Skip to main content
Log in

Taking Fake Online Consumer Reviews Seriously

  • ORIGINAL PAPER
  • Published:
Journal of Consumer Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005

  2. Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006

  3. [2012] FCAFC 49

References

  • Akerlof, G. (1970). The market for ‘lemons’: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84, 488–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashton, K. (2012). The not so secret business of fake Yelp reviews. Daily Deal Media 14 February. www.dailydealmedia.com/657the-not-so-secret-business-of-fake-yelp-reviews/.

  • Baldwin, R., & Black, J. (2008). Really responsive regulation. Modern Law Review, 71, 59–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Isaac, H. (2005). Imperfect competition and reputational commitment. Economics Letters, 89, 167–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Black, J. (2002). Regulatory conversations. Journal of Law and Society, 29, 163–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, G., Katok, E., & Ockenfels, A. (2004). How effective are online reputation mechanisms? An experimental investigation. Management Science, 50, 1587–1602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brito, P. (2011). Teen conceptualization of digital technologies. New Media and Society, 14, 513–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • US Census Bureau. (2012). Statistical abstract. Washington, DC.

  • Centre for Retail Research. (2012). Newark, Nottinghamshire, UK http://www.retailresearch.org/onlineretailing.php.

  • 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 

  • Cole, R. (2011). Fake review optimization—how black hat masters beat the travel system. http://www.tnooz.com/2011/11/15/news/fake-review-optimization-how-black-hat-masters-beat-the-travel-system.

  • Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., Kossinets, G., Kleinberg, J., & Lee, L. (2009). How opinions are received by online communities: A case study on amazon.com helpfulness votes. World Wide Web 2009 Conference, Madrid, Spain. April 20–24.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/telecommunications/digest-comment-context-for-the-net-a-defense-of-the-ftc%E2%80%99s-new-blogging-guidelines.

  • Digitalmarketinglab. (2010). http://digitalmarketinglab.com.au/index.php/2010/07/18/end-of-financial-year-performance-%E2%80%93-digital-style.

  • European Parliament, Directorate General for Internal Policies, Policy Department A. (2010). Misleading advertising on the Internet. IP/A/IMCO/ST/2010-05.

  • Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flanagin, A., & Metzger, M. (2000). Perceptions of Internet information credibility. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 515–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Gibbs, A. (1997). Focus groups. Department of Sociology, University of Surrey. Research Update No.19, 1997. http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU19.html.

  • Gunningham, N., & Grabosky, P. (1998). Smart regulation. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hörner, J. (2002). Reputation and competition. American Economic Review, 92, 644–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Izquierdo, S., & Izquierdo, L. (2007). The impact of quality uncertainty without asymmetric information on market efficiency. Journal of Business Research, 60, 858–867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, R. (1994). Focus group: a practical guide for applied research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Lankshear, A. (1993). The use of focus groups in a study of attitudes to student nurse assessment. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18, 1986–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • McCracken, C. (2011). Businesses who commission fake reviews should worry about more than just illegality. Out-Law.com 21 June. http://www.out-law.com/page-12016.

  • Miller, C. (2009). Company settles case of reviews it faked. New York Times July 14. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/technology/internet/15lift.html.

  • Monbiot, G. (2011). The need to protect the Internet from ‘astroturfing’ grows ever more urgent. The Guardian Blog, 23 February. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/feb/23/need-to-protect-internet-from-astroturfing.

  • 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.

  • Nielsen blog, July 7, 2009. Global advertising: Consumers trust real friends and virtual strangers the most. http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/global-advertising-consumers-trust-real-friends-and-virtual-strangers-the-most.

  • Office of Fair Trading. (UK) (2010). Online targeting of advertising and prices: A market study. London: OFT.

  • Office of Fair Trading. (UK) (2011). Consumer contracts. London: OFT.

  • Office of Fair Trading. (UK) (2012). Investigation into inadequate disclosures in respect of affiliate marketing businesses. London: OFT.

  • 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.

  • Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinch T. and Kesler F. (2011). How aunt Ammy gets her free lunch: A study of the top-thousand customer reviewers at amazon.com. http://www.freelunch.me.

