←back to thread

FTC's rule banning fake online reviews goes into effect

(abcnews.go.com)
374 points indus | 7 comments | 22 Oct 24 15:21 UTC | HN request time: 0.016s | source | bottom
Show context
bragr ◴[22 Oct 24 15:27 UTC] No.41915238[source]▶
Does the regulation say anything about deceptively moderating reviews? e.g. deleting all the low star reviews?

edit: it doesn't seem so. You just have use some weasel language:

>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.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/08/...

replies(4): >>41915320 #>>41915513 #>>41916025 #>>41916194 #
onlyrealcuzzo ◴[22 Oct 24 15:48 UTC] No.41915513[source]▶
How does this stop one of the most common practices?

* Step 1, take a product with a terrible rating

* Step 2, create a new SKU for the exact same product so it has no ratings

* Step 3, get a handful of fake 5-star reviews (in some way the FTC isn't going to crack down on)

* Step 4, blast the old terribly reviewed product that now has good reviews on marketing

* Step 5, get 10s of thousands of sales, $$$

* Step 6, let the terrible reviews pour in

Repeat to step 1 (possibly under a different brand name).

replies(10): >>41915589 #>>41915601 #>>41915678 #>>41915693 #>>41915890 #>>41915989 #>>41916260 #>>41916563 #>>41916946 #>>41917132 #
soco ◴[22 Oct 24 15:55 UTC] No.41915589[source]▶
To all commenters quickly pointing out the ways this rule is far from perfect: you are completely right. This being clarified, is the alternative doing nothing? Because that's where we are.
replies(3): >>41915616 #>>41916134 #>>41918676 #
conductr ◴[22 Oct 24 16:45 UTC] No.41916134{3}[source]▶
When the FTC says "we're cracking down on online reviews" with things like this the average Joe gains more confidence in them, so yes, the doing nothing approach is actually better IMO.
replies(1): >>41916538 #
1. maxerickson ◴[22 Oct 24 17:27 UTC] No.41916538{4}[source]▶
So never do anything unless you can guarantee a particular outcome?
replies(1): >>41916667 #
2. conductr ◴[22 Oct 24 17:38 UTC] No.41916667[source]▶
That’s a stretch. But things like this only create a false illusion of safety/honesty which can actually be a tailwind for dishonesty.
replies(2): >>41918004 #>>41918080 #
3. hluska ◴[22 Oct 24 19:50 UTC] No.41918004[source]▶
So, don’t do anything at all because there will always be an issue with anything you do? Being negative is a weakness.
replies(1): >>41918262 #
4. maxerickson ◴[22 Oct 24 19:59 UTC] No.41918080[source]▶
My assessment is more that the average consumer won't have any idea that the FTC is doing this, so I am not real worried about the downsides.
replies(1): >>41918457 #
5. conductr ◴[22 Oct 24 20:20 UTC] No.41918262{3}[source]▶
How about; do things that you can enforce and expect a positive net impact from, do things in a way that will address the dozens of obvious first impression questions that came up here due to lack of specifics. If you’re going to do it, put some thought into its execution and administration.

And most of all, don’t make global generalizations on commentary that is quite specific and on a very particular topic.

replies(1): >>41918822 #
6. conductr ◴[22 Oct 24 20:38 UTC] No.41918457{3}[source]▶
Not initially, but in time they tend to hear about it. Some shops are bound to brag that their reviews are FTC compliant and unbiased, etc.
7. bcrosby95 ◴[22 Oct 24 21:18 UTC] No.41918822{4}[source]▶
They have though. This has been a 2 year process.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/10/...

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/06/...

They probably came to different conclusions as you. And I'm sure they have reasons why they left some of that stuff on the original list out. Because they spent 2 years looking at this rather than going with their "obvious first impression questions".

You'll also note from those links that they have already been pursuing some companies over this stuff. So they're probably aware of what they're up against.