FTC Finally Proposes Ban on Fake Reviews

The FTC has proposed a new rule banning numerous forms of fake reviews online, from outright fabricated ones to those that are sketchily repurposed or secretly manipulated. It may not totally rehabilitate the notoriously unreliable online review ecosystem, but it could help make things a bit more bearable. From a report: This rule has been a long time in the making, which is par for the course at any federal regulator. The FTC's first case of this type was in 2019, against a merchant that was making misleading claims and paying for fake reviews. Before that, it had taken on "influencer marketing" where a person didn't disclose that they were being paid to promote a product. Now the agency is ready to take comprehensive action with rules they first previewed last October and have now put in near-final form. The proposed rule is the result of much research and of consultation with businesses, consumers, and even advertising trade organizations that predictably advised the FTC not to bother cracking down on this lucrative business.

That'll stop 'em

[alvinrod]

I'm sure that'll stop those unscrupulous ne'er-do-wells from engaging in such behavior. I suspect that this might actually make it worse. If you want a customer to have plausible deniability then you only need to throw out enough chaff to make it impossible to tell who might have paid for what. Pick a popular brand and some new product and crank out a few thousand fake reviews for the new Nike shoe. It's not like it really costs anything, but it means that regulators can't just assume any company is guilty. The African and Eastern European countries from whence much of this emanates are sure to give a damn if the perpetrators are ever tracked down.

Re:That'll stop 'em

[NobleNobbler]

I REPLIEd TO THIS MESSAGE for my HUSBAND BIRTHDAY AND he LOVES IT!!!

Re:

[CAIMLAS]

You won this thread.

Re:

[CAIMLAS]

Government regulatory agencies are increasingly irrelevant in a global world market - particularly when the trustworthiness of those agencies continually is brought into question by their financial motives.

It's just another means by which to fine people. As in most things, the rich and powerful will be unaffected.

Re:

[narcc]

You know this targets companies, not individuals, right?

Re:

[usedtobestine]

You know this targets companies, not individuals, right?

You must be new around here. Corporations ARE people, didn't you know that.

Re: That'll stop 'em

[Z00L00K]

I only accept that when a company can get the same sentences as a person.

Will this apply to news programs?

[Babel-17]

The ones funded by the endless drug commercials? FOX, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, all of them.

Should Anderson Cooper be compelled to disclose who's funding his network through its ads before commenting on any drug, or any drug side effect?

https://childrenshealthdefense... [childrensh...efense.org]

Re:

[ArchieBunker]

Civilized countries don’t allow prescription drugs to be advertised. This a problem unique to the USA. This past week I just saw a commercial for a prescription for your dog. That’s a fucking new one.

Re:

[NotEmmanuelGoldstein]

... don’t allow prescription drugs to be advertised.

New Zealand also allows marketing directly to the patient, although it doesn't have the bad reputation that US pharmaceuticals does.

Useless

[EvilSS]

This won't do much to address the problem. It has some good parts like prohibiting retaliation/threats on negative reviews. Still, overall, I don't think FADAKWALT, Atyfuniby, or HOYMI, or any of the other random brand Chinese sellers give a shit about the FTC saying they did a bad thing and owe money. They will just change their "address," officers, and bank accounts, spin out new nonsense trademarks and keep on doing what they were doing before.

A good start

[bubblyceiling]

Sounds like a good start

yeah sneer at the government for being slow

[Growlley]

When it shows the invisibkehand of the market isn't capable of doing the job at all.

Re:

[alvinrod]

I think your comment is rather misguided. People still pay for subscriptions to professional review sites or magazines. The market does value reliable reviews to some degree, but there always going to be an incentive for cheaters to cheat. If you think the market is supposed to be some kind of benevolent god that works to further humanity towards whatever the hell you believe in, you're going to be sorely disappointed. A completely free market will only reflect the desires of humanity. I don't know if you'v

***** Would use this national agency again

[greytree]

I wanted the FTC to act and within just 20 years of rampant fake reviews, they did act and will shurely solve this problem.

They are definitely one of my favorite agencies and when I need government action in the future I will definitely call on them.

Re:

[narcc]

20 years of "rampant" fake review, eh?

shm...

Sure, but how can you enforce it?

[SmaryJerry]

Obviously it should be banned but that's like trying to stop someone from taking more than one halloween candy from a "take one" bowl. Preventing it in any way is just not worth it.. except maybe if you can get someone who is a whistleblower?

Re:

[Firethorn]

I'm going to disagree that "preventing it in any way" is "just not worth it". Sure, there's a lot of fake reviews where it really wouldn't, but I figure a few busts of low hanging fruit will help keep the problem to a manageable level.

Of course, I'm afraid that ChatGPT and such are going to make spotting fake reviews a lot more difficult than they used to be.

Re:

[narcc]

I'm afraid that ChatGPT and such are going to make spotting fake reviews a lot more difficult

Have no fear! The exact opposite is true.

Re:

[Shadow of Eternity]

Simple: Make amazon criminally responsible for who does business on their site and prevent them from deliberately mixing chinese counterfeits with genuine merchandise on the back end.

Brick and mortar stores don't get to sell fraudulent goods without consequences, neither should amazon.

Stop the scummy tactics of review sites

[jonwil]

Yelp for example is known to expose negative reviews and hide positive reviews for any business that refuses to give them money.

Amazon refuses to do anything about the many issues with fake reviews on their site (and in fact will remove genuine negative reviews from people who actually bought the product just because the seller lies to Amazon and claims the review is bogus)

Re:

[usedtobestine]

And the funniest one, which was obviously pure fiction, was removed because Nair complained that the review maligned their hair removal product.

The 2nd funniest one was a review of toilette paper by the pallet, for parents of teenage boys.

I think the real problem is that a larger percentage of the the population is educationally challenged, and thin skinned as well.

Re:

[groobly]

My experience with Yelp is the opposite: they hide negative reviews that are obviously real, while showing numerous positive reviews that are suspect. The only useful reviews are negative ones.

Soo

[Slashythenkilly]

Amazun gun hafta git reah sneekee rite boutnaw

Can they also ban telemarketing too?

[chas.williams]

We know how well that worked.

performance art

[groobly]

The FTC has tons of rules. They don't get enforced unless some VIP tells them to enforce them. Do you seriously think that if you file a complaint with the FTC they will do anything? hahhahahah.
Expect this to simply be used as a weapon against any outfit they don't like, like Amazon for example.