Fake reviews, which dominate the internet, are going to be illegal. (UPDATED)

[usonian]

Last edited Sat Jul 1, 2023, 10:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Will the internet ever be the same?
Those 10,000 5-star reviews are fake. Now they’ll also be illegal.
The FTC has proposed new rules that clarify what is and isn’t a deceptive online review — and would give it the power to fine $50,000 for each fake
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/30/fake-reviews-online-ftc/
Was not paywalled for me. Otherwise, use the archive https://archive.is/dO7qG

The Federal Trade Commission on Friday proposed new rules to take aim at businesses that buy, sell and manipulate online reviews. If the rules are approved, they’ll carry a big stick: a fine of up to $50,000 for each fake review, for each time a consumer sees it.

You’ve seen it before: Thousands of conspicuous five-star reviews for a borderline product. Perhaps even a merchant has offered to pay you to leave a positive review. This kind of fraud undermines our collective power as consumers.

“Anyone who’s done any shopping online knows that trying to actually get objective information about the product is so fraught because there’s so much commercial misinformation, so many deceptive reviews,” says Samuel Levine, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.

As many as 30 percent to 40 percent of online reviews are fabricated or otherwise not genuine, consumer advocacy groups and researchers like U.S. PIRG estimate, though the rate of fakes can vary widely by type of product and website.

That's one hellofa fine.
Hope it's approved.
FOUND IT!
The FTC has more info: LOTS MORE

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/06/federal-trade-commission-announces-proposed-rule-banning-fake-reviews-testimonials
Federal Trade Commission Announces Proposed Rule Banning Fake Reviews and Testimonials
June 30, 2023

The Federal Trade Commission proposed a new rule to stop marketers from using illicit review and endorsement practices such as using fake reviews, suppressing honest negative reviews, and paying for positive reviews, which deceive consumers looking for real feedback on a product or service and undercut honest businesses.

“Our proposed rule on fake reviews shows that we’re using all available means to attack deceptive advertising in the digital age,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The rule would trigger civil penalties for violators and should help level the playing field for honest companies.”

In its notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission cited examples of clearly deceptive practices involving consumer reviews and testimonials from its past cases, and noted the widespread emergence of generative AI, which is likely to make it easier for bad actors to write fake reviews.

The Commission is seeking comments on proposed measures that would fight these clearly deceptive practices. For example, the proposed rule would prohibit:

• Selling or Obtaining Fake Consumer Reviews and Testimonials: The proposed rule would prohibit businesses from writing or selling consumer reviews or testimonials by someone who does not exist, who did not have experience with the product or service, or who misrepresented their experiences. It also would prohibit businesses from procuring such reviews or disseminating such testimonials if the businesses knew or should have known that they were fake or false.

* Review Hijacking: Businesses would be prohibited from using or repurposing a consumer review written for one product so that it appears to have been written for a substantially different product. The FTC recently brought its first review hijacking enforcement action.

• Buying Positive or Negative Reviews: Businesses would be prohibited from providing compensation or other incentives conditioned on the writing of consumer reviews expressing a particular sentiment, either positive or negative.

• Insider Reviews and Consumer Testimonials: The proposed rule would prohibit a company’s officers and managers from writing reviews or testimonials of its products or services, without clearly disclosing their relationships. It also would prohibit businesses from disseminating testimonials by insiders without clear disclosures of their relationships, and it would prohibit certain solicitations by officers or managers of reviews from company employees or their relatives, depending on whether the businesses knew or should have known of these relationships.

• Company Controlled Review Websites: Businesses would be prohibited from creating or controlling a website that claims to provide independent opinions about a category of products or services that includes its own products or services.

• Illegal Review Suppression: Businesses would be prohibited from using unjustified legal threats, other intimidation, or false accusations to prevent or remove a negative consumer review. The proposed rule also would bar a business from misrepresenting that the reviews on its website represent all reviews submitted when negative reviews have been suppressed.

• Selling Fake Social Media Indicators: Businesses would be prohibited from selling false indicators of social media influence, like fake followers or views. The proposed rule also would bar anyone from buying such indicators to misrepresent their importance for a commercial purpose.

The proposed rule follows an advance notice of proposed rulemaking the Commission announced last November. The FTC received comments from individual consumers, trade associations, review platform operators, small businesses, consumer advocacy organizations, entities dedicated to fighting fake reviews, and academic researchers.

[calimary]

1. Wow! Finally doing something about it.

It’s hard to try to stay a step ahead of these folks. And it’s reasonable to expect that, as soon as (if not before) this corrective even gets going, somebody out there is gonna outwit it, or figure out how to get around it.

[Nictuku]

2. Make Lying Wrong Again! I say

[NowISeetheLight]

7. Better On a HAT

MLWA would look better on a hat than MAGA.

