just small default and labeling adjustments to reduce the risk of user error during onboarding. This has come up in user discussions as well, and I’ve personally had to add onboarding guidance specifically warning users not to leave this enabled or unchanged on first use. The goal here is simply to prevent avoidable mistakes for new users who may not yet understand the implications of these settings. Thanks for considering this.
RevuApp 2 days ago
💡 Feature Request
Trivago - new source ?
It would be great to add TrIvago.com as a new source for collecting reviews. Thanks.
Baud Frédéric 2 days ago
Review Sources
💡 Feature Request
Trivago - new source ?
It would be great to add TrIvago.com as a new source for collecting reviews. Thanks.
Baud Frédéric 2 days ago
Review Sources
💡 Feature Request
Allow PII access scoping on API tokens for DFY use cases
By default the API returns contacts anonymized, with PII (name, email, phone) excluded unless the token holds a specific reviews.pii ability. For a DFY agencies who legitimately manages the client's own contacts, this means they can't match API results back to the real people my client is asking about. I had to fall back on a manual CSV export to identify contacts. Request: make reviews.pii cleanly grantable on white-label/agency tokens (with appropriate consent and audit), so DFY operators can run contact-level verification programmatically without exporting CSVs.
Jean-Gabriel 4 days ago
API
📥 Feedback
Allow PII access scoping on API tokens for DFY use cases
By default the API returns contacts anonymized, with PII (name, email, phone) excluded unless the token holds a specific reviews.pii ability. For a DFY agencies who legitimately manages the client's own contacts, this means they can't match API results back to the real people my client is asking about. I had to fall back on a manual CSV export to identify contacts. Request: make reviews.pii cleanly grantable on white-label/agency tokens (with appropriate consent and audit), so DFY operators can run contact-level verification programmatically without exporting CSVs.
Jean-Gabriel 4 days ago
API
📥 Feedback
Use the organization name as the default location name
When a new client signs up, they provide their business name, which EMR stores as the organization name. But if they only have one location, that location is saved as "Default location" rather than the business name. Since I can use the MCP to manage clients, this makes locations almost impossible to identify by name. I had to look a client up by organization ID because the location name carried no information. Request: when an organization has a single location, automatically name that location after the business/organization name instead of "Default location." Renaming the org in the UI should ideally propagate to the location too.
Jean-Gabriel 4 days ago
📥 Feedback
Use the organization name as the default location name
When a new client signs up, they provide their business name, which EMR stores as the organization name. But if they only have one location, that location is saved as "Default location" rather than the business name. Since I can use the MCP to manage clients, this makes locations almost impossible to identify by name. I had to look a client up by organization ID because the location name carried no information. Request: when an organization has a single location, automatically name that location after the business/organization name instead of "Default location." Renaming the org in the UI should ideally propagate to the location too.
Jean-Gabriel 4 days ago
📥 Feedback
Expose the reason for a "Not sent" status via the API
When asking the MCP, "How many people have been asked to review in the last 30 days?", the API returns the outcome of an invite (e.g., added, invited, opened, clicked, redirected, etc.), which is great. However, when a contact shows as "Not sent", the API provides no reason for this status. It would be helpful to include the reason why a contact was not asked (for example, if they were blocked by the 90-day deduplication filter because they had already been contacted three weeks earlier via a reactivation campaign). Currently, this information is only visible in the EMR contact activity timeline, not through the API.
Jean-Gabriel 4 days ago
API
📥 Feedback
Expose the reason for a "Not sent" status via the API
When asking the MCP, "How many people have been asked to review in the last 30 days?", the API returns the outcome of an invite (e.g., added, invited, opened, clicked, redirected, etc.), which is great. However, when a contact shows as "Not sent", the API provides no reason for this status. It would be helpful to include the reason why a contact was not asked (for example, if they were blocked by the 90-day deduplication filter because they had already been contacted three weeks earlier via a reactivation campaign). Currently, this information is only visible in the EMR contact activity timeline, not through the API.
Jean-Gabriel 4 days ago
API
📥 Feedback
Unsubscribed contacts still show "Sending in 1 hour" — should display "Sending cancelled"
When a contact is unsubscribed from a campaign, the scheduled-send label ("Sending in 1 hour") remains visible. This creates confusion: the contact is clearly marked as Unsubscribed, yet the UI still suggests a message is queued. Where it appears: Contact activity timeline (recent activity popup) Per-contact row in the campaign sending list Mockup idea :
Jean-Gabriel 6 days ago
📥 Feedback
Unsubscribed contacts still show "Sending in 1 hour" — should display "Sending cancelled"
When a contact is unsubscribed from a campaign, the scheduled-send label ("Sending in 1 hour") remains visible. This creates confusion: the contact is clearly marked as Unsubscribed, yet the UI still suggests a message is queued. Where it appears: Contact activity timeline (recent activity popup) Per-contact row in the campaign sending list Mockup idea :
Jean-Gabriel 6 days ago
📥 Feedback
Global Disable Option for Trustpilot Review Display (Agency Level)
1. Objective Implement a new feature within the agency-level administration panel to globally disable the display of Trustpilot reviews in all reputation widgets. This change must be strictly surgical: the ability to request/collect Trustpilot reviews (via automated email or SMS workflows) must remain fully active, but their visual rendering within widgets embedded on client websites must be blocked. 2. Technical Description and System Behavior UI Location: Agency Settings Panel Visual Component: A logical toggle switch labeled: "Allow Trustpilot reviews to be displayed in widgets". System Behavior: Enabled State (Default): Current software behavior is maintained. Trustpilot reviews are fetched and displayed in the widgets of all sub-accounts. Disabled State: The system immediately stops rendering any reviews originating from Trustpilot across all widgets generated by the software for any agency client. Previously stored Trustpilot reviews in the database must be retroactively hidden from widgets. The automation workflow for sending collection links (review requests directing the end-consumer to the company's Trustpilot page) continues to function normally. 3. Justification and Legal Implications (Critical Risk Mitigation) Displaying Trustpilot data through third-party widgets poses a severe and immediate legal risk to the agencies. Trustpilot aggressively protects its business model based on intellectual property and database rights (Sui Generis Right). The platform explicitly prohibits the display of reviews, TrustScores, or stars outside of their official widgets (TrustBoxes). Real-World Market Precedents and Legal Actions: The Reputon Precedent (Forced Removal): The reputation management brand Reputon was targeted with legal measures and Cease and Desist notices by Trustpilot's lawyers due to its application "Trustpilot Reviews by Reputon". As a direct consequence of this legal pressure, the display app was entirely removed from the Shopify App Store. The Elfsight Precedent (Lawsuit): Trustpilot has successfully pursued formal legal action against other major widget software providers (such as Elfsight) for creating unauthorized display extensions, resulting in restrictive court injunctions and brand damage payouts. The London Intellectual Property Court Case: Trustpilot states that it successfully sued a well-known fake widget provider in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court in London in 2022 and obtained an order preventing unauthorized display of Trustpilot stars. Active "Whistleblower" System: Trustpilot has implemented a dedicated global reporting channel for "Fake TrustBoxes." Through this system, competitors or users can anonymously report any website displaying reviews outside the official ecosystem, accelerating automated legal action. 3.1. Why the Target is "Display" (Frontend) and not "Scraping/Fetching" (Backend) Market analysis and developer consensus show that Trustpilot rarely initiates litigation over data fetching or scraping itself, but strikes with maximum force against visual widgets. This strategic enforcement is driven by four factors: The Burden of Proof (Invisible vs. Public): Scraping happens silently on the backend (server-to-server) and can be easily masked using proxies and rotating user-agents, making it technically difficult for Trustpilot to legally link the scraping activity to a specific company. A widget, however, is rendered on the frontend. It is completely public. Trustpilot only needs a single screenshot of a client's website to have irrefutable legal proof of an infraction. Trademark Infringement vs. Terms of Service: Pursuing a company for scraping relies on standard website Terms of Service (ToS), which holds weak legal standing in international courts (e.g., the hiQ vs. LinkedIn precedent ruling that scraping public data is generally legal). However, when an unauthorized widget displays