FTC Cracks Down on Reviewers

[DonH56]

FTC Cracks Down: New Rules For Audiophile And Home Theater Reviews

The FTC's new ruling exposes hidden perks audiophile reviewers receive for glowing reviews. This crackdown aims to restore trust in audio gear reviews.

cecritic.com

 

[Doodski]

FTC Cracks Down: New Rules For Audiophile And Home Theater Reviews

The FTC's new ruling exposes hidden perks audiophile reviewers receive for glowing reviews. This crackdown aims to restore trust in audio gear reviews.

cecritic.com

Good stuff. The wild west of reviewing has gone on long enough/too long.

 

[amirm]

The article is misleading in that the ruling has nothing specific for audio or audiophiles. But does provide those broad protections: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/new...-final-rule-banning-fake-reviews-testimonials

I especially value 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.

Wish this was in place a year ago!

 

[amper42]

Even with these rules you still won't be able to trust most on-line reviews. People have been playing this game for awhile and they won't want to stop enriching themselves. More likely, some vendors may be less likely to participate and find new ways to differentiate their products. Maybe some will realize there is a difference between running a PR campaign and an actual unbiased 3rd party review with no financial interest? - But don't count on it. Most reviews are totally subjective and just about anything sounds great to some of these guys. Or at least, that seems to be their claim month after month in their publications/videos. As they keep making a living pushing audio gear that's sent to them for free.

It's hard to legislate morality and principles of full disclosure. It will require continual enforcement as well as this law.

 

[DonH56]

The article is misleading in that the ruling has nothing specific for audio or audiophiles. But does provide those broad protections: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/new...-final-rule-banning-fake-reviews-testimonials

I especially value 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.

Wish this was in place a year ago!

Rats, that is the actual FTC article I thought I had linked, copy/paste error. Thanks Amir!

 

[Old_School_Brad]

Even with these rules you still won't be able to trust most on-line reviews. People have been playing this game for awhile and they won't want to stop enriching themselves. More likely, some vendors may be less likely to participate and find new ways to differentiate their products. Maybe some will realize there is a difference between running a PR campaign and an actual unbiased 3rd party review with no financial interest? - But don't count on it. Most reviews are totally subjective and just about anything sounds great to some of these guys. Or at least, that seems to be their claim month after month in their publications/videos. As they keep making a living pushing audio gear that's sent to them for free.

It's hard to legislate morality and principles of full disclosure. It will require continual enforcement as well as this law.

I think you're right. They'll just add a small disclaimer in the video description or a note saying it's their personal opinion. Nothing will change with people like that.

 

[JeffS7444]

Wow! It does still allow for subjective reviewing, but the need to disclose compensation in the form of free gear, indefinite loans and industry accommodation pricing is going to have an impact. But I wonder if there's a loophole which would allow an audiophile site to relocate outside of the USA, thus allowing USA-based reviewers and manufacturers to continue as before.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

Wow! It does still allow for subjective reviewing, but the need to disclose compensation in the form of free gear, indefinite loans and industry accommodation pricing is going to have an impact. But I wonder if there's a loophole which would allow an audiophile site to relocate outside of the USA, thus allowing USA-based reviewers and manufacturers to continue as before.

They're basically doing what YouTube has been doing for years. And even if it says the video is monetized people still watch it as un-biased truth.

 

[teched58]

If I'm understanding the new rules correctly, they require that reviewers not receive any compenation for their reviews, neither directly nor INDIRECTLY.

This means that industry pricing/accomodation discounts for reviewers and "permanent" loans are prohibited.

Jim Austin in his latest column, just posted online, states that SP is in compliance with all the new rules, but also that an FTC attorney told him that SP does NOT need to comply with these rules because they're journalism. (Although at the same time these rules apparently apply to influencers.)

 

[Old_School_Brad]

If I'm understanding the new rules correctly, they require that reviewers not receive any compenation for their reviews, neither directly nor INDIRECTLY.

This means that industry pricing/accomodation discounts for reviewers and "permanent" loans are prohibited.

Jim Austin in his latest column, just posted online, states that SP is in compliance with all the new rules, but also that an FTC attorney told him that SP does NOT need to comply with these rules because they're journalism. (Although at the same time these rules apparently apply to influencers.)

Hmm, that's not quite accurate, as I understand it. Influencers and reviewers are required to disclose any financial relationships or deals they have, and their reviews must reflect genuine experiences to ensure transparency. I'm not entirely sure why, or how, Stereophile might be exempt from these rules.. Maybe it's because they return the products after reviewing them.

 

[chervokas]

There seems to be a lot of confusion about this rule. The FTC regulates fraudulent and deceptive business practices, not speech, which of course has first amendment protection. The new rules are related to consumer reviews, not editorial reviews, and prohibit as a deceptive business practice, consumer reviews, that is like consumer reviews posted to Amazon or manufacturer websites, that come from entities that are not consumers -- AI generated reviews from consumers who don't exist, reviews posted not by consumers but by employees and representatives of companies whose products are the subject of the consumer review, etc. It also prohibits companies from incentivizing consumers to leave specific messages as reviews, but does not prohibit companies from incentivizing consumers for leaving reviews generally (so, say, the company can offer a consumer a gift card for leaving a review, but not for telling the consumer what to say in the review). Disclosure and other prohibitions relating to celebrity endorsements were already revised last year requiring "When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product that might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement, and that connection is not reasonably expected by the audience, such connection must be disclosed clearly and conspicuously."