Journal of Consumer Policy

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 139–157 | Cite as

Taking Fake Online Consumer Reviews Seriously

  • Justin MalbonEmail author


Evidence discussed in this article indicates that consumers rely heavily upon consumer reviews when making decisions about which products and services to purchase online. Sellers and their marketeers are aware of this, and as a result, some of them succumb to the temptation to generate fake consumer reviews. This article argues that policymakers and regulators need to take fake reviews seriously. This is because they undermine a (potentially) effective and efficient mechanism for overcoming information asymmetry between online sellers and buyers. Consumer reviews also offer a powerful mechanism for regulating the marketplace. Sellers who sell sub-standard products or engage in sub-standard selling practices risk reputational damage. Genuine consumer reviews can therefore moderate bad seller behaviour and assist in improving the quality and efficiency of the marketplace. Although there are laws in many jurisdictions that prohibit misleading and deceptive conduct, detecting fake reviews is complex and difficult. This article proposes that one way of increasing the effectiveness of regulatory oversight is for regulators to add an “alliance approach” to their existing arsenal of regulatory systems and mechanisms.


Internet or online consumer market Consumer reviews Information asymmetry Regulatory systems Consumer protection 



The author is grateful for the assistance of Joel Gory in conducting focus group interviews mentioned in this article and for writing up summaries of the interviews. He is also grateful for the financial assistance for this project from the Monash Law School.


