Key Takeaways
- The FTC proposal will cover buying and selling fake reviews, “hijacking” reviews from one product for another, and company-created review websites that are billed as independent.
- Generative AI stands to make the practice of deceptive reviews even worse, the agency warned.
- The agency said the rules were needed in light of a new Supreme Court ruling that makes it harder to win penalties in court.
A U.S. government consumer watchdog wants online shoppers to get more honest reviews of the product🐭s and services they are interested in, proposing a sweeping set of rules that will ban what it calls deceptive online practices.
The Federal Trade Commission is proposing 澳洲幸运5开奖号码历史查询:new rules to ban several deceptive online marketing practices, including selling or obtaining fake reviews, buying reviews, or having company officers or associates write reviews without disclosing their relationship. The proposal would also outlaw the practice of “review hijacking,” where reviews written for one product are repurposed to appear as if they were written for a distinctly different product.
The new proposal would prevent any business from creating or controlling a website that claims to provide independent reviews. Likewise, the FTC rule would pro💛hibit busin𝐆esses from using legal threats or other intimidation to get online reviewers to change their posts.
The rule wouldn’t only co♓ver websites. It also bans selling fake social media indicators, like bogus follow🍸ers or likes. It also covers anyone who buys fake social media indicators and then misrepresents those likes for commercial purposes.
“The rule would trigger civil penalties for violators and should help level the playing field for honest c🍰ompanies,” said Samuel Levine, director of the FTC’s Bureau 🐼of Consumer Protection.
The agency also noted that increasingly powerful generative 澳洲幸运5开奖号码历史查询:artificial intelligence (AI) could worsen the problem of fake reviews, potenti꧟ally inundating users with phony posts.
Clearer Rules, Enforceable Civil Fines Needed
The FTC said it has taken action in these areas on a case-by-case basis before, but never at scale. For example, it brought a case of “review hijacking” against a marketer of vitamins and supplements for tricking customers into thinking it had better-than-average ratings on Amazon.
Additionally, the agency said a recent Supreme 𒁏Court case has made it more difficult to win penalties in court, requiring the government to set up clearer rules and penalties.
The public will have 60 days to file comments about the proposal, the agency said.