Posting phoney reviews on sites such as Amazon and Tripadvisor could soon land you in court, according to this article in The Times  over the weekend.

The paper says firms could be ‘named and shamed’ or even prosecuted when a European directive banning them from "falsely representing oneself as a consumer" comes into force in the UK at the end of this year.

It adds that the new regulations "will apply to authors who praise their own books under a fake identity on websites such as Amazon".

The Times - not the quickest UK paper to embrace social media - seems to have a bit of a downer on user-generated review sites, having conducted a ‘special investigation' last year into PR-based posts and the impact the web is having on 'professional' travel guides.

It ridiculed the owner of a hotel near Loch Ness, for anonymously posting on TripAdvisor that his establishment was "outstanding" and "charming".

Fears have also been raised elsewhere about the practices of review sites such as Yelp and paid blogging agencies like Payperpost.

According to the paper, the new rules are part of a Europe-wide overhaul of consumer protection laws:  

"It will oblige businesses not to mislead consumers and also will outlaw aggressive commercial practices such as aggressive doorstep selling, bogus 'closing down' sales and pressurising parents through their children to buy products."

Naming and shaming may be a good incentive to deter cheats, but prosecution seems a little far-fetched. How would this be policed? And who would enforce it? More to the point perhaps, just how many readers are taken in by the fake posts on Amazon anyway? Doesn't everybody take these things with a pinch of salt?

Also, are fake reviewers any more unethical than a travel agent who is more interested in selling you a holiday that they want to get rid of, rather than the best fit for you?

Perhaps a more sensible approach, which various people in the industry have already been calling for, would be a kitemark scheme to inform consumers about reviewers' trustworthiness.


Published 12 February, 2007 by Richard Maven

529 more posts from this author

You might be interested in

Comments (2)

Richard Anson

Richard Anson, Founder at Reevoo

Its fascinating to see that the EU have taken this on – something we have raised as an issue for awhile. Like you, we share concerns about the ability to police such regulations. Trust marks are clearly one way forward and something we are driving. We also believe that sites who stake their reputations on the provenance of reviews will help to change the market.

over 11 years ago


Karen Bryan

There has been a lot of bad publicity recently over false hotel user generated reviews (UGR) and the issue should be tackled. I agree that the best and simplest method is to name and shame the cheats, turn the tables on them and instead of the desired positive publicity they receive bad publicity and a negative image. I am not sure how a kitemark scheme would work. Who would check that standards were being upheld? Although I agree that UGRs are useful to potential customers they are never going to be totally objective. The reviewer will have their own set of criteria on which they judge accommodation which may be very different from your own ideas. You have to take a bit of a chance and be realistic about what you can expect from your accommodation for the price you have paid. Remember that it is human nature to be more inclined to complain when things go wrong than to lavish praise when everything goes well!

over 11 years ago

Save or Cancel

Enjoying this article?

Get more just like this, delivered to your inbox.

Keep up to date with the latest analysis, inspiration and learning from the Econsultancy blog with our free Digital Pulse newsletter. You will receive a hand-picked digest of the latest and greatest articles, as well as snippets of new market data, best practice guides and trends research.