reviews, it inevitably uses Trustpilot's Green Stars, Registered Logo, and the trademarked term "TrustScore". This upgrades the case from a minor ToS violation to an explicit Trademark Infringement, which is drastically faster and easier for Trustpilot to win in court. The Trigger of Economic Damages: Simply storing text in a database does not cause quantifiable financial harm to Trustpilot. Financial and commercial damage occurs the moment a business uses that data on their frontend to avoid buying a Premium Plan. Trustpilot's legal department targets the display because it is where their commercial revenue is being bypassed. Automated Footprint Detection: It is incredibly cost-effective for Trustpilot to deploy web crawlers (similar to Googlebot) to scan the internet for specific code signatures or HTML structures associated with third-party widgets. When a crawler flags a domain displaying their brand assets without an active license, a Cease and Desist notice is triggered. 3.2. Direct Evidence of Aggressive Legal Enforcement: A Real-World Case Study To illustrate that these are not empty threats, an attached email exchange (June–July 2021) between a business owner (me) and a Trustpilot Account Development Representative serves as direct proof of their enforcement tactics. During a standard sales outreach, the Trustpilot representative attempted to upsell paid features, quoting a price of 109 EUR a month for a Standard Plan. When I declined the offer explicitly because the price was too high, the sales representative immediately pivoted to an aggressive legal threat. The Trustpilot employee stated that he had checked the company's site and found that we were "showcasing reviews with a fake widget". Using the platform's terms and conditions as leverage, the representative issued a direct ultimatum: "I would definitely encourage you not to do so and take it down before our legal reach out". The "fake widget" in question was, in fact, the widely used Shopify app 'Trustpilot Reviews by Reputon'. Just a few months after this documented threat, the app ’Trustpilot Reviews by Reputon' was completely purged from the Shopify App Store and unilaterally removed from merchant websites without prior notice. This incident unequivocally demonstrates that Trustpilot actively weaponizes its sales team to audit frontends, uses legal threats as a punitive measure when businesses refuse to upgrade to paid plans, and successfully forces platforms like Shopify to terminate display applications. Up to today (5 years later), all the rest of Reputons’ Shopify apps for displaying reviews from Google, Facebook, Amazon, eBay, and Etsy are still active and in good shape. 4. Expected Impact and Risk Mitigation This feature will give agencies the power to immediately mitigate compliance risks, effectively protecting their business model: Protection Against Client Churn: If Trustpilot detects the use of unofficial widgets, it applies an infamous red "Consumer Warning" badge directly onto the business's public profile and/or send a Cease and Desist notice to the software provider/marketplace. Focus on Open Platforms: Agencies can continue using EMR for the permitted and safe portion (inviting customers to leave reviews on Trustpilot), while safeguarding their websites from legal penalties by focusing visual widget displays on more open, free platforms, like Google, Facebook, etc. 5. Impact Statement: The Ethical Paradox vs. Legal Reality Commercial Context Note: There is a widespread sense of injustice shared by thousands of businesses regarding Trustpilot's business model. The platform directly capitalizes on the effort and operations of legitimate brands, using those brands' customers and service history to fuel and monetize its own database. In essence, they centralize a business's reputation (often creating automatic profiles without prior consent) and subsequently charge steep fees to allow the business to display its own hard-earned merit outside of their ecosystem (1, 2). No matter how commercially predatory or unfair this dynamic feels to agencies and SMEs, Trustpilot operates under a legal shield that validates its actions across three legal fronts: The Consumer's Distribution License: Legally, the text of a review belongs to the customer who wrote it, not the business being reviewed. By publishing on Trustpilot, the user accepts the platform's terms, granting it a hosting and distribution license. The reviewed business gains no intellectual property rights over the comment. The Database Sui Generis Right: The law protects the financial and technical investment made by Trustpilot to collect, verify, and organize data. What the platform legally prohibits is not access to public opinion, but rather the misappropriation of their technological effort through automated third-party tools for external display. Freedom of Expression and Public Interest: The automatic creation of business profiles (even without authorization) is protected by the right to information. As long as a company operates publicly in the market, case law dictates that consumers have the right to a neutral space to voice their opinions about it. 6. Conclusion While our clients' frustration is entirely legitimate, given they feel "held hostage" by a platform using their own name to generate revenue, our software cannot absorb the civil litigation risk. Implementing this agency-level global disable feature is an important compliance and security requirement. It allows us to continue supporting the legitimate flow of feedback capture while drastically decrease exposure to Cease and Desist notices. 