Amazon Sues Fake Reviewers on Fiverr
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
What I find interesting is trying to prove harm done by the fake reviews. If they're against the terms of service, okay, ban the accounts, and take some back-room steps to monitor if those persons try to rejoin (e.g. limited utility of IP address focus). I don't think we're talking about criminal masterminds here.
I'm kind of joking here, but I'd almost try out the defense that paid five-star reviews are a "necessary evil" to counter the inevitable "idiot with a keyboard" which enables any wrong-thinking person to write a one-star review. What I mean is will this case include evidence that non-paid reviewers are just as damaging - if not more so - than paid fake ones. Or, in other words, can Amazon prove genuine harm via "fraud" is able to be differentiated from "stupid people saying stupid, wrong things" in the comment environment.
Personally, I think it's an "in-house" Amazon issue where they should be 'moderating' comments, but that takes labor and effort; if I've learned anything about Amazon's view of menial labor tasks such as fulfillment, I don't think anybody would want the job. If there's better money in fraud than policing the fraud, then maybe the business model should be re-evaluated. I'm not trying to justify what is done for hire - to me it's about on par with "essay writers for hire" and I hate that shit - but it does make for an interesting problem of commerce.
The reviews from "stupid people" are limited by the ratio of "stupid people" to "smart people", and thus merely change the scale and add some noise, mostly uniformly across all products in a given category: the system is worse, but still usable.
On the other hand, enough fake reviews on a system with discretized scores will result in all products having the maximum score and having almost all reviews presented being fake: the system is now completely useless.
I've recently come across a lot of these very highly rated products (with thousands of reviews) and almost immediately you see many of the reviews saying "company gave me the product for free to write an honest and unbiased review."
To me, this completely invalidates the rating and I typically try to find a different product because it's too time consuming to try to find real reviews. On the other hand, 'stupid people' don't tip the scale like that and in some ways their reviews are useful because you can be sure those people were not 'paid'. Also, they may complain about something that isn't really a negative in general, or specifically to you, so you can use that to make your decision.
I think I need to clarify a bit more though: Sometimes stupid people can be the loudest voice, as in, anti-vaccine folks who cite discredited science and refuse to back down. A more specific instance is when I worked retail - a guy bought his son a Nirvana CD, this one:
http://images.weltrecords.de/img/cover/000/000/827/000000827...
He came in with a head of steam at me, mad because he couldn't returned the opened disc, and said, "This is garbage, it sounds like a bunch of home demos!" But that's exactly what the CD was, a collection of demos being offered to people who were interested in such things. He wanted to give it 1 star, essentially, for it being exactly what it was supposed to be. That's...bullshit. But that's an example of how yeah, people might read the review and not find it helpful, but this is how an erroneous opinion is spread. Should moderating that be the role of the platform like Amazon?
For the record, I told him "Yes, that's what that CD is, and while you can't return it, you can probably sell it to a used CD store in your area and get a few bucks back. Here's the CD you want."
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1FEoCdDUmoE/TQ8Gz27WulI/AAAAAAAAAu...
Note: Edited due to accusations of shilling, now just images for your reference. Tough crowd.
I'll bet you my HackerNews account against yours that not only do I not have a Fiverr account, but that you'll never see a shill with the wordsmith skills that I have, only trying to use examples as part of a story because a website won't allow in-line graphics to be posted.
Taps foot in 7/8
Those are Amazon Vine reviews, promoted by Amazon to generate reviews for new products.
I don't feel particuarly intelligent - I often meet people with my IQ who have all sorts of illogical views, but according to an IQ test, I'm smarter than 95 out of a 100 people.
If you accept that "stupid people" create bad reviews, then your argument falls apart pretty quickly.
That's exactly what's happened to the non-fiction kindle books.
The fakes are usually easy to spot [0] but sifting through all of that crap is a huge time sink and I've all but stopped buying them.
[0] http://www.amazon.com/Management-Effectively-Personnel-Resol...
The reviewer is negligent through misrepresentation (withholding the fact that the reviewer is being paid) and Amazon suffers.
On a separate note, it's a shame that many of these reviews are bought by advertising agencies and the manufactures or the products usually have no idea when this is done. So the manufacture might be looking at online reviews thinking people love the product when in reality it's just some of the advertising they paid for.
Some of them (or at least the marketplace resellers) do. In an article linked from another discussion here on HN [0], there is evidence that some of the fake reviewers would have empty boxes shipped to them so they would have the "Verified Purchase" qualifier in the review, the kindle book sellers simply put their books in a free promotion for 5 days so the reviewers have the "Verified Purchase" even though the cost was $0.00
... The Guides, at their core, reflect the basic truth-in-advertising
principle that endorsements must be honest and not misleading. ...
In addition, the Guides say if there's a connection between an
endorser and the marketer that consumers would not expect and it would
affect how consumers evaluate the endorsement, that connection should
be disclosed...
OTHER THINGS FOR ENDORSERS TO KNOW
Besides disclosing my relationship with the company whose product I'm endorsing,
what are the essential things I need to know about endorsements?
The most important principle is that an endorsement has to represent
the accurate experience and opinion of the endorser:
You can't talk about your experience with a product if you haven't tried it.
If you were paid to try a product and you thought it was terrible,
you can't say it's terrific.
Who can create customer reviews?
Anyone who has purchased items from Amazon.com. All we ask is that you
follow a few simple rules (see "What's not allowed" below).
