Thirteen years.
One question.
Seven days.

1. Trustpilot’s own invitation figures. Under “Automate review collection”, Trustpilot’s partner sales page reports that businesses using automated review collection had a 15% higher average TrustScore and 105% more reviews in 2021 than businesses that did not. This compares company TrustScores, not individual review ratings. It is Trustpilot’s reported comparison, not an independent controlled study; the page does not provide the sample size or adjustment methodology. It does not establish that automation alone caused the difference, that paying caused it, or that AFS raised our score by 15%. Automated invitations are also available on the limited free plan. Our 43 automatically invited reviews and 4.9 score were recorded in our 29 May email, original thread, p. 13.

2. Near-perfect ratings. Northwestern’s Spiegel Research Center found product purchase likelihood typically peaked at ratings between 4.0 and 4.7, then fell towards 5.0. This does not establish an ideal score for our business or that any particular 4.9 is false.

3. The limits and the contract. Trustpilot confirms AFS is available on Free with 50 monthly invitations. Its paid plans offer higher limits. Its published terms, sections 6 and 35, describe usual twelve-month terms, automatic renewal and 30 days’ notice for direct subscriptions, subject to the agreed commercial terms.

4. Our correspondence and the price. Trustpilot refused standalone widgets on 10 June (original thread, p. 12), then offered Advanced at £495 plus VAT a month and API at £258.30 plus VAT a month: £753.30 monthly, billed quarterly, or £9,039.60 annualised before VAT (pp. 7 and 10). Including 20% VAT, the annual total is £10,847.52. This was a proposed combined package, not our existing bill or a widget-only price. Cancellation was requested on 10 June and confirmed on 11 June. On 11 and 17 June, Trustpilot recommended continuing its automatic invitations (pp. 8 and 11).

5. The AI pitch. Email of 27 May, original thread, p. 18; our dashboard analysis and challenge, pp. 12–15. Capgemini’s 58% finding concerns product and service recommendations. Our original reply wrongly suggested it had not used “replaced search engines” language; it had, in that specific context. Seer’s research compared profiles with different activity levels; it did not establish that paying caused the reported benefits. Referral clicks and AI recommendations are different measures.

6. Our traffic. Trustpilot’s email of 24 June, original thread, pp. 5–6, defined the 474,000 impressions and 440,000 views over six months as activity on our site. The excerpt from our reply is dated 5 August, p. 2.

7. The warning. Our 16 September reply is on p. 1 of the original thread. The separate brand-notice thread contains Trustpilot’s 28 September notice (p. 2) and our 29 September reply (p. 1). The notice gave examples of misuse without identifying a specific instance on our site. The dates establish the sequence, not Trustpilot’s motive. Both email threads are retained by Lock & Key; full copies contain personal contact details and are not published here.

8. The live alert. In its 29 September 2026 reply at 3:31pm, Trustpilot alleged unauthorised branding and specifically referenced our 19,000+ review display. It said we had not confirmed that we would remove or amend it and that it would proceed with a Consumer Alert. Our earlier reply that day had identified the icon as licensed Font Awesome artwork and requested the specific asset, intellectual property right and evidence behind the allegation. The reply did not supply those details. The publication email is shown as sent at 13:20 on 29 September; Trustpilot’s reply is displayed as 15:31. These are correspondence timestamps, not a verified time of banner publication. The screenshot records the warning displayed that day, before the seven days in the 28 September notice had elapsed. The supplied correspondence contains no intervening expired deadline. The notice also reserved the possibility of a warning for further use outside its guidelines; it did not expressly promise to withhold an alert for seven days. We retain the correspondence; personal contact details are not published here.

9. The reference/link clarification. In a subsequent reply, Trustpilot expressly said the concern was not ownership of the star icon, but the overall presentation and linking of Trustpilot on our site. It classified the display as a customized widget not permitted under our current plan, directed us to its approved website widgets, and requested removal of the reference/link. The supplied reply cites no specific contractual clause or brand-rule provision. This clarifies its stated objection; it does not establish a blanket prohibition on all links to Trustpilot or an admission that the earlier notice was withdrawn.

10. Profiles without signing up. Trustpilot’s explanation of profile creation and retention says profiles can be created automatically when a business web address is searched, or added from search results, and reviewed profiles generally remain unless its rules are breached. On 29 September 2026, the www.apple.com profile displayed 1.7 and the www.google.com profile displayed 2.3. Both were labelled unclaimed, with no history of asking for reviews and a warning about representativeness. These are snapshots of those specific profiles, not proof of either company’s wider relationship with Trustpilot or that non-participation caused the scores. Our comparison with small businesses is our assessment of the reputational pressure.

11. October enforcement correspondence. Trustpilot’s 3 October 2026 email, request #03662766, acknowledged the Font Awesome icon and independent implementation, maintained its objection to presentation and linking under our plan, and warned of a possible Cease and Desist notice and account termination. It separated our proposed future use of customer review text from the current presentation dispute. Our 4 October reply requested the specific contractual provision and its application. On 6 October, Trustpilot repeated its approved-display/API position and described that day as the final day of the compliance period. On 7 October, it said a factual review count could remain without the profile link, or a plain “See our reviews on Trustpilot” link could remain without a count or rating. Its later reply that day acknowledged no specific clause in the published Guidelines states the count-plus-link prohibition verbatim, and confirmed this was not a restriction based on being on the Free plan: we were on Advanced. It maintained that the combined display was not an approved format. This is not an admission that no broader provision applies. Our reply asked which contractual or other provision requires approval for this particular use. The later issued notice is documented in source 12. The 29 September 3:48pm warning had also threatened a Cease and Desist notice and gave a further seven days for changes.

Where we stand · Display updated 22 October 2026. Our review panel shows a combined total across platforms, with a separate link to our older Trustpilot reviews. We have not accepted Trustpilot’s allegation. The account above now includes its issued notice of 18 October; the additional sanctions it describes are threatened consequences, not confirmed outcomes. Our alternative uses Google review links and our own development work. We will publish corrections or further substantive responses here.