7. Strategic Extension: Scaling to a Multi-Platform Compliance Architecture While this feature request was specifically triggered by Trustpilot’s aggressive sales-to-legal tactics, the underlying risk is a systemic industry standard. To provide our agencies with maximum security and compliance autonomy, this global disable option should be designed to extend across any major third-party review platform, if not all. Trustpilot is not alone in this modus operandi. Other major industry gatekeepers actively patrol the web and enforce severe restrictions on unauthorized widgets to safeguard their monetization models: Yelp: Known for extreme frontend enforcement. Yelp strictly prohibits scraping or using non-official components to display the full text of user reviews. They leverage trademark law regarding their iconic red stars and logo, rapidly issuing Cease and Desist letters to force businesses into their ad ecosystem or restrictive, low-cap official APIs. TripAdvisor: In the hospitality and restaurant sectors, TripAdvisor mirrors Trustpilot's aggressive behavior. They systematically hunt down unauthorized WordPress, Shopify, or custom CMS plugins that bundle their scores with other providers, enforcing removal to protect their highly regulated B2B subscription and connectivity fees. Glassdoor / Indeed: In the corporate and B2B space, these platforms aggressively block automated review extraction on recruitment or "Careers" pages. They mandate the use of their official ecosystem to compel companies into purchasing "Enhanced Employer Profiles" costing thousands of dollars annually. Final Product Recommendation: Instead of building a hyper-specific "Trustpilot-only switch," the development team should implement a Global Multi-Platform Compliance Matrix at the agency level. This will feature individual toggle switches or dropdown list with checkboxes for major third-party review platform, if not all. By allowing agencies to dynamically shut down the frontend display of high-risk platforms at their own discretion, we transform EMR into a proactive and more legally adaptable tool. Agencies will gain the flexibility to securely redirect their clients' display strategies toward more open networks (like Google Reviews) while allowing collection pipelines to remain fully unrestricted.
Leandro Teixeira 8 days ago
💡 Feature Request
Global Disable Option for Trustpilot Review Display (Agency Level)
1. Objective Implement a new feature within the agency-level administration panel to globally disable the display of Trustpilot reviews in all reputation widgets. This change must be strictly surgical: the ability to request/collect Trustpilot reviews (via automated email or SMS workflows) must remain fully active, but their visual rendering within widgets embedded on client websites must be blocked. 2. Technical Description and System Behavior UI Location: Agency Settings Panel Visual Component: A logical toggle switch labeled: "Allow Trustpilot reviews to be displayed in widgets". System Behavior: Enabled State (Default): Current software behavior is maintained. Trustpilot reviews are fetched and displayed in the widgets of all sub-accounts. Disabled State: The system immediately stops rendering any reviews originating from Trustpilot across all widgets generated by the software for any agency client. Previously stored Trustpilot reviews in the database must be retroactively hidden from widgets. The automation workflow for sending collection links (review requests directing the end-consumer to the company's Trustpilot page) continues to function normally. 