Companies could face suits for paying for positive online reviews
Analysts say FTC will pursue cases against those who compensate for false critiques
February 25, 2013 at 07:00 PM
12 minute read
Glowing online consumer reviews are music to any company's ears. But some companies will go farther than others to procure such positive comments.
For instance, in March 2011, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that Legacy Learning Systems Inc., the maker of a popular series of guitar-lesson DVDs, would pay $250,000 to settle charges that it deceptively advertised its products by paying online marketers to pose as ordinary consumers and write positive reviews of its products.
Experts say such settlements are a precursor to more FTC action in the future. Gartner Inc. analysts predict that in the next two years, the agency will pursue litigation against at least two unnamed Fortune 500 companies for paying for false reviews.
Peer Pressure
According to a recent Gartner study, tainted consumer reviews of businesses and products will account for between 10 percent and 15 percent of all online critiques by next year.
The trend is disheartening to consumers, but it's also concerning to in-house lawyers. “This is something that could seriously hurt your company's reputation,” says Jenny Sussin, senior research analyst at Gartner.
Still, some companies are pressured to buy online critiques because consumers heavily rely upon peer reviews to make their purchasing decisions.
“Sixty-three percent of consumers are more likely to make a purchase from a site where there are user reviews,” says Sussin. She adds that “50 or more reviews on a product can mean a 4.6 percent increase in conversion rates,” which are the proportion of site visitors who take action beyond just viewing a site's content.
“Businesses have substantial financial interest in making sure that they have a robust portfolio of consumer reviews, given that so many people are checking them,” says Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University Law School. “There needs to be a critical mass of reviews so that consumers believe they have credibility, and the reviews need to be favorable so that it looks like the business is a good provider.”
Goldman says businesses also like the idea of having their offerings “go viral.” “They want there to be an organic groundswell of consumers excited about their offerings and evangelizing them to their peers,” he says. “Some businesses think they can jump-start that process by having it look like ordinary consumers are raving about a product and hoping that that catches fire among other consumers and then snowballs from there.”
Facing pressure to establish a strong consumer following, businesses will post ads on sites such as Craigslist, Amazon Inc.'s Mechanical Turk, Freelancer and Fiverr seeking people who will write short, positive endorsements, for which they will fork over anywhere between $1 and $200, Sussin says.
The Government's Take
In 2009, the FTC published a guide governing endorsements and testimonials in which it clarified that paying for positive reviews without disclosing that reviewers had been compensated is deceptive advertising, and it will prosecute such practices in the same way.
“The FTC has made its position entirely clear,” Goldman says. “Consumer reviews need to represent the authentic view of the people providing them. The FTC has decided that it's going to fight the battle of trying to maintain content authenticity online. As a result, they are looking for opportunities to punish folks who are not playing by those rules.”
Aside from FTC action, Cooley Partner Janet Cullum says companies could face consumer backlash. “The FTC may go after a company for fake reviews, and then right away, consumer class actions could be filed on top of it,” she says.
Companies also could face suits from competitors claiming they're hyping themselves online or paying reviewers to write negative critiques of competitors' products or services.
Varied Liability
Goldman says that in the U.S., review sites can't be held liable for any fake, paid-for reviews posted to them. That's because 47 U.S.C. 230, a statute Congress passed in 1996, essentially says websites aren't liable for third-party content.
U.K. agencies, however, have penalized sites for containing false reviews. In February 2012, after a four-month investigation, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found that TripAdvisor's lack of user-verification steps allowed reviewers to post nongenuine content to the site. The agency ruled that TripAdvisor's U.K. site could no longer claim that its reviews were honest or from real people. The ASA took similar action in November 2012 against the U.K.-based airline review site Skytrax, finding that the site couldn't assert that its reviews were “checked” and “trusted” as it had claimed because it didn't take “all reasonable steps to ensure that reviews were checked, trusted and made by 'real' people with 'real' opinions.”
“If review sites are advertising that they're credible, but they're not actually policing reviews, that could be a problem overseas,” Goldman says. “Here in the U.S., that's probably still protected by Section 230.”
Fighting Back
Even though Yelp can't be held liable for false endorsements reviewers post to its site, it is doing a lot to thwart such reviews.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250