703
submitted 1 month 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.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 99 points 1 month 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 68 points 1 month 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 19 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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 15 points 1 month 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.

[-] ogmios@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 month ago

They'll just outsource it to foreign "reputation management" firms and pretend they had no idea what was happening, like how Coke got away with murdering union members in a foreign country.

[-] thefartographer@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago

Holy shit, killercoke.org goes fucking hard

[-] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago

Interesting

This post sponsored by PepsiCo

[-] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month 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 3 points 1 month ago

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

this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2024
703 points (99.6% liked)

News

23406 readers
3428 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


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