3. Justification and Legal Implications (Critical Risk Mitigation) Displaying Trustpilot data through third-party widgets poses a severe and immediate legal risk to the agencies. Trustpilot aggressively protects its business model based on intellectual property and database rights (Sui Generis Right). The platform explicitly prohibits the display of reviews, TrustScores, or stars outside of their official widgets (TrustBoxes). Real-World Market Precedents and Legal Actions: The Reputon Precedent (Forced Removal): The reputation management brand Reputon was targeted with legal measures and Cease and Desist notices by Trustpilot's lawyers due to its application "Trustpilot Reviews by Reputon". As a direct consequence of this legal pressure, the display app was entirely removed from the Shopify App Store. The Elfsight Precedent (Lawsuit): Trustpilot has successfully pursued formal legal action against other major widget software providers (such as Elfsight) for creating unauthorized display extensions, resulting in restrictive court injunctions and brand damage payouts. The London Intellectual Property Court Case: Trustpilot states that it successfully sued a well-known fake widget provider in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court in London in 2022 and obtained an order preventing unauthorized display of Trustpilot stars. Active "Whistleblower" System: Trustpilot has implemented a dedicated global reporting channel for "Fake TrustBoxes." Through this system, competitors or users can anonymously report any website displaying reviews outside the official ecosystem, accelerating automated legal action. 3.1. Why the Target is "Display" (Frontend) and not "Scraping/Fetching" (Backend) Market analysis and developer consensus show that Trustpilot rarely initiates litigation over data fetching or scraping itself, but strikes with maximum force against visual widgets. This strategic enforcement is driven by four factors: The Burden of Proof (Invisible vs. Public): Scraping happens silently on the backend (server-to-server) and can be easily masked using proxies and rotating user-agents, making it technically difficult for Trustpilot to legally link the scraping activity to a specific company. A widget, however, is rendered on the frontend. It is completely public. Trustpilot only needs a single screenshot of a client's website to have irrefutable legal proof of an infraction. Trademark Infringement vs. Terms of Service: Pursuing a company for scraping relies on standard website Terms of Service (ToS), which holds weak legal standing in international courts (e.g., the hiQ vs. LinkedIn precedent ruling that scraping public data is generally legal). However, when an unauthorized widget displays reviews, it inevitably uses Trustpilot's Green Stars, Registered Logo, and the trademarked term "TrustScore". This upgrades the case from a minor ToS violation to an explicit Trademark Infringement, which is drastically faster and easier for Trustpilot to win in court. The Trigger of Economic Damages: Simply storing text in a database does not cause quantifiable financial harm to Trustpilot. Financial and commercial damage occurs the moment a business uses that data on their frontend to avoid buying a Premium Plan. Trustpilot's legal department targets the display because it is where their commercial revenue is being bypassed. Automated Footprint Detection: It is incredibly cost-effective for Trustpilot to deploy web crawlers (similar to Googlebot) to scan the internet for specific code signatures or HTML structures associated with third-party widgets. When a crawler flags a domain displaying their brand assets without an active license, a Cease and Desist notice is triggered. 3.2. Direct Evidence of Aggressive Legal Enforcement: A Real-World Case Study To illustrate that these are not empty threats, an attached email exchange (June–July 2021) between a business owner (me) and a Trustpilot Account Development Representative serves as direct proof of their enforcement tactics. During a standard sales outreach, the Trustpilot representative attempted to upsell paid features, quoting a price of 109 EUR a month for a Standard Plan. When I declined the offer explicitly because the price was too high, the sales representative immediately pivoted to an aggressive legal threat. The Trustpilot employee stated that he had checked the company's site and found that we were "showcasing reviews with a fake widget". Using the platform's terms and conditions as leverage, the representative issued a direct ultimatum: "I would definitely encourage you not to do so and take it down before our legal reach out". The "fake widget" in question was, in fact, the widely used Shopify app 'Trustpilot Reviews by Reputon'. Just a few months after this documented threat, the app ’Trustpilot Reviews by Reputon' was completely purged from the Shopify App Store and unilaterally removed from merchant websites without prior notice. This incident unequivocally demonstrates that Trustpilot actively weaponizes its sales team to audit frontends, uses legal threats as a punitive measure when businesses refuse to upgrade to paid plans, and successfully forces platforms like Shopify to terminate display applications. Up to today (5 years later), all the rest of Reputons’ Shopify apps for displaying reviews from Google, Facebook, Amazon, eBay, and Etsy are still active and in good shape. 