A federal rule banning fake online reviews is now in effect.

The Federal Trade Commission issued the rulein August banning the sale or purchase of online reviews. The rule, which went into effect Monday, allows the agency to seek civil penalties against those who knowingly violate it.

“Fake reviews not only waste people’s time and money, but also pollute the marketplace and divert business away from honest competitors,” FTC Chair Lina Khan said about the rule in August. She added that the rule will “protect Americans from getting cheated, put businesses that unlawfully game the system on notice, and promote markets that are fair, honest, and competitive.”

  • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    108
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    9 days ago

    allows the agency to seek civil penalties against those who knowingly violate it.

    I hate that wording. Ignorance of the law isn’t a defense, unless you’re a corporation, apparently.

    It also looks like this doesn’t address the practice of offering incentive for actual purchasers to leave positive reviews.

    • FPSkra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      68
      ·
      9 days ago

      That’s not what knowingly means in this context. Knowingly refers to the level of intent required to pursue charges, not whether they knew there was a law against it.

      In this case it requires the government to show that the person intended to leave a review and/or testimonials that misrepresent that they are by someone who does not exist.

    • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      Anyways my brother works for the FTC. With the current funding, they take thousands of complaints before they even look into something. It’s effectively useless as only the most publicised cases get any enforcement and the fines are tiny. And he says it was twice as bad before Biden.

    • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      The wording is a bit ambiguous but I’d read that as “intentionally” rather than “with knowledge they’re violating the law”… it definitely could have used a good copy editor though.

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 days ago

        It’s more than a defense, it’s actually a benefit for police. Attempting to enforce rules that don’t exist still count as valid pretext if they find evidence of actual crimes.

    • mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 days ago

      It’s also pretty much impossible to prove, which of course is the point. The government exists to protect corporations

  • Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    9 days ago

    Awesome, now make them criminally liable.

    Corporations are people, no? Throw them in prison.

    • mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      9 days ago

      IMO, corporate punishments should work like that: steal a little from someone? Lose 90 days of profit. Steal a lot? Lose a couple years of profits. Kill someone? Lose 20 years of profits

      • Entertainmeonly@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        Jailing CEOs works better only because money is easy to manipulate. Loosing 20 years of profit just means bankruptcy. Make a new name new company buys all assets of bankrupt at fault company and nothing but the name changes. I’m with the idea that if companies have personhood than the person in charge is responsible for harm that personhood does.

          • moakley@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            8 days ago

            The CEO would just be a fall guy, and the decision-making would go to someone else.

          • Fedizen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 days ago

            I mean given the depths they’ll go through to dodge taxes I think they absolutely would change behavior.

        • Traister101@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          No. That’s not what that means. Profit by definition is the excess revenue that isn’t required to run the business.

          • zbyte64@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 days ago

            Cool, so just do stock buy backs to eat the profits while rewarding the executive suite

            • Traister101@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              8 days ago

              So again. Profit is the excess revenue (this time in bold and italicized) that isn’t needed to run the business. Believe it or not stock buy backs aren’t required to run a business. Weird huh?

              • zbyte64@awful.systems
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 days ago

                Compensating your employees is an expense needed to run the business. Those buybacks is just the cost of doing business.

      • Wogi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 days ago

        They tried that when McDonald’s served coffee that gave an old woman 3rd degree burns on her genitals.

        A single days profits from coffee.

        McDonald’s fought that in court, and spent many thousands of dollars on a PR campaign to vilify the woman they burned.

      • Sabata@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 days ago

        Jail or volcano sacrifice. I’m sick of rich fucks being above the law and fines are just an expected, calculated, and bet against expense to a big business.

      • Naryn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 days ago

        It’s executed plenty.

        12 were executed in 2022

        Zoom in: Texas had 23 clinics in operation before the decision — 12 shut down and 11 are open but only offer services other than abortion.

  • cum@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    9 days ago

    Lina Khan is literally too good for consumers, that’s why she don’t last :(

    • 4lan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 days ago

      She is doing more for the working class than any other government official. And yet no one knows her name

      • Lavitz@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        Ajit Pai is that scumbags name. If I ever bump into him at a grocery store I plan to give him the same level of respect he gave the American people.

        • MrPoopbutt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          I doubt he does his own grocery shopping, because he doesn’t have to, and also because of the exact reason you posted.

          Having said that, if he were in a grocery store and I saw him, I’d be right at your side to ensure that piece of shit knew what I thought of him.

      • cum@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 days ago

        Literally the opposite lol. He got rid of net neutrality with the help of spamming with a bunch of fake bots for support. Nobody actually supported it, except the monopolies of course.

