←back to thread

376 points indus | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
AdmiralAsshat ◴[] No.41915264[source]
> It also bans businesses from creating or selling reviews or testimonials. Businesses that knowingly buy fake reviews, procure them from company insiders or disseminate fake reviews will be penalized. It also prohibits businesses from using “unfounded or groundless legal threats, physical threats, intimidation, or certain false public accusations.”

Still seems like it leaves in a giant loophole for all of those overly-cheery reviews that start with, "This item was provided to me by the manufacturer in exchange for a fair and honest review!"

replies(1): >>41915334 #
shkkmo ◴[] No.41915334[source]
You are no longer allowrd to provide compensation for reviews. So companies can still send out stuff for your to possibly reviews but it can't make recieving items dependent on actually writing a review, even 'implicitly', though we'll see how enforcement shakes out.
replies(3): >>41915782 #>>41916067 #>>41917056 #
nomel ◴[] No.41917056[source]
Could coupons be a way around this? ... [deleted]

edit: after RTFM, page 42, coupons are considered valuable:

> For the reasons explained in this section, the Commission is finalizing the definition of “purchase a consumer review” to mean to provide something of value, such as money, gift certificates, products, services, discounts, coupons, contest entries, or another review, in exchange for a consumer review.

replies(1): >>41917159 #
1. shkkmo ◴[] No.41917159[source]
Why would a coupon be a way around this?

I think that document is specifically about taxes and coupons. It is not intended to define "compensation" for every statue in California and certainly not for federally issued rules from the FTC.

Even then, that rule is about whether the coupon issuer is compensated when a coupon is used, NOT about if a customer is compensated if they are given a coupon.