4. Expected Impact and Risk Mitigation This feature will give agencies the power to immediately mitigate compliance risks, effectively protecting their business model: Protection Against Client Churn: If Trustpilot detects the use of unofficial widgets, it applies an infamous red "Consumer Warning" badge directly onto the business's public profile and/or send a Cease and Desist notice to the software provider/marketplace. Focus on Open Platforms: Agencies can continue using EMR for the permitted and safe portion (inviting customers to leave reviews on Trustpilot), while safeguarding their websites from legal penalties by focusing visual widget displays on more open, free platforms, like Google, Facebook, etc. 5. Impact Statement: The Ethical Paradox vs. Legal Reality Commercial Context Note: There is a widespread sense of injustice shared by thousands of businesses regarding Trustpilot's business model. The platform directly capitalizes on the effort and operations of legitimate brands, using those brands' customers and service history to fuel and monetize its own database. In essence, they centralize a business's reputation (often creating automatic profiles without prior consent) and subsequently charge steep fees to allow the business to display its own hard-earned merit outside of their ecosystem (1, 2). No matter how commercially predatory or unfair this dynamic feels to agencies and SMEs, Trustpilot operates under a legal shield that validates its actions across three legal fronts: The Consumer's Distribution License: Legally, the text of a review belongs to the customer who wrote it, not the business being reviewed. By publishing on Trustpilot, the user accepts the platform's terms, granting it a hosting and distribution license. The reviewed business gains no intellectual property rights over the comment. The Database Sui Generis Right: The law protects the financial and technical investment made by Trustpilot to collect, verify, and organize data. What the platform legally prohibits is not access to public opinion, but rather the misappropriation of their technological effort through automated third-party tools for external display. Freedom of Expression and Public Interest: The automatic creation of business profiles (even without authorization) is protected by the right to information. As long as a company operates publicly in the market, case law dictates that consumers have the right to a neutral space to voice their opinions about it. 6. Conclusion While our clients' frustration is entirely legitimate, given they feel "held hostage" by a platform using their own name to generate revenue, our software cannot absorb the civil litigation risk. Implementing this agency-level global disable feature is an important compliance and security requirement. It allows us to continue supporting the legitimate flow of feedback capture while drastically decrease exposure to Cease and Desist notices. 7. Strategic Extension: Scaling to a Multi-Platform Compliance Architecture While this feature request was specifically triggered by Trustpilot’s aggressive sales-to-legal tactics, the underlying risk is a systemic industry standard. To provide our agencies with maximum security and compliance autonomy, this global disable option should be designed to extend across any major third-party review platform, if not all. Trustpilot is not alone in this modus operandi. Other major industry gatekeepers actively patrol the web and enforce severe restrictions on unauthorized widgets to safeguard their monetization models: Yelp: Known for extreme frontend enforcement. Yelp strictly prohibits scraping or using non-official components to display the full text of user reviews. They leverage trademark law regarding their iconic red stars and logo, rapidly issuing Cease and Desist letters to force businesses into their ad ecosystem or restrictive, low-cap official APIs. TripAdvisor: In the hospitality and restaurant sectors, TripAdvisor mirrors Trustpilot's aggressive behavior. They systematically hunt down unauthorized WordPress, Shopify, or custom CMS plugins that bundle their scores with other providers, enforcing removal to protect their highly regulated B2B subscription and connectivity fees. Glassdoor / Indeed: In the corporate and B2B space, these platforms aggressively block automated review extraction on recruitment or "Careers" pages. They mandate the use of their official ecosystem to compel companies into purchasing "Enhanced Employer Profiles" costing thousands of dollars annually. Final Product Recommendation: Instead of building a hyper-specific "Trustpilot-only switch," the development team should implement a Global Multi-Platform Compliance Matrix at the agency level. This will feature individual toggle switches or dropdown list with checkboxes for major third-party review platform, if not all. By allowing agencies to dynamically shut down the frontend display of high-risk platforms at their own discretion, we transform EMR into a proactive and more legally adaptable tool. Agencies will gain the flexibility to securely redirect their clients' display strategies toward more open networks (like Google Reviews) while allowing collection pipelines to remain fully unrestricted.
