Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States

FTC's Rule Banning Fake Online Reviews Goes Into Effect (apnews.com) 51

Posted by msmash from the greater-accountability dept.
A federal rule banning fake online reviews is now in effect. The Federal Trade Commission issued the rule in August banning the sale or purchase of online reviews. The rule, which went into effect Monday, allows the agency to seek civil penalties against those who knowingly violate it. AP: "Fake reviews not only waste people's time and money, but also pollute the marketplace and divert business away from honest competitors," FTC Chair Lina Khan said about the rule in August. She added that the rule will "protect Americans from getting cheated, put businesses that unlawfully game the system on notice, and promote markets that are fair, honest, and competitive."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FTC's Rule Banning Fake Online Reviews Goes Into Effect More

FTC's Rule Banning Fake Online Reviews Goes Into Effect

Comments Filter:

  • Is there a law that requires reviewers to disclose if they have been sponsored or been given a free sample by the company?

    The better YouTubers disclose this information but it seems like this is not mandatory?

    • Free sample of sugarfree Haribo gummy bears?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by EvilSS ( 557649 )
      Yes, that's been the law for ages now. The FTC has even brought actions against a few Youtube channels for not disclosing sponsorships. The problem is the FTC can't watch every YT video so people need to report it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by shanen ( 462549 )

      Not a bad FP, but it's serious and I think this story is rich with potential Funny.

      Too bad I can't write funny. There must be something in my reviews on Google Maps...

    • Re:Next law? Disclosure if been given a free sampl (Score:4, Informative)

      by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Tuesday October 22, 2024 @12:26PM (#64884503)
      Is there a law that requires reviewers to disclose if they have been sponsored or been given a free sample by the company?

      The FTC has a whole website on this. If the reviewer is formally Sponsored they must disclose it.

      Gifts are more of a gray area. The reviewer likely does Not have to disclose that the company lent them the sample they are reviewing.

      On the other hand if the company says to them "you can have the product", then now they are receiving compensation, and that should be disclosed.

      As a starting point, see Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers [ftc.gov]

      If you endorse a product through social media, your endorsement message should make it obvious when you have a relationship
      (“material connection”) with the brand. A “material connection” to the brand includes a personal, family, or employment relationship or a
      financial relationship – such as the brand paying you or giving you free or discounted products or services.
      .. As an influencer, it’s your responsibility to make these disclosures, to be familiar with the Endorsement Guides, and to comply with laws against deceptive ads. Don’t rely on others to do it for you.

  • does this mean (Score:3)

    by renegade600 ( 204461 ) on Tuesday October 22, 2024 @11:54AM (#64884389)

    does this mean, companies can now claim poor reviews are fake and retaliate using the law?

    • It means given sufficient evidence they can probably get the FTC to investigate, and if the investigation turns up faked reviews the FTC will probably sue.
      • One immediate effect if the fake reviews have to get taken down is that Amazon will free up approximately 8 exabytes of space on its servers.

    • does this mean, companies can now claim poor reviews are fake and retaliate using the law?

      Not necessarily, but it certainly means they will use the law as a battering ram against negative reviews. I imagine a form letter along the lines of, "We will forward your $negative review to the FTC for further investigation. To avoid this action, please remove the review within 48 hours of receipt of this letter."

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by EvilSS ( 557649 )
        The new rules actually have protections against this:

        Review Suppression: The final rule prohibits a business from using unfounded or groundless legal threats, physical threats, intimidation, or certain false public accusations to prevent or remove a negative consumer review. The final rule also bars a business from misrepresenting that the reviews on a review portion of its website represent all or most of the reviews submitted when reviews have been suppressed based upon their ratings or negative sentiment.

        • Sure. And DMCA takedowns are issued "under penalty of perjury." But in the quarter-century or so since that abomination of a law gave the copyright cartels free-reign to harass the tech industry and abuse the public; I can't actually recall a *single* instance of some movie or record company exec going to prison after a DMCA takedown turned out to be fair use, satire or parody, not actually their IP, or in other ways non-infringing.

  • If they’re using the term “rule” rather than “law”, it’s utterly toothless. Unenforceable. Outside a strict interpretation of the wording of a law, the executive branch has almost zero power unless the courts give them the nod. Loper Bright did that.
    • Up to $51,744 penalty per fake review isn't toothless. And rules established by the FTC are absolutely enforceable. They even conveniently can pull you in front of their own court with FTC judges to force you to testify since it is civil. Then with findings of facts they can run run you through an actual federal court to receive the maximum penalty if you are dumb enough to not settle. Read the actual rule as it has been published in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations: https://www.ftc.gov/system/fil.. [ftc.gov]

      • OP is referring to overturning of Chevron Deference principle by SCOTUS earlier this year. It doesnâ(TM)t make âoerulesâ toothless â" it makes all FTC actions significantly harder to take.

