FTC Rules concerning reviews - News to me!

[kelesh]

Federal Trade Commission Announces Final Rule Banning Fake Reviews and Testimonials

The Federal Trade Commission today announced a final rule

www.ftc.gov

I just ran across this on-line. I am still absorbing what it says, so comments are solicited and welcome…

It, on my first reading, appears to ban “Snake-oil ¨ type reviews - that could destroy advertising in some popular publications and
On-line shills. I do wonder how such could be enforced?

It can't be enforced, which is why it's nothing but a waste of time and money.

 

[kemmler3D]

It can't be enforced, which is why it's nothing but a waste of time and money.

Why not? Fake reviews, fake social media followers, and so on are not that hard to hunt down if you're motivated to do so.

 

[amper42]

Also included:

• 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.

As the Commission noted previously, case-by-case enforcement without civil penalty authority might not be enough to deter clearly deceptive review and testimonial practices. The Supreme Court’s decision in AMG Capital Management LLC v. FTC has hindered the FTC’s ability to seek monetary relief for consumers under the FTC Act. This rule will enhance deterrence and strengthen FTC enforcement actions.

The Commission vote to approve the final rule and accompanying statement of basis and purpose was 5-0. The rule will become effective 60 days after the date it’s published in the Federal Register.

 

[restorer-john]

Except that the companies and reviewers will have to comply with this:

It's going to be a very fine line to tread for 'reviewers' like Andrew Robinson who make it known they work with, and are paid to produce their content.

 

[Galliardist]

False, many American laws, which influence trade, in Europe have not only not led to similar laws but even to opposite laws.
Ask Apple, ask Google, ask Tesla.

Sat here in Australia, it’s the norm for US legal decisions to affect how products work, but European laws rarely do. One exception would be that a lot of websites use the European rules on allowing us to opt out of cookies: but, for example, I doubt we will see the EU enforced abiliity to sideload on iDevices anytime soon.

I’ll restrain from saying more because we don’t do politics here and this is getting dangerously close.

 

[kelesh]

Why not? Fake reviews, fake social media followers, and so on are not that hard to hunt down if you're motivated to do so.

If they are motivated as well, yes, they are hard to hunt down.

 

[Cbdb2]

The only useful thing I see is bad reviews cannot be removed or altered. So now
Bsaudio and Bsresearch etal cant touch negative reviews, let em fly.

 

[Galliardist]

It's going to be a very fine line to tread for 'reviewers' like Andrew Robinson who make it known they work with, and are paid to produce their content.

It may cause more problems for what we may regard here as more honest reviewers. It is simple for a reviewer to just adopt a policy of never issuing a poor review, and that is entirely within the bounds of the rule.

Indeed, it raises a problem for Amir. Amir has admitted that he may withhold a poor review of a product supplied by the manufacturer, but he does not do that for product supplied by a member here. That policy might just fall foul of this rule.

At the very least, Amir will need to be sure that anything reviewed isn’t supplied by someone connected with a rival business.

 

[Cbdb2]

Indeed, it raises a problem for Amir.

Dosnt this mean Amir can say whatever he wants (if the data backs him) with no fear of reprisal?

 

[Jim Taylor]

At the very least, Amir will need to be sure that anything reviewed isn’t supplied by someone connected with a rival business.

What do you mean, "rival business"? Do you mean a rival to ASR (do they exist?) or a rival to the brand being supplied? In the second case, I could potentially see some underhanded stuff going on, but Amir has made it clear that he has communications with the companies in question, so someone trying some sleight-of-hand would probably be in trouble.

Jim

 

[restorer-john]

The publishing of hard to refute technical measurements with limited subjective views along with the membership voting system means it’s unlikely ASR would fall foul of anything.
IIRC, Amir has said he’d push something up the review queue for incentive however, but that was a while ago.

 

[Galliardist]

"Rival business"? WHAT rival business? In the first place, this is not a declared for-profit site. Secondly, who in the hell is a "rival"? The FTC may not consider ASR unique, but I doubt that they can find very many similar sites, much less "business" sites.

Jim

To clarify, I mean a rival to the maker or distributor of an item supplied for review.

 

[Galliardist]

Dosnt this mean Amir can say whatever he wants (if the data backs him) with no fear of reprisal?

The rule provides some protection, but laws don’t themselves prevent things happening, as I’m sure you’ve noticed.

 

[Jim Taylor]

To clarify, I mean a rival to the maker or distributor of an item supplied for review.

Ah, yes. I had edited my post drastically, and I had included the idea that something like that could leave the door open for all sorts of underhanded stuff.

The only thing worse than an unscrupulous person is a desperate unscrupulous person.

Jim

 

[Cbdb2]

The rule provides some protection, but laws don’t themselves prevent things happening, as I’m sure you’ve noticed.

Read this again and not sure it applys to Amir.

"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."

It should apply, but when the lawyers get involved who the f knows.

 

[Galliardist]

Read this again and not sure it applys to Amir.

"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."

It should apply, but when the lawyers get involved who the f knows.

That clause may well not apply. Note the words "consumer review". Amir in this case is reviewing for a consumer, and is not the consumer himself. Also it's likely that this involves a review posted on someone else's website. This clause is aimed at preventing a manufacturer forcing, say, Amazon to remove a negative review - or more likely a negative review from a verified buyer.

There is also the question of how it gets applied. If a reviewer or the host of the review has limited resources, there is no way they can risk taking VeryBigNastyCompany Inc. to an expensive lawsuit to enforce any law that gives them rights, or indeed suing the FTC if it decides there is no case to prosecute.

It may well protect someone like @GXAlan who by the looks of it has only posted reviews of products he owned himself on this site. That's something.

 

[Esprit]

I doubt we will see the EU enforced abiliity to sideload on iDevices anytime soon.

Tesla will have to pay 9% duties on all cars sold in Europe and produced in China, Apple has been sanctioned several times and has been forced to allow alternative stores for apps and so on.
I can simplify by telling you that European laws are promulgated in the interest and protection of citizens and NOT of companies and, as a European, I prefer it to be that way.
Happy Sunday

 

[Galliardist]

Tesla will have to pay 9% duties on all cars sold in Europe and produced in China, Apple has been sanctioned several times and has been forced to allow alternative stores for apps and so on.
I can simplify by telling you that European laws are promulgated in the interest and protection of citizens and NOT of companies and, as a European, I prefer it to be that way.
Happy Sunday

I'm actually not a fan of breaking the Apple walled garden. I've had to deal with some badly broken Android devices in my time. However, the price Apple charges for entry to their store and some of the other blocks they put there are not about helping us stay secure, so I know something has to be done by someone, and the European changes may force them to be more competitive.

If only someone would force them to fix the big AirDrop security hole... but it seems that certain governments use that hole and want it to stay in place. (Getting ever closer to politics, if we aren't already there).

 

[Waxx]

A lot of the things i read in that proposition are already implemented in Belgian law (and EU law i think). In the Belgium it's much harder to sue a reviewer (private or professional) on a bad review as you need to proof that he did not do it right. There were cases of a airbnb reviewers that got sued for a bad review, but won the case and got the renter convicted for legal stalking and intimidation. But there were also cases of influencers that gave a negative review for an airbnb because not free stay for promotion, that got convicted for extortion. It works both way down here, but the complainer always have to proof their case (benfit of the doubt for the sued person).