  • Powell, R., & Single, H. (1996). Focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 8, 499–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Scott, C. (2004b). Regulatory innovation and the online consumer. Law and Policy, 26, 477–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Speedy, B. (2012). Big jump in online retail sales growth, says NAB index. The Australian, 3 April. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/economics/big-jump-in-online-retail-sales-growth-says-nab-index/story-e6frg926-1226316902739.

  • Sprague, R., & Wells, M. (2010). Regulating online buzz marketing: Untangling a web of deceit. American Business Law Journal, 47, 415–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushnet, R. (2011). Towards symmetry in the law of branding. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, 21, 971–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wall Street Times. (4 April 2012). The big flaws in hotel rankings. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304072004577323874046732602.html.

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Justin Malbon.

Appendix

Appendix

Focus Group Semi-structured Questions

Outline Contracting

  1. 1.

    Experiences with buying goods and services on the Internet:

    • Have you bought goods or services over the Internet?

    • Discuss what kinds of goods and services were purchased and when they were purchased (types of contracts: gym memberships, airline tickets, concert tickets, purchasing goods from eBay or other places, downloading music, movies and books, hire cars)

    • Discuss how frequently purchases are made using the Internet

    • Discuss which are the more popular of the websites and why

  2. 2.

    Good experiences with Internet purchasing

    • Discuss if purchases went well, what were the good experiences in terms of the value of the things you bought on the Internet—timeliness of delivery follow-up within complaint, etc.

  3. 3.

    Not so good experiences with Internet purchasing

    • Have you had any negative experiences with purchasing goods on the Internet?

      Discuss what those negative experiences might have been, e.g., any nasty surprises, that is, there were terms or policies of the supplier not what you expected? Examples, highly unexpected charges for returning a hire car late, significant exclusions in an insurance contract, unexpectedly difficult in getting any readdress, unexpectedly difficult to cancel or rollover contract; unexpected fees or charges; no easy way to resolve the dispute, or no means at all

    • Reactions to a bad experience

      Did it make you more cautious, and if so how; did it make you less likely to shop on Internet; did it make you less likely to shop around?

    • Did you tell your friends and family about the bad experiences? Had anyone already warned you about that particular site or supplier or brand? (the impact of teaching/learning?)

  4. 4.

    Saliency

    • Were there any conditions about buying the goods or services that you were particularly looking for when you went online—if so, what were they?

    • Were there any conditions that became important to you after you had bought the goods or services—what were they?

    • After asking whether they were looking for information on anything in particular, you could ask them whether that information was what they expected? If not, did that make them rethink the purchase? (gauging expectations vs. reality?)

  5. 5.

    Contract Issues

    • Were the goods/services of expected quality?

    • If they were not—what did you do about it?

    • From that experience—what would you do differently next time?

    • Was it easy/not easy to resolve any issues in dispute?

    • How did you deal with any issues in dispute?

  6. 6.

    Comparing online with real-world purchasing

    • Do you think it is more difficult online and off-line to understand what the terms and conditions are, what services or goods will be supplied, how any problems will be sorted out?

    • Ideally how would you like any issues you have any sorted out in the future?

    • Given your experiences, would you pay more for real-world services next time?

  7. 7.

    Terms and conditions

    • Have you ever read the terms and conditions before you click “I agree”?

    • If so, were there any terms you were looking for, and if so what were they?

    • If you didn’t read them—why not?

    • Given your past experience, particularly any bad experiences, what terms would you like highlighted or brought to your attention before you click “I agree”?

    • Can you recall any time when you have had a particular term drawn to your specific attention either online or by a person, e.g., cancellation policy; how did that make you feel about the particular provider and the service they were offering?

    • Would you like to be able to negotiate—or chose—certain terms?

    • If so, what would they be, and why?

  8. 8.

    Ideal website

    • If you could go to the ideal website for shopping—what would that site look like and what features would it have (ignore for the moment the types of consumer goods or services that are actually being sold through the website)?

  9. 9.

    Summing up

    • If you could pass on advice to others buying goods/services on the Internet, what particular advice would you offer them?

    • What would make you feel more comfortable in the future about the terms and conditions before you clicked “I agree”?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Malbon, J. Taking Fake Online Consumer Reviews Seriously. J Consum Policy 36, 139–157 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-012-9216-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-012-9216-7

Keywords

Navigation