FTC's rule banning fake online reviews goes into effect

> the rule bans reviews and testimonials attributed to people who don’t exist or are generated by artificial intelligence, people who don’t have experience with the business or product/services, or misrepresent their experience.

Does the rule apply to private citizens? I wonder if the First Amendment agrees with penalizing private citizens "who don’t have experience with the business or product/services, or misrepresent their experience". They may mean that businesses can't engage people to write such reviews.

Also, how will they handle the scale of enforcement? The large companies seem easy - one enforcement action covers all of Yelp, another all of Amazon, etc. But what about the infinite reviews at smaller vendoers?

Overall though, I think this is great and long past due. The lawlessness of the Internet - fraud, spying, etc. - is absurd.

> Does the rule apply to private citizens? I wonder if the First Amendment agrees with penalizing private citizens "who don’t have experience with the business or product/services, or misrepresent their experience"

Maybe I'm wrong but doesn't the first ammended apply to public speech ? Is there some nuances there when a private company is involved and responsible for the content on their platform, in this case reviews? Genuinely never sure of these things for the US.

> Does the rule apply to private citizens? I wonder if the First Amendment agrees with penalizing private citizens "who don’t have experience with the business or product/services, or misrepresent their experience".

I'm sure someone will try to argue that, but the way I interpreted it is that this is not banning people from sharing fake reviews, it's banning businesses from publishing and misrepresenting those reviews as genuine. i.e. It's regulating the business's practices, not the (purported) consumers'.

Effectively, I think it still bans joke reviews. You can submit a joke review, but the company cannot publish it

Does the first amendment protect financial fraud? Is this strictly a speech issue? Doesn't the first amendment only apply to people in the US? I ask because the shenanigans are world wide.

Almost all of the rules include the clause "for a business". The only rules that don't to my eye are basically "no one can make libelous or threatening statements to have a review suppressed or removed" and "no one can sell, distribute, purchase, or procure fake indicators of social media influence [...] for commercial purposes"

> Does the rule apply to private citizens? I wonder if the First Amendment agrees

> with penalizing private citizens "who don’t have experience with the business or

> product/services, or misrepresent their experience". They may mean that

> businesses can't engage people to write such reviews.

The First Amendment doesn't typically protect your right to commit fraud, no.

There's zero first amendment problem.

Because you're free to post as many false reviews on your own personal blog. Nobody is silencing your views.

But a product page is not allowed to publish those views. And businesses have never had first amendment rights to publish falsehoods.

It's no different from ingredient listings on food. There's no first amendment right for a business to lie about the ingredients.

- "Does the rule apply to private citizens? "

The rules do not apply to "reviews that appear on a website or platform as a result of the business merely engaging in consumer review hosting." 16 CFR § 465.2(d)(2) (2024) They apply (paraphrased) to things someone is paying someone else to say. Things people write about products without being paid to write them are uncontroversially First Amendment-protected opinion.

https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/federal-register-no... (starts on page 153)

- "penalizing private citizens "who don’t have experience with the business or product/services, or misrepresent their experience". They may mean that businesses can't engage people to write such reviews."

I'm not a lawyer, but I think the AP article actually misstated the law. The multiple paragraphs related to this only seem to cover the case where a review "materially misrepresented... that the reviewer used or otherwise had experience with the product". The way the AP paraphrased this is different. They separated out "or misrepresent" with an "or", but it's not separate.

I used Downy Super-Gentle Laundry Soap and my clothes fell apart, like it was an acid! Hacker News is secretly controlled by Mark Zuckerberg and Laurene Powell Jobs! ...

Where is the FTC? dang might delete my comment or ban me, but the government has no right to do a thing.