Are there Trustpilot or Google Reviews for Luminance Milano and what ratings do they have?
Executive summary
Luminance Milano appears on Trustpilot with hundreds of customer posts and an aggregate TrustScore reported in different Trustpilot pages as roughly a multi-star rating (examples show a 4‑star TrustScore and pages referencing hundreds of reviews) [1] [2]. There is no direct evidence in the provided reporting of an official Google Reviews listing or its score, and other review venues paint a conflicted picture—site-hosted 5.0 product ratings, low third‑party watchdog signals, and consumer complaints on PissedConsumer and the BBB [3] [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. Trustpilot: a visible presence with many voices and at least a multi‑star score
Trustpilot hosts dozens to hundreds of reviews for luminancemilano.com; snippets indicate pages with hundreds of reviewers and an overall multi‑star TrustScore (one Trustpilot page references 944 customers, another shows a 4‑star TrustScore and around 807 customers on a later page) [1] [2]. The individual Trustpilot excerpts include multiple five‑star testimonials praising under‑eye products and customer service as well as edited follow‑ups where customers report refunds after raising issues, which indicates active interaction between the brand and reviewers on that platform [1] [2].
2. Other third‑party review sites show sharp divergence from Trustpilot
PissedConsumer lists Luminance Milano reviews with a much lower average—an 1.0 star rating across roughly a dozen reviews—and includes consumer allegations that products arrived from China or were different from advertised, with multiple refund requests noted [5]. The Better Business Bureau (BBB) profile contains complaints describing slow shipping, product differences, return delays, and unresolved refund requests, and the business is listed as not BBB accredited [6] [7]. These negative reports contrast strongly with Trustpilot’s predominantly positive excerpts and highlight a split in customer experiences [5] [6] [2].
3. Company site ratings and trust‑score services complicate the picture
The Luminance Milano website prominently displays product ratings (for example, a 5.0 out of 5 stars with 1,985 reviews shown on a product page), which is a common practice for e‑commerce sites but does not by itself verify independent corroboration of those scores [3]. Scamadviser — a site that aggregates technical and reputational signals about websites — reports a somewhat low score for luminancemilano.com based on automated checks (hosting, SSL, listings), explicitly warning that a low Scamadviser rating does not prove a scam but flags risk indicators for users to consider [4].
4. What can be reliably concluded from the available reporting
It is verifiable from the provided sources that Trustpilot hosts many Luminance Milano reviews and that at least some Trustpilot pages display a multi‑star rating [1] [2]. It is equally verifiable that other review venues—PissedConsumer and BBB complaint pages—record negative consumer experiences and low average scores [5] [6]. The company’s own site shows very high internal ratings that do not align with the negative complaint reports or the mixed third‑party listings [3]. The provided reporting does not include any source that documents a Google Reviews page or a Google rating for Luminance Milano, so no claim about Google Reviews can be made from these sources (no source).
5. Reading the conflict: possible explanations and what remains unknown
The divergent ratings suggest several possibilities: selective sampling on different platforms, genuine variability in fulfillment or product batches, post‑purchase disputes resolved privately, or marketing practices that amplify positive reviews on the company site; Scamadviser’s automated flags and BBB complaints lend weight to concerns about fulfillment and customer service for at least some orders [4] [6]. Because the reporting provided does not include Google Reviews data or independent audit of review authenticity, the presence, count, and score of any Google Reviews cannot be confirmed here (no source).