  1. Akerlof, G. (1970). The market for ‘lemons’: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84, 488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashton, K. (2012). The not so secret business of fake Yelp reviews. Daily Deal Media 14 February.
  3. Baldwin, R., & Black, J. (2008). Really responsive regulation. Modern Law Review, 71, 59–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bar-Isaac, H. (2005). Imperfect competition and reputational commitment. Economics Letters, 89, 167–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becher, S., & Zarsky, T. (2008). E-contract doctrine 2.0: Standard form contracting in the age of online user participation. Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, 14, 303–66.Google Scholar
  6. Black, J. (2002). Regulatory conversations. Journal of Law and Society, 29, 163–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolton, G., Katok, E., & Ockenfels, A. (2004). How effective are online reputation mechanisms? An experimental investigation. Management Science, 50, 1587–1602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brito, P. (2011). Teen conceptualization of digital technologies. New Media and Society, 14, 513–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Calliess, G-P. (2007). Transnational consumer law: Co-regulation of B2C-E-Commerce. Comparative Research in Law and Political Economy Research Paper 3, pp. 1–54.Google Scholar
  10. US Census Bureau. (2012). Statistical abstract. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  11. Centre for Retail Research. (2012). Newark, Nottinghamshire, UK
  12. Chu, W., Choi, B., & Song, M. (2005). The role of on-line retailer brand and infomediary reputation in increasing consumer purchase intention international journal of electronic commerce. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 9, 115–127.Google Scholar
  13. Cole, R. (2011). Fake review optimization—how black hat masters beat the travel system.
  14. Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., Kossinets, G., Kleinberg, J., & Lee, L. (2009). How opinions are received by online communities: A case study on helpfulness votes. World Wide Web 2009 Conference, Madrid, Spain. April 20–24.Google Scholar
  15. Datta, P., & Chatterjee, S. (2008). The economics and psychology of consumer trust in intermediaries in electronic markets: The EM-Trust framework. European Journal of Information Systems, 17, 12–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Del Riego, A. (2009). Digest comment—context for the net: A defense of the FTC’s new blogging guidelines. JOLT Digest, an online companion to the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, December 19, 2009.
  17. European Parliament, Directorate General for Internal Policies, Policy Department A. (2010). Misleading advertising on the Internet. IP/A/IMCO/ST/2010-05.Google Scholar
  18. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Flanagin, A., & Metzger, M. (2000). Perceptions of Internet information credibility. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 515–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Flanagin, A., Metzger M., Pure R., & Markov A. (2011). User-generated ratings and the evaluation of credibility and product quality in ecommerce transactions. Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.Google Scholar
  21. Forrest, E., & Cao, Y. (2010). Opinions, recommendations and endorsements: The new regulatory framework for social media. Journal of Business and Policy Research, 5, 88–99.Google Scholar
  22. Gibbs, A. (1997). Focus groups. Department of Sociology, University of Surrey. Research Update No.19, 1997.
  23. Gunningham, N., & Grabosky, P. (1998). Smart regulation. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  24. Hernández, B., Jiménez, J., & Martín, M. J. (2011). Age, gender and income: Do they really moderate online shopping behaviour? Online Information Review, 35, 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoppe, M., Wells, E., Morrison, D., Gilmore, M., & Wilsdon, A. (1995). Using focus groups to discuss sensitive topics with children. Evaluation Review, 19, 102–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hörner, J. (2002). Reputation and competition. American Economic Review, 92, 644–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Izquierdo, S., & Izquierdo, L. (2007). The impact of quality uncertainty without asymmetric information on market efficiency. Journal of Business Research, 60, 858–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krueger, R. (1994). Focus group: a practical guide for applied research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Kwon, O., & Sung, Y. (2012). The consumer-generated product review: Its effect on consumers and marketeers. In S. Posavac (Ed.), Cracking the Code: Leveraging consumer psychology to drive profitability (pp. 200–18). Armonk: Sharpe.Google Scholar
  30. Lankes, D. (2008). Trusting the Internet: New approaches to credibility tools. In M. Metzger & A. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 101–122). Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  31. Lankshear, A. (1993). The use of focus groups in a study of attitudes to student nurse assessment. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18, 1986–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lederer, S. (2010). History. In J. Sugarman & D. Sulmasy (Eds.), Methods in medical ethics (2nd ed., pp. 145–58). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Lim, E-P., Nguyen, V-A., Jindal, N., Liu, B., & Lauw, H. (2010). Detecting product review spammers using rating behaviors. 19th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, October 2630, Toronto, Canada, pp. 393–948.Google Scholar
  34. McCracken, C. (2011). Businesses who commission fake reviews should worry about more than just illegality. 21 June.
  35. Miller, C. (2009). Company settles case of reviews it faked. New York Times July 14.
  36. Monbiot, G. (2011). The need to protect the Internet from ‘astroturfing’ grows ever more urgent. The Guardian Blog, 23 February.
  37. Mukherjee, A., Liu, B., & Glance, N. (2012). Spotting fake reviewer groups in consumer reviews. World Wide Web 2012Session: Fraud and Bias in User Ratings Lyon, France, April 16–20.Google Scholar
  38. Nielsen blog, July 7, 2009. Global advertising: Consumers trust real friends and virtual strangers the most.
  39. Office of Fair Trading. (UK) (2010). Online targeting of advertising and prices: A market study. London: OFT.Google Scholar
  40. Office of Fair Trading. (UK) (2011). Consumer contracts. London: OFT.Google Scholar
  41. Office of Fair Trading. (UK) (2012). Investigation into inadequate disclosures in respect of affiliate marketing businesses. London: OFT.Google Scholar
  42. Ott M., Choi, Y., Cardie, C., & Hancock, J. (2011). Finding deceptive opinion spam by any stretch of the imagination. Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Portland, Oregon, June 19–24, pp. 309–319.Google Scholar
  43. Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Pinch T. and Kesler F. (2011). How aunt Ammy gets her free lunch: A study of the top-thousand customer reviewers at
  45. Powell, R., & Single, H. (1996). Focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 8, 499–504.Google Scholar
  46. Schwartz, J. (2006). Making the consumer watchdog’s bark as strong as its gripe: Complaint sites and the changing dynamic of the fair use defence. Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology, 16, 59–123.Google Scholar
  47. Scott, C. (2004a). Regulation in the age of governance: The rise of the post-regulatory state. In J. Jordana & D. Levi-Faur (Eds.), The politics of regulation: Institutions and regulatory reforms for the age of governance (pp. 145–174). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  48. Scott, C. (2004b). Regulatory innovation and the online consumer. Law and Policy, 26, 477–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Speedy, B. (2012). Big jump in online retail sales growth, says NAB index. The Australian, 3 April.
  50. Sprague, R., & Wells, M. (2010). Regulating online buzz marketing: Untangling a web of deceit. American Business Law Journal, 47, 415–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tushnet, R. (2011). Towards symmetry in the law of branding. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, 21, 971–82.Google Scholar
  52. Wall Street Times. (4 April 2012). The big flaws in hotel rankings.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Law SchoolMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations