Gratuitous self-citation guy

I am in the process of reviewing a review paper from a large lab in my field. They have given it a catchy title, but what it should really be called is "Stuff we have done in the last 10 years, with a tiny bit of new data thrown in because we didn't know what else to do with it". The paper endlessly cites previous lab publications without remorse and blatantly under-sells work by non-lab-affiliated people. Even as a review, the manuscript re-hashes points made in two papers already published in 2009 in high-profile journals, which of course, go uncited. I'm not surprised since it seems like this lab publishes 4 reviews for every data paper it churns out, but over 20% of their references are papers published in the lab. In a field where they were solely working that might no seem too bad, but in this case it is a little over the top. It's not the sheer quantity of self-citation, but also the placement. In any area of the paper where they have lab papers, it is those that are cited as examples, whereas papers of equal impact to the discussion, but from "competing" groups, are mentioned almost as an after-thought - as though they recoginize that a reviewer will call them on not citing those papers so they have them in there on their terms. Is this a blatant attempt to de-emphasize the contribution of others to the questions at hand or simply a case of knowing your own data better than that of other labs? While I want to believe the latter, the former seems to be jumping up and down, waving it's hands like a first-grader who wants permission to leave the class and go pee.