Leandro Teixeira 8 days ago
💡 Feature Request
In Progress
Review Velocity Display Bug
Instead of the past 12 months, it’s now showing each month twice for the past 6 months.
Kevin Huang 10 days ago
General
🐛 Bug Reports
In Progress
Review Velocity Display Bug
Instead of the past 12 months, it’s now showing each month twice for the past 6 months.
Kevin Huang 10 days ago
General
🐛 Bug Reports
Response rate on the analysis report keeps coming up as 0%
https://www.loom.com/share/ea541434ba7540619d25a1ae74fdb08d https://app.topfeedback.co.uk/business-report/Oe2wqHNc1SDmBEPIDLC3jkXC8JgzvAHg7xIACPt1ruF37EymyHaBc03LMMKPzIqJ https://app.topfeedback.co.uk/business-report/4zODLcRQZNNoNrtkJd0ISZ7bNrljbNHxZ4M2rvG1pA84takKwMNgSLFTSW2HIOWe
Joshua 14 days ago
🐛 Bug Reports
Response rate on the analysis report keeps coming up as 0%
https://www.loom.com/share/ea541434ba7540619d25a1ae74fdb08d https://app.topfeedback.co.uk/business-report/Oe2wqHNc1SDmBEPIDLC3jkXC8JgzvAHg7xIACPt1ruF37EymyHaBc03LMMKPzIqJ https://app.topfeedback.co.uk/business-report/4zODLcRQZNNoNrtkJd0ISZ7bNrljbNHxZ4M2rvG1pA84takKwMNgSLFTSW2HIOWe
Joshua 14 days ago
🐛 Bug Reports
SI Report Full Analysis AI Section
For some reason, i cannot edit the previous report so had to create a new report with some extra info. Previous report can probably be deleted or rejected in favour of this one. Previous report is here → https://roadmap.embedmyreviews.com/p/si-report-full-analysis The AI section sill has some errors The CTA text is stating the business is visible when the AI Model results state that it is not visible on any. Possible hard coded CTA text - not sure if this could be made dynamic if no AI visibility across all 3 models or not. Also when 1/3 models is showing as recommended, the overview card still states not being recommended. Maybe we need some text that is something like “Only visible in some models” or “Partially Recommended” for 1/3, 2/3 models.
Daniel Fawcett 18 days ago
General
🐛 Bug Reports
SI Report Full Analysis AI Section
For some reason, i cannot edit the previous report so had to create a new report with some extra info. Previous report can probably be deleted or rejected in favour of this one. Previous report is here → https://roadmap.embedmyreviews.com/p/si-report-full-analysis The AI section sill has some errors The CTA text is stating the business is visible when the AI Model results state that it is not visible on any. Possible hard coded CTA text - not sure if this could be made dynamic if no AI visibility across all 3 models or not. Also when 1/3 models is showing as recommended, the overview card still states not being recommended. Maybe we need some text that is something like “Only visible in some models” or “Partially Recommended” for 1/3, 2/3 models.
Daniel Fawcett 18 days ago
General
🐛 Bug Reports
SI Report - Full Analysis
The AI section, the CTA text is stating the business is visible when the AI Model results state that it is not visible on any. Possible hard coded CTA text - not sure if this could be made dynamic if no AI visibility across all 3 models or not.
Daniel Fawcett 19 days ago
General
🐛 Bug Reports
SI Report - Full Analysis
The AI section, the CTA text is stating the business is visible when the AI Model results state that it is not visible on any. Possible hard coded CTA text - not sure if this could be made dynamic if no AI visibility across all 3 models or not.