        This is pretty close to banning that exact action. That should’ve instantly kicked him out of office for that, but it showed pretty clearly that we weren’t in a democracy…

  • FrowingFostek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    9 days ago

    I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again. I love the work Lina Khan is doing. Its going to be so sad when Kamala gives her the boot :(

    • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 days ago

      The constitution is pretty clear about the power of government to regulate commerce, and is also pretty clear that the government can’t regulate most speech.

        • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          9 days ago

          The “everything is speech” argument has been hashed out for centuries, and is a variation of reducto ad absurdum. It’s the same bullshit argument that has allowed unlimited bribery in politics because money is speech.

          In this case, reviews are a form of marketing in aid of a sale, which is commerce. In that sector, there is no “free speech” because the constitution allows regulating most commerce. It’s the same as how you can’t sell a sugar pill that claims to enlarge your genitalia and clean your bedroom.

        • 4lan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 days ago

          Yes, but so is yelling “FIRE” in a movie theater or convincing a crowd to commit a crime. Yet it is illegal to do either of these.

          You don’t want true freedom, no one does. That is called anarchy

    • HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      Oh dude they literally had an activity at my old cult where they had everyone make a dozen fake reviews at each of their local buildings. That’s gonna be fun.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        There is a very long history of expeditions and fines against foreign nationals involving spam, scams, etc. Here is a recent example., and another example, and a much older and bigger example

        But you never hear about any of the good stuff the US Government does for its people, nobody ever talks about that stuff.

        • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          8 days ago

          I am surprised we don’t have a PR/propoganda department either breaking even or making money on Netflix documentaries. It’s like endless content.

          It could actually be a cool way for some career civil servants to ger a little payout towards the end of their career.

  • _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    Better than nothing but it also seems like it might be kind of difficult to prove the company allowed it knowingly.

    • FPSkra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 days ago

      It prevented reviews and testimonials that misrepresent that they are by someone who does not exist. Fairly easy to prove. If they catch an individual posting a review while posing as anyone but themselves, It’s a done deal.

    • EleventhHour@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      In this context “knowingly” means “intentionally”, not that they knew there was a law against it.

      An entity is in violation if they knowingly commit the act, not that they knowingly broke the law.

      • _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        Yes, I understand (ignorance of a law is no defense at least in the US) that but it still may prove difficult to actually prove.

    • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      Well if you take a company like Amazon they know everything about you already, including if you actually purchased the item you are reviewing. And that should be a simple first “hurdle” for a reviewer to be legit. They already have a way of sorting them out and labeling them in place. So I would assume this means if you don’t have that label your review doesn’t go live. They can then add more qualifiers to prove they know the reviewers are real, since this seems to put the onus of proof on the company not that FTC.

      Edit - some words

      • bluGill@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        It is possible I bought the item at my local warmart though and then review it on amazon. I don’t know if anyone does that, but it is possible.

        • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          I feel like although possible now, that this may need to change going forward since I’m not sure how Amazon can validate your review if not done through their platform.

          This of course fragments reviews to specific retail storefronts, but if the platform can’t validate at least the fact you purchased the item I don’t see anyway they can even begin to know you’re leaving a legit review.

        • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          I find that Amazon allows me to do that for good reviews, but whenever I leave a bad review for something I bought somewhere else the review disappears.

  • grysbok@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    9 days ago

    I just got a can of diet Coke in exchange for a 5-star review of a local eatery. I legit like the eatery, but would not have left a review without the bribe.

    Is that a legit review or a fake one?

    • ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      IMHO, if they’d give you the Coke for any review, regardless of rating, that’s fine. If they demand a 5-star rating for the Coke, then that’s no good.

      Your review might have been honest, but not everybody else’s who just wanted the Coke will be.

    • dan@upvote.au
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      I’d say that’s legit given you actually like the eatery. Would you have written the review if they had just nicely asked you to, without a payment of Diet Coke?

      • grysbok@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        I would have started to, but when I had trouble finding the “reviews” link on Google I’d probably have given up.

  • MehBlah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    9 days ago

    What is going to happen? Will the FTC police gonna come and cart them away? No, it will continue and nothing will happen. FTC enforcement is just a few law suits away from being just like the SEC’s enforcement. The SEC can’t enforce anything these days without a long drawn out court battle.

    • Ledivin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      9 days ago

      You’re right, we should just leave it as being legal 🙄 that’s so much better

      • andrewta@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 days ago

        Why do people do what you just did?

        He says this won’t work.

        And somehow you jump to “then we should just leave it as being legal”

        He didn’t say we shouldn’t try something just that this might not be the best implementation.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 days ago

          He didn’t say we shouldn’t try something just that this might not be the best implementation.

          He didn’t really say anything, you’re just hypothesizing a substantive argument from a low effort pessimistic gripe.

          • andrewta@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 days ago

            No. The other guy is basically claiming something that has no basis in fact. And I’m trying to figure out why people do that.