        • I covered that -- they can't just penalize you any more, they have to take you to a regular federal court. But everyone knows what happens if you lose in regular federal court -- you get a much bigger penalty than if you just settled. So not much has really changed other than defendants have a slightly better negotiating position and the right to demand a federal trial -- which is generally a really bad idea in practice.
          • I doubt a rule like that will survive its first serious court challenge. And, with Chevron gone, the rule will probably be put on hold as soon as a challenge gets filed, which will occur approximately 15 seconds after they try to enforce the rule for the first time. So, unlikely to ever see the light of day.

  • wasn't fraud already illegal? please forgive my ignorance, but how is this different? did they need to put a separate law on the books because reviews fall under freedom of speech?

    • Yes - but determining what is and isn't fraud on a case by case basis is really a lot of work. That's why we established the FTC to help produce rules as a guide for enforcement. They make the determination for the general case and then actual crimes are categorized based on the rules.

      Fraud can go anywhere. Just because you stuff it into a review doesn't suddenly make it safe.

      • There's another reason: since these reviews are up on the Internet, that makes it interstate commerce, which is under Federal jurisdiction. That's why there's the FTC and why it's making the rules.

  • It seems like they're also targeting the consumer side of these schemes. I know a lot of people are doing it semi-professionally. But a lot is a "free gift if you give us a review" note in an order package and people won't know the law.

    Hitting the consumer with fines as an end-run around not being able to easily target international sellers selling on Amazon seems a bit much. And probably will hurt relatively "innocent" people more than anyone else.

  • what about satire? (Score:3)

    by usedtobestine ( 7476084 ) on Tuesday October 22, 2024 @12:19PM (#64884473)

    I recall laughing uproariously at the mother of teenage boys' review of the toilette paper, and the mans' review of the Nair hair remover.

    The issue is that they can't legislate intelligence, so we have to put up with this type of bullshit.

    • The rule bans sale or purchase of reviews. People making fun of things usually aren't getting paid.

      • The rule bans sale or purchase of reviews. People making fun of things usually aren't getting paid.

        What if you get paid in laughs? Can they fine you laughs? Will I develop a laugh deficit? OH NO!

  • Criminals ignore laws in rules.

    This is why gun control is such a sham -- sure, the "law abiding" have their arms tied and have to jump through hoops to enjoy a Constitutionally-protected right, but the criminals who do crime with guns are not following any of these laws. They get what they want, when they want. Laws do *nothing* to stop them, but it sure makes good PR doesn't it?

    This is the same. This "rule" or "law" will not deter or stop people from putting in fake reviews.

  • Fake? (Score:3)

    by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Tuesday October 22, 2024 @12:22PM (#64884487) Journal

    Define "fake" please.

    If the rule isn't specific, it will be abused by the bigger stronger companies with the best lawyers.

    BTW, this is a fake review of the FTC rule. Sue me.

    • Were you paid to express that view?

      • All you need is to accuse me of being a Russian Bot, and then you win. That's how the game is played.

        In other words, it doesn't matter if I was paid or not, fake is fake but only for those that control the narrative.

  • How does this combat teams of people from non-US countries that actually do this work?

    This does not stop individual schizoposting, which is a good thing.

    Problem not solved.

  • Because of the Loper ruling that killed Chevron? The way that ruling works if something isn't written word for word in the law a government agency can't do it. It basically hamstrings the entire US government by design preventing Congress from doing even the most basic delegation of authority.

    I don't think we've really seen the full effects of that yet and I don't think we will until after the election when it's too late to do anything about it. Which I think is also kind of the point.
  • I am sure all those AI robots are quaking in their boots now. Rules from a US agency trying to force foreign agents to behave. F
  • This FTC rule was working well at first, but then I tried oiling it and now it no longer function. I ended up buying a proper Plumbus [fandom.com] and never looked back. 1/5 stars.
  • I think it was Belkin that got busted astroturfing their own fake reviews like 20 years ago. This was never not illegal.

  • Can we fine politicians for their own online fake reviews of their efforts?

  • So, if you pan a woke movie that you haven't seen, you get sued by the FTC?

Slashdot Top Deals

The world will end in 5 minutes. Please log out.

Close