3 weeks Ago By [email protected] (Lisa Letcher)
A food influencer has sparked a storm in Cornwall after posting several glowing reviews of various top foodie destinations while making up to £1,500 per visit - without disclosing if he was paid. Matthew Davies-Binge, the self-proclaimed 'UK's top food reviewer', as Food Review Club, has been accused of flouting advertising laws and not declaring in his social media posts whether or not he is receiving free food or being paid up to four figures for making "misleading" reviews. Among Herd in Truro, Cluck N Chuck in and the Thomas Daniell in Truro.
CornwallLive can reveal that the 38-year-old, who goes by Matt, has been reported to the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA), which has confirmed to us that, as per its framework and what is known as the CAP Code - a set of rules in the UK that regulates non-broadcast advertising, sales promotions and direct marketing - you should declare a post as an advert if you receive free products or are paid to share about them. Food Review Club, managed by Zodiac Global, a talent management agency based in Dubai and London, is also required to declare a post is an advert if sharing about their own product. Matt, also the founder of his own sauce brand which he regularly promotes, did not disclose whether any of his visits in were paid for advertorials.
His management company had been emailing Cornish businesses throughout his time here, offering his paid-for services for between £750 and £1,250 (discounted from a standard rate of £1,500, it said) in emails seem by . Those that turned the offer down did not get a visit. It has led to outrage with one business owner accusing him of being "disingenuous" and "phony".
Lisa Bennett, 45, who runs Mega Shakes The Alternative Dessert Shop in , said she saw he was in the area on TikTok, where he is closing in on one million followers and appealing for recommendations on where to visit. He didn't say anything about adverts so she suggested he visit her dessert shop while in the area. She was shocked to then receive an email from his management saying a visit would cost her £750, an apparently discounted rate given that Matt was in the area, and turned it down.
Others have reported offers ahead of time in the realm of £1,250. "It's the pure arrogance of him coming in and acting like he's just a member of the public," she said. "He's making out that he is visiting these places off his own back as a surprise and doesn't make any money but actually that's not the case.
" An initial email sent to Lisa from Zodiac Global said it could offer "heavily discounted rates" of £750 plus VAT for a 'shoot' with the content shared across Instagram, TikTok and . When she declined the offer, the company followed up days later asking if she had changed her mind. The email also explained that the normal fee is £1,500 plus VAT but said "as Matt is in the area" it made the discount possible.
It further stated that the fee was "to help cover Matt's travel expenses, editing costs etc". "It does feel like there is a huge injustice and it is a proper insult," she said. "I do think the guy is a complete phony and that's a quote from me that isn't swearing.
"It is so misleading and if he is getting paid it should be disclosed. Paid adverts are fine and promotions are great but this guy just makes it so disingenuous." She said she has nothing against businesses paying for advertising but she thinks customers should be careful when it comes to influencers promoting food businesses and be aware that there could be a financial incentive behind their positive reviews.
"You should be able to know what you're getting into and this guy just doesn't sit well with me." Loey Buiskool, owner of Wing Yard at Prow Park in , also spoke out against the food feviewer. She said her first experience with him was last year during his initial visit to Cornwall when she was offered a chance for him to visit her business for around £1,200.
She didn't go ahead and has been trying to point out on his social media posts that visits are paid for ever since but has been blocked by Food Review Club. "I've said nothing bad and a lot of people he's going to see are my friends and other business owners and it's nothing against them," she said. She added that she was initially willing to go ahead with a review but didn't feel it was right morally and couldn't go ahead.
"It's just hard to see and I keep commenting on things, a little bit bitter, just saying these are paid for ads. I morally just couldn't do it as I knew it wouldn't be real and that didn't sit right with me." The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), a government regulator, states that if you mislead customers through hidden ads you may be in breach of consumer protection law.
It says: "If you’ve been incentivised in any way to promote a brand, or product in your social media content, for example in photos including carousels, videos, reels or stories, podcasts or other posts online it’s important that all this content is clearly identifiable as an ad (or advertising)." This includes where someone has been paid to post content, received a gift, or posted content about their own business. It may also mean they could be breaking industry rules on advertising.
Not one of the ten posts by Food Review Club relating to his time in Cornwall mentioned in the post caption or the content itself about the content being paid for in any way. At least one of the businesses visited posted a video ahead of time confirming it was a pre-planned visit but did not address whether it was paid for. A spokesperson for ASA, a non-statutory organisation that cannot enforce legislation, confirmed that it has previously received four complaints about the Food Review Club, all relating to ad disclosure.
It told CornwallLive: "One of these cases was closed because the complaint was outside of our remit. "The other three were closed with no additional investigation (meaning we've assessed an ad and decided there isn't a case to investigate it further) as we assessed them against our prioritisation principles and made the decision that they weren't a priority for us to look into at the time." The prioritisation principles include considering what harm or detriment has occurred or might occur, the balance the risk of taking action versus inaction, the likely impact of intervention and what resource would be proportionate to the problem to be tackled.
The spokesperson further explained that if a brand gives an influencer a payment or any other incentive (requested or unsolicited), or if an influencer is personally or commercially connected to the brand, any content featuring or referring to the brand is an ad and needs to be obviously identifiable as advertising. ASA also recently spoke to the about issues relating to food influencers and ad disclosure. Ed Senior, a compliance executive at the Advertising Standards Agency, told BBC News NI that it was "exceptionally important" that when something is advertising, it is disclosed as such.
"For us, that's why it's exceptionally important that actually when it is advertising that it's absolutely clear that it's disclosed as such," he said. He explained that if a brand asks a creator to make content and pays them either with money or with a free or discounted meal, then it should be classified as advertising. He said that once something is disclosed as advertising, it also needs to meet certain regulations, including whether it is "accurate and fair".
The CMA further states: "Hidden ads are illegal and harmful as they can persuade people to buy things they might not usually buy if they’d known that the content was not a non-biased opinion, review or recommendation." Food Review Club and Zodiac Global have not responded to our requests for comment..