Daniel Fawcett 19 days ago
General
🐛 Bug Reports
MCP returning wrong verification data
The AI Hub MCP currently returns "verified": false for many reviews, which are considered verified on widgets, when cross-checked. Some findings: All Google reviews are "verified": false All Testimonials reviews are "verified": false All Tripadvisor reviews are "verified": false All Trustpilot reviews are "verified": true Yet all of these show verified on widgets.
Severi 20 days ago
🐛 Bug Reports
MCP returning wrong verification data
The AI Hub MCP currently returns "verified": false for many reviews, which are considered verified on widgets, when cross-checked. Some findings: All Google reviews are "verified": false All Testimonials reviews are "verified": false All Tripadvisor reviews are "verified": false All Trustpilot reviews are "verified": true Yet all of these show verified on widgets.
Severi 20 days ago
🐛 Bug Reports
Testimonials review source name
Please allow us to configure the name of this feature by ourselves (on agency level), or at least give an option to change the source name “Testimonials” to our agency name instead, which would make much more sense. Currently it is set to exactly “Testimonials” on all languages, even on widgets, which is not good, and will just cause confusion among clients and their customers.
Severi 20 days ago
General
💡 Feature Request
Testimonials review source name
Please allow us to configure the name of this feature by ourselves (on agency level), or at least give an option to change the source name “Testimonials” to our agency name instead, which would make much more sense. Currently it is set to exactly “Testimonials” on all languages, even on widgets, which is not good, and will just cause confusion among clients and their customers.
Severi 20 days ago
General
💡 Feature Request
Sales CRM tagging / stages not working
Leads dont seem to appear when filtering through the stages on the pipeline. https://www.loom.com/share/c68c6415c5054e3fa9637018cb76523c
Joshua 20 days ago
🐛 Bug Reports
Sales CRM tagging / stages not working
Leads dont seem to appear when filtering through the stages on the pipeline. https://www.loom.com/share/c68c6415c5054e3fa9637018cb76523c
Joshua 20 days ago
🐛 Bug Reports
Sales Intelligence CRM UPdate
I’m trying to use the sales intelligence to reach out to potential customers, but I find the user interface clunky, which is slowing down the process. I have a few suggestions on how this could be much more intuitive for the user in the video below. A few small tweaks could make a big difference! https://www.loom.com/share/f64fed8873694941ac86366a75072730
Joshua 20 days ago
General
💡 Feature Request
Sales Intelligence CRM UPdate
I’m trying to use the sales intelligence to reach out to potential customers, but I find the user interface clunky, which is slowing down the process. I have a few suggestions on how this could be much more intuitive for the user in the video below. A few small tweaks could make a big difference! https://www.loom.com/share/f64fed8873694941ac86366a75072730
Joshua 20 days ago
General
💡 Feature Request
intel-request: Enter key submits form when using Chinese IME — issue still exists
When using a Chinese IME, pressing Enter to confirm character selection unexpectedly triggers form submission. Steps to reproduce: Open the form Focus on a text input field Switch input method to Chinese IME Type Chinese characters Press Enter to select a character Expected result: Pressing Enter should confirm the IME character selection and NOT submit the form. Actual result: The form is submitted immediately when Enter is pressed. Environment: OS: macOS Browser: Edge IME: Chinese IME (Traditional) https://roadmap.embedmyreviews.com/en/p/enter-key-submits-form-when-using-chinese-ime
Support Team 21 days ago
🐛 Bug Reports
intel-request: Enter key submits form when using Chinese IME — issue still exists
When using a Chinese IME, pressing Enter to confirm character selection unexpectedly triggers form submission. Steps to reproduce: Open the form Focus on a text input field Switch input method to Chinese IME Type Chinese characters Press Enter to select a character Expected result: Pressing Enter should confirm the IME character selection and NOT submit the form. Actual result: The form is submitted immediately when Enter is pressed. Environment: OS: macOS Browser: Edge IME: Chinese IME (Traditional) https://roadmap.embedmyreviews.com/en/p/enter-key-submits-form-when-using-chinese-ime
Support Team 21 days ago
🐛 Bug Reports