...
What's not allowed
...
Reviews written for any form of compensation other than a free copy of
the product. This includes reviews that are a part of a paid publicity
package
Amazon doesn't ship a lot of the items listed, many are merchant-fulfilled. Apparently some merchants were soliciting paid reviews and conspiring with those reviewers (by shipping empty boxes so there's a trackable package) to give those reviews more legitimacy. Again, without disclosure, that is illegal and against Amazon's terms.
The ability to have a 5-day, free download promotion is great for new kindle authors; it gives them a chance to receive legitimate reviews for their work. That doesn't translate to a problem with the system, rather a problem with some of the people using the system. That's what Amazon is trying to correct.
"Amazon mistakes mislead customers."
I don't even know how to respond to that statement because it makes no sense. Are you saying that it's Amazon's fault that people are mislead (by illegal reviews) because they provide a review mechanism? If so, that's absurd.
[0] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftc...
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/truth-advert...
[2] (pdf) http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-rel...
[3] http://www.amazon.com/gp/community-help/customer-reviews-gui...
Uh yeah. That's exactly what they're trying to do. They've already gone after sites before.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/10/us-amazon-com-laws...
There are billion dollar businesses out there actively gaming the Web to promote their customer's products. Why amazon doesn't try to deter them?
Perhaps because they actually earn money for Amazon too or they are too big to fight?
The one thing I will credit Amazon with, is that they are quick to reimburse for fraudulent products when you can demonstrate that it is fraudulent. Quality might be slightly more debatable, but I would be willing to bet Amazon will reimburse on that as well.
This sounds like grounds for banishment from the site, not legal action.
I'd have thought the case would fall down on other grounds as well: it's pretty difficult to sustain an argument that credibility of reviews is intrinsic to Amazon's business model when the company doesn't make the minimum effort to remove well-publicised joke reviews. And it's going to be tough if they want to prove loss of earnings since if anything paid positive reviews probably increase sales revenues.
The review will be attached to an account. The account's purchase record is available to Amazon.
"Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_and_wire_fraud
EDIT: A paid review isn't an opinion, it's an attempt to mislead for commercial gain. And civil suits are decided on a preponderance of evidence. As in 51% plausible. As in, a nudge more than a coin toss.
"i bought this book last week and I love it so far"
"my favorite part was when the dog rescues the cat" (no dog in the book)
1) a user who claims to have 100 different Amazon accounts and will guarantee whatever star rating is requested, and asks the purchaser to provide the product review
2) being willing to receive an empty envelope to create a fake shipping record for a "verified purchase" review.
However, actually getting damages against the users is fairly unlikely, particularly since the users may not be US based.
(nb I don't know what's in their T&Cs regarding fake reviews. I'm be kinda surprised if there's not something in there about doing so honestly and/or not for profit.)
1. They need better AI to determine bad actors. It's not like they don't have smart coders working there (right?) and if you look at a fake user's review profile, it's very easy to see the web of fakes
2. They should strongly consider only allowing verified purchase reviews, or highly devalue or have some kind of moderation for non-verified purchases. ie, you need to provide a unique picture.
3. They should strongly consider permanently banning spammy products that have consistent and high amounts of fake reviews.
Some corners of Amazon's marketplace have definitely started to turn into eBay. They need to prevent that at nearly all costs.
Is there a reason Amazon allows reviews of the product from people who haven't bought it? How is that beneficial?
They provide a question and answer section for presales/post sales follow-up.
I know amazon is working hard to solve this, but it's still possible to buy things from not-amazon
http://blumenthals.com/blog/2014/01/26/fake-reviews-everyone...
In summary, reviews like this are illegal.
In the US of course one can be sued for just about any vaguely plausible set of damages. That doesn't mean that they have prevailed on the facts and the law.
The next step then, by definition, is to hear a response from people who are otherwise in a life position where they find themselves writing Amazon reviews for $5 or less.
http://www.projectcensored.org/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/
The notional difference is that the ad industry works with implication, dramatisation, and suggestion.
Even so, how many celebrity endorsements are genuine and not bought and paid for in exactly the same way a five star review is bought and paid for - but with rather more money changing hands?
Does anyone believe that corporations have never, ever encouraged ad agencies to plant positive reviews?
Perhaps the issue isn't so much that Amazon's review system is being damaged, it's that it's being manipulated by the wrong people - which puts it outside the usual borders of corporate control.
And personally I find the reviews unhelpful anyway, because Amazon often groups unrelated reviews together - so I see 200 reviews of an old 2TB hard drive, when I really want reviews of the latest 6TB model.
In that case, I would expect the answer is tighten up what you do as a company to make it not worth the time. That is the same answer I have for this situation. It should be on amazon to protect their review portal from false reviews, even non-automated.
Once Fiverr is forced to divulge all the info it has regarding these people, Amazon will ban their accounts and drop the lawsuit.
I'll be EXTREMELY shocked if Amazon drops more than just a couple of these suits, they're out to prove a point that THEY run the market, and not Fiverr.
Fiverr is the threat here, and that's a good thing. Either way, I'm buying from Jet from now on.
And I don't get what "following through" is supposed to mean? Trying to convince a judge that someone who got $5 for posting a review on Amazon encouraging people to buy from Amazon has damaged Amazon's business and should pay $XXX because of it? Multiplