FTC Brings First Case Challenging Fake Paid Reviews on an Indie Retail Website

Re:FTC Brings First Case Challenging Fake Paid Reviews on an... by fogetti on Tuesday February 26, 2019 @06:56PM (#19259608)

Exactly. If you go to Amazon's seller forum you can see how those little snowflakes who call themselves merchants complain about the fact that they couldn't remove all the negative reviews. I guess in the end they all find their ways to get rid of negative reviews.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FTC Brings First Case Challenging Fake Paid Reviews on an... by derefr on Tuesday February 26, 2019 @07:04PM (#19259654)

I mean, sometimes, it's justified. Should a negative review about a wireless-charging bug in a phone stick around once the manufacturer pushes out an update to the firmware that makes the bug go away?

This is why app stores only show reviews/scores for the current version of the app. There's no such thing as "versions" of a product, though. (Or, well, there are product revisions with distinct UPC codes, but an OTA firmware update doesn't qualify as one, and yet should be a new "version" for the purposes of reviews.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FTC Brings First Case Challenging Fake Paid Reviews on an... by ashelmire on Wednesday February 27, 2019 @12:25PM (#19264938)

Shouldn't the app maker have to prove that the new version doesn't have the same problem?

It's not justified, it's just a way to swindle consumers.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FTC Brings First Case Challenging Fake Paid Reviews on an... by ionised on Thursday March 07, 2019 @04:06AM (#19326590)

Reviews are typically dated, so yes, they should stick around.

[ Parent | on HN ]