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.”

  • FrowingFostek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    30 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 :(

    • HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      30 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
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        29 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
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          29 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.

  • MehBlah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 month 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.

  • _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month 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
      3
      ·
      1 month 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
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month 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
        ·
        30 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.

    • Ledivin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

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

      • andrewta@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month 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.