[BOSSHOG]

11. My favorite hat from New Orleans

MAKE CRAWFISH $1.97 A POUND AGAIN.

[hlthe2b]

3. Good to see. Now do scam cell phone calls, texts, and emails

[Lokilooney]

4. What about reviews for super ultra mega fast HDMI cables?

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/reviews/audioquest-diamond-hdmi-1m-/2383276

[Silent Type]

14. That's funny-- Best cable ever, filled with diamonds, etc.

[TheBlackAdder]

19. I get my HDMI cables at Five Below for $5 each. Never had a problem with them.

[orleans]

23. omg! what am i looking at? some of those are hysterical! nt

[elleng]

5. Will be difficult to define and enforce.

[Tansy_Gold]

13. Exactly, because the major platforms are immune

Amazon, Yelp, etc., are protected. Going after individual reviewers will be next to impossible, especially if they're outside FTC jurisdiction.

Targeting companies -- even small ones -- that promote their own products/services via in-house reviews is one thing. Targeting sellers/solicitors of fake reviews is another.

It's good PR for the FTC, but I don't expect it to go very far. After all, this would hurt businesses in the name of protecting consumers, and we know that's not the way this country operates.

[Johnny2X2X]

6. Just as long as they don't mess with 3 wolves T shirt

https://www.cnet.com/culture/the-shirt-with-the-most-incredible-amazon-reviews/

[wnylib]

8. The problem is not only fake 5 star reviews.

There are also a lot of fake negative one star reviews. They come from two sources, trolls who think it's fun and competitors who want to cut down sales of someone else's products.

The fake positives are fairly easy to spot. The language is too canned sounding. They are not written in the way that people genuinely talk about something. The fake negatives are harder to spot. I skip the 5 star and the 1 or 2 star reviews and go directly to the 3 and 4 star reviews to get honest comments

[markodochartaigh]

15. There are also a lot of one star reviews

which don't even relate to actual product. "The delivery person left the box in the sun and my chocolates were melted." "The book took two months to arrive." "I read on the internet that I could summon Satan with this ouiji board but all I was the ghost of Ronnie Raygun."

[not fooled]

17. How did the reviewer know

raygun wasn't, in fact, Satan? I think it might be difficult to tell the difference in some respects.

Of course, comparing Satan to that evil old bastard is an insult to Satan, who fulfills a legitimate role in the Xtian pantheon.

[markodochartaigh]

20. Too true

[Brother Buzz]

9. Does anyone know if this will affect the Amazon Associates crap....

Amazon Associates is biggest spam/scam fraudulent product reviews sites I know of.

[LiberalFighter]

10. Give a zero star for that web designer in Colorado?

[usonian]

12. Kicking for update. Added list of items from the FTC site.

Wow.

[FakeNoose]

16. K & R Bookmarking

Thanks for a great post!

[moniss]

18. Just the other day I was looking

for an orthopedic doctor near me. One of the Doctors had reviews for the clinic he was at and you could spot the fake ones because they were from Mumbai, India and Los Angeles and Hawaii. I doubt that my little area is a hot bed for foreign patients to come and get surgery. I've also seen the same thing with restaurant reviews for places in my general area. Some of the reviews will claim that they ordered a particular thing and it was awful etc. Only I know for a fact that the restaurant in question doesn't even have that dish on the menu. Product reviews are the worst. People claiming they bought this or that and you can tell by what they say that it's BS and they never bought the product. The other thing I see is on shopping sites a product review from a supposed purchaser will have a picture and it's a completely different product from the one they are writing about.

Some of the sellers are questionable also on sites because, for example, you will be looking at a listing for a shock absorber and the picture they show is a brake rotor. Where a big crackdown needs to happen is on car dealers using software to doctor the pictures of used cars they have for sale. Some of these crooks use the photo editing to eliminate any rust or damage in the photo and so you think it might be an OK car to spend the time to go and look at. Even if you call them they tell you it's in beautiful shape. Then you waste your time to go and look and the car is actually quite rotted out. When you ask them about the picture they all claim ignorance or say things like "Oh that was a different car and it's not here anymore."

[Mosby]

21. I wonder if there are 1st amendment issues?

I tried looking it up only to find it's pretty complicated. Apparently it's legal for private companies to "curate" the reviews they get.

[Orrex]

22. Has Clarence Thomas struck it down yet?

[IronLionZion]

24. I thought I saw reviews for a flux capacitor somewhere

but I can't seem to find it now. Maybe it went back to the future.

O'Reilly auto parts has a listing but no reviews now https://www.oreillyauto.com/flux-capacitor

[jmowreader]

25. That review has a problem

It claims the power of this thing is "121 gigawatts."

Everyone knows flux capacitors only require 1.21 gigawatts - one-hundredth as much.