672
submitted 3 days ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] cocobean@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 days ago
[-] prole 2 points 2 days ago
[-] Snapz@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago
[-] ivanovsky@lemm.ee 4 points 2 days ago

She's 35, but born in England, and I think not a natural born US citizen

[-] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 105 points 3 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 65 points 3 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 19 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 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 14 points 3 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.

[-] tiefling 10 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

That's not true, ignorance of the law is also a valid defense for police officers violating people's rights 🙄

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 73 points 3 days ago

Awesome, now make them criminally liable.

Corporations are people, no? Throw them in prison.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago

"I will believe that corporations are people, once Texas executes one."

[-] Naryn@lemmy.world 2 points 2 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.

[-] mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 3 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 28 points 3 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.

[-] mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 days ago

I wonder if having to face consequences for their actions would change how CEOs behave 🤔

[-] moakley@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Wogi@lemmy.world 5 points 2 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.

[-] Sabata11792@ani.social 4 points 2 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.

[-] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 25 points 2 days ago

Some guy in India is gonna get fined $7,498,342.37 in three years and I'm all for it.

And then he won't pay it because he's in India and doesn't pay a lot of attention to the US FTC.

[-] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 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 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 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.

[-] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 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.

[-] als 19 points 2 days ago

I'm sorry, "my old cult"? Care to give some background? Obviously if you'd rather not that's completely up to you :)

[-] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

I personally thought it was better ambiguous.

[-] FrowingFostek@lemmy.world 39 points 3 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 :(

[-] Entertainmeonly 20 points 3 days ago

Why would Harris give her the boot? Khan was placed in position by Biden.

[-] Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world 22 points 3 days ago

Its up for debate if she will, but a lot of big ticket donors are ~~bribing her~~ requesting it as a favor for donating to her campaign.

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago

I thought most of those big donors were just straight up backing trump. I guess the tariffs got them down?

[-] Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago

That or they pay both sides.

[-] pivot_root@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago

They definitely pay both sides. It's a small price for an almost guaranteed increase in profits.

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 42 points 3 days ago
[-] nothingcorporate@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago

Lina Khan is the most useful bureaucrat in at least a generation.

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 16 points 3 days ago

Give me 10 Lina Khans and I'll give you the world.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago

I wish she was the one running for president. Maybe in eight years if we're lucky and have Harris. And/or legal elections in four.

[-] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 26 points 3 days ago

They can do it for reviews, why not news?

[-] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 26 points 3 days ago

The Federal Trade Commission today announced a final rule that will combat fake reviews and testimonials by prohibiting their sale or purchase and allow the agency to seek civil penalties against knowing violators.

Oh good, glad they didn't ban obvious joke ones people post for free, like the top reviews for the 50 gallon barrel of lube.

[-] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 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 7 points 3 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] grysbok@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 3 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?

[-] beetlejuice0001@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 days ago

You received an item for the review. That’s a bribe. Fake.

[-] ImADifferentBird 7 points 3 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.

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

that is fake

[-] dan@upvote.au 3 points 3 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 1 points 2 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 8 points 3 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.

[-] SoupBrick@yiffit.net 5 points 3 days ago
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2024
672 points (100.0% liked)

News

23232 readers
2986 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS