Subjective data, reflecting individual opinions, permeates platforms like Yelp and Amazon, influencing everyday decisions. Upon a user query, collaborative rating platforms return a collection of items ranked in an order that is often not transparent to the users. Then, each item is presented with a collection of reviews in an order that typically is, again, rather opaque. Despite the prevalence of such platforms, little attention has been given to fairness in their context, where groups writing best-ranked reviews for best-ranked items have more influence on users’ behavior. We design and evaluate a fairness assessment pipeline that starts with a data collection phase to gather reviews from real-world platforms, by submitting artificial user queries and iterating through rated items. Following that, a group assignment phase computes and infers relevant groups for each review, based on review content and user data. Finally, the third step assesses and evaluates the fairness of rankings for different user groups. The key contributions are comparing group exposure for different queries and platforms and comparing how popular fairness definitions behave in different settings. Experiments on real datasets reveal insights into the impact of item ranking on fairness computation and the varying robustness of these measures.