What Capterra Will Actually Remove — and What It Won't
A genuine negative review from a real, verified user stays up, even if it's harsh. Here's what does qualify for removal, and how the flagging process actually works.
Yes, in specific cases — Capterra removes reviews that violate its Community Guidelines: reviews from reviewers whose identity can't be verified, fake, AI-generated, or plagiarized content, reviews left about the wrong product or vendor, undisclosed conflicts of interest, spam or promotional content, and material like hate speech, confidential information, or unproven accusations. Capterra's guidelines explicitly state it does not remove content based on disagreement with the opinion expressed or simply because the content is negative.
What qualifies for removal
- The reviewer's identity can't be verified as a real, authorized user of the product
- The review is fake, AI-generated, plagiarized, or doesn't reflect genuine first-hand product use
- The review was left about the wrong product or vendor
- The reviewer has an undisclosed conflict of interest — a vendor employee, officer, agent, or competitor
- The content includes spam, hate speech, confidential information, or unproven legal or factual accusations
- The review was written for an incentive that wasn't disclosed or didn't follow Capterra's Vendor Portal rules
Frequently asked questions
Email reviews@g2digitalmarkets.com with a link to the product page, details of what in the review violates Capterra's Community Guidelines, and any supporting evidence. Capterra notes the content may remain published while the investigation is pending.
Capterra's Community Guidelines don't publish a fixed investigation timeline — they only note the content may stay live while the review is investigated. Cases involving identity verification or more evidence to review typically take longer than straightforward ones.
Capterra states that all investigation decisions are made at its sole discretion, and that it does not mediate or arbitrate disputes between a vendor and a reviewer. There's no separate formal appeals process published beyond the original report — which is why the quality of evidence in that first report matters.