Reuters reports that in the first ever suit of its kind from Amazon, the online retailer has sued four websites to stop them from selling fake, positive product reviews. The suit accuses Jay Gentile of California and websites that operate as buyamazonreviews.com and buyazonreviews.com, among others, of trademark infringement, false advertising and violations of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and the Washington Consumer Protection Act. Amazon says the defendants are misleading customers, and through their activity generating improper profit for themselves and a "handful" of dishonest sellers and manufacturers. Amazon says the defendants have caused reviews to be posted on its website intermittently, through a "slow drip" designed to evade its detection systems, at a typical cost of $19 to $22 per review. "While small in number, these reviews threaten to undermine the trust that customers, and the vast majority of sellers and manufacturers, place in Amazon, thereby tarnishing Amazon’s brand."
Mark Collins, the owner of buyamazonreviews.com, denies Amazon’s claims and says the site simply offers to help Amazon’s third-party sellers get reviews. Collins defended his business, writing that his website operates as a “middleman,” connecting sellers with buyers willing to write reviews. The sellers provide reviewers with discounted items. But he said there are no restriction on the type of review they can post. “We are not selling fake reviews. however we do provide Unbiased and Honest reviews on all the products,” Collins wrote. “And this is not illegal at all.”
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @12:27PM
The only honest review you ever need.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @01:15PM
If your comment is right, then also your comment is crap (because it says everything is crap, and if your comment weren't crap, not everything would be crap). But if your comment is crap, your comment is wrong (because otherwise it would not be crap). This is a contradiction, therefore the assumption that your comment is right must be wrong, thus your comment is wrong.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @01:28PM
I know I am, and so are you! :-P
(Score: 5, Insightful) by MrGuy on Friday April 10 2015, @12:38PM
This is a fundamental issue with crowdsourced recommendations. If buyers trust them, they create a financial incentive for sellers to improve their scores. And as long as that incentive exists, someone out there will gladly fill the market niche and provide good review scores for money. The problem with trusting strangers' opinions is that you don't know these people, or what their true experiences or motivations are.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @01:20PM
Maybe a way to at least reduce that effect is to give every reviewer an "agreement score" based on how well for articles both you and that reviewer scored, your scores agree. For calculating averages, the individual results would then be weighted by the corresponding agreement score.
Sure, this could probably also be gamed, but at least it would be much harder to do so.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday April 10 2015, @01:30PM
This only works for people who do a lot of reviews. I basically only write a review when something is terrible, or it's awesome in a linux/arduino way when that information is hard or impossible to find. For the vast majority of things I buy, I don't write a review.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by ikanreed on Friday April 10 2015, @01:24PM
It's still better than trusting advertisements.
Amazon has every right to sue, and a strong enough disincentive for abuse(delisting for seller, lawsuits for third parties) will, by your own logic, reduce abuse. Not eliminate, but change the supply and demand variables.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Friday April 10 2015, @02:27PM
My general rule when there's money involved is to trust as few people/organizations as possible.
- Advertisements? Who would even remotely consider trusting them? Their job is to BS people.
- Online reviews? Can be completely gamed by paid reviews or even just reviews by friends or relatives of whatever seller is being reviewed.
- Offline recommendations from friends? Sometimes right, but frequently not.
- Salespeople? Are you kidding me?
- Specialty media reviews? It depends a lot on the reviewer and line of business they're in. A lot of those kinds of journals rely on the advertising from the businesses they're reviewing, which means that they're going to get a good review.
So what are you left with?
- Prefer commodities with a bunch of manufacturers over fancy patented stuff.
- Avoid the "bleeding edge" unless you really really need it. The practical differences between, for example, a somewhat outdated $150 smartphone and a brand new $800 smartphone are just not great enough for most users to justify the $650.
- Decide what it is you're looking for and then go try to buy it, rather than go shopping and then decide what you want.
- When faced with a choice between seemingly identical products, when in doubt choose the lower price. You might still be wrong, but you will have lost less by that bet.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday April 10 2015, @02:50PM
And then, after all that work, you still get screwed over. That's partially just how life is.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday April 11 2015, @12:01AM
You get screwed but not as often.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday April 10 2015, @04:26PM
And the difference between this and Amazon Vine is....what exactly? They can sue all they want because all they have to do is point out that Amazon does this them selves through their Vine program. Do you think if amazon was giving ME free shit I wouldn't be more likely to post glowing reviews? The only difference i can see is who is writing the checks, that's all.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @03:47PM
A simple approach - though far from perfect - is to limit reviewers to only those individuals who are confirmed purchasers of that product from that source (in this case Amazon). If they return the item their review goes away. Plus, no reviews for a minimum number of days after purchase (to avoid those "Five stars! I haven't tried it yet but the box looks just like the one on Amazon's website!")
(Score: 2, Insightful) by KiloByte on Saturday April 11 2015, @07:53AM
If they return the item their review goes away.
Why? A return combined with a negative review is likely to be sincere.
Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Friday April 10 2015, @05:48PM
Usually I read the one star reviews first, just to see what exactly people are complaining about. Now, often the one star reviews are because the moron who purchased the product is simply trying to use it for the wrong purpose, but sometimes they point out specific flaws or limitations. I'll work my way through the review list, keeping in mind that something may be faked, but in general you should be able to get a sense of whether the product is for you or not. Of course, if it is a bigger ticket item, you should be doing more research anyway and maybe buying it from a source that specializes in that item (like buying a camera lens from B&H Photo rather than off Amazon).
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TheRaven on Saturday April 11 2015, @09:25AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @06:32PM
That's true, and companies pay people six figure salaries to work out just how to control public perception (a whole lot more of this goes on than people generally realize) of products. If it's a big ticket or important item, you want more than a few Amazon reviews to make or break your purchase decision.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday April 10 2015, @06:37PM
But the alternative is certainly worse: astroturfing tries to use the people you know to deliver favorable reviews. So which would you prefer, a bunch of mercenary stranger shills on an internet site, or your friend making money giving you advice?
"One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is socially corrosive. The other is just a scam."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 10 2015, @01:34PM
What about simple fraud? There's no need for a law that specifies "he broke the law with a COMPUTER!" Simple fraud laws cover this nonsense. I'm being paid to publish fake reviews, to mislead the public? FRAUD!!! Tack on wire fraud, that gets people really excited. No need to mention computers, or cyber, or much of anything else.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MrGuy on Friday April 10 2015, @02:23PM
You're assuming fraud is provable, which implies knowing intent to deceive.
Let's say I'm running this service. Here's how I spin it. I note that a lot of products (especially new ones or niche products) don't have reviews. I offer a service to review products and post the outcome of those reviews on Amazon. Just like consumer reports or other third party reviewers offer. Because the time spent reviewing the product and posting the reviews take time, we charge a fee for this service. Nothing inherently illegal so far.
Now, let's go to the review posting. I do NOT buy the item. I post a review with a 5 star rating, reading "A great solution to the problem!" Is this a "fraudulent" review? No, I didn't buy the item, but Amazon already tells you that - I'm NOT a "verified" purchaser. I could argue that I've read the specs on the item concerned, and in my opinion, the item's specs make it a good solution to the problem it's trying to solve. I never claimed it "I bought 12 and use them all the time!" I just stated an opinion.
You can say my opinion is "for sale," or you can say that, after being hired to be an independent reviewer, I stated what I my opinion actually is. "Hey, you give an awful lot of 5 star reviews!" Well, I tend to only be hired by people who are confident in their high-quality products. Unless you can prove I specifically offered specific content for sale (for example, a price list for a 4-star vs. 5-star review), it's very hard to prove my reviews are "deceptive."
Maybe you could argue the fact that I was paid by the seller should have been disclosed. It's not clear to me (IANAL) that such a failure rises to the level of fraud - there are plenty of people who publish "scientific" studies who don't disclose who are funding them, for example.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Friday April 10 2015, @05:46PM
I don't think Amazon would even have standing for a fraud case. People who buy a product based on a false review would be the ones that were defrauded.
Fraud [thefreedictionary.com]
A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.
Amazon doesn't act on the review, customers do.
(Score: 1) by rondon on Friday April 10 2015, @01:42PM
If I'm not mistaken, Amazon runs a program* where select people get free stuff to create reviews, much as the "defendants" claim that they are doing. Is this Amazon trying to clean up their reviews, or trying to squash a competing service.
*To the best of my knowledge, these reviews are flagged in such a way that a wary customer could find out they are biased. However, it isn't easy or intuitive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @02:29PM
Amazon and other sites have a "verified purchaser" label for reviews that meet the qualifications, so that's what that is about. The "buy reviews" site most likely had no intention of actually reading the book.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Daiv on Friday April 10 2015, @04:57PM
OP is talking about Amazon Vine, where Amazon customers are sent free products with the expectation that receiving them for free will improve their perception of the item and they will leave positive reviews. http://www.amazon.com/gp/vine/help [amazon.com]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @01:52PM
Posting AC, sorry, I usually lurk.
A quick visit to the website in question reveals a snippet that reads: "A purchase of your product is not required for us to post a review. If you would like a verified purchase review however we can buy your product first. If the cost is $2.00 or less we will cover the price. If it is more than this you will need to make arrangements with us to reimburse the cost. We are only accepting very limited amounts of verified purchase reviews, please contact us before ordering if you are interested in these."
Sounds pretty clear to me that for one, nobody is getting discounted merchandise. Two, The product actually being reviewed does not have to be purchased, contrary to what the owner states.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anne Nonymous on Friday April 10 2015, @01:55PM
So will these guys post bad reviews for a fee?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @04:13PM
Amazon has to take the route that you can't review a product until you have paid the bill for your purchase. This could unlock the Review function. If you ship the product back within a certain period of time, your review is purged, or flagged. Technological solution to the problem.
(Score: 2) by Daiv on Friday April 10 2015, @05:01PM
For an inflated fee, these same reviewers will leave "Verified purchase" reviews, negating your technological solution.
(Score: 2) by joshuajon on Friday April 10 2015, @06:56PM
I've seen this idea of purging reviews on returns twice in this thread (posted AC).
Wouldn't that effectively eliminate a great many negative reviews? If I buy a product only to find out it's a total lemon, you better believe I want to return it, and post a 1 star verified review!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday April 10 2015, @04:16PM
“We are not selling fake reviews. however we do provide Unbiased and Honest reviews on all the products,” Collins wrote. “And this is not illegal at all.”
"Unbiased and Honest". Where have I heard that before? Oh right--"Fair and Balanced." Methinks they doth protest too much.
Don't you just love it when someone looks you right in the face, smiles, and lies through their teeth. Well okay, not outright lie, but twist the truth to within an inch of its life such that a stiff wind will blow away their leg to stand on.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"