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.”

99 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
68 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Holy shit, killercoke.org goes fucking hard

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Interesting

This post sponsored by PepsiCo

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
77 points

Awesome, now make them criminally liable.

Corporations are people, no? Throw them in prison.

permalink
report
reply
26 points

IMO, corporate punishments should work like that: steal a little from someone? Lose 90 days of profit. Steal a lot? Lose a couple years of profits. Kill someone? Lose 20 years of profits

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

Jailing CEOs works better only because money is easy to manipulate. Loosing 20 years of profit just means bankruptcy. Make a new name new company buys all assets of bankrupt at fault company and nothing but the name changes. I’m with the idea that if companies have personhood than the person in charge is responsible for harm that personhood does.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

I wonder if having to face consequences for their actions would change how CEOs behave 🤔

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

No. That’s not what that means. Profit by definition is the excess revenue that isn’t required to run the business.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

They tried that when McDonald’s served coffee that gave an old woman 3rd degree burns on her genitals.

A single days profits from coffee.

McDonald’s fought that in court, and spent many thousands of dollars on a PR campaign to vilify the woman they burned.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Jail or volcano sacrifice. I’m sick of rich fucks being above the law and fines are just an expected, calculated, and bet against expense to a big business.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

“I will believe that corporations are people, once Texas executes one.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

It’s executed plenty.

12 were executed in 2022

Zoom in: Texas had 23 clinics in operation before the decision — 12 shut down and 11 are open but only offer services other than abortion.

permalink
report
parent
reply
61 points

Lina Khan is literally too good for consumers, that’s why she don’t last :(

permalink
report
reply
9 points

She is doing more for the working class than any other government official. And yet no one knows her name

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Who was that punchable face guy who undid net neutrality? And she is completely opposite.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Ajit Pai is that scumbags name. If I ever bump into him at a grocery store I plan to give him the same level of respect he gave the American people.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I.e. an atomic wedgie?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I doubt he does his own grocery shopping, because he doesn’t have to, and also because of the exact reason you posted.

Having said that, if he were in a grocery store and I saw him, I’d be right at your side to ensure that piece of shit knew what I thought of him.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

You mean this guy? Ajit Pai. Fuck him and his ridiculous mug

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Literally the opposite lol. He got rid of net neutrality with the help of spamming with a bunch of fake bots for support. Nobody actually supported it, except the monopolies of course.

This is pretty close to banning that exact action. That should’ve instantly kicked him out of office for that, but it showed pretty clearly that we weren’t in a democracy…

permalink
report
parent
reply
43 points

Common Lina Khan W

permalink
report
reply
17 points

Give me 10 Lina Khans and I’ll give you the world.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

I wish she was the one running for president. Maybe in eight years if we’re lucky and have Harris. And/or legal elections in four.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Lina Khan is the most useful bureaucrat in at least a generation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
32 points

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 :(

permalink
report
reply
20 points

Why would Harris give her the boot? Khan was placed in position by Biden.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

Its up for debate if she will, but a lot of big ticket donors are bribing her requesting it as a favor for donating to her campaign.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

I thought most of those big donors were just straight up backing trump. I guess the tariffs got them down?

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

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.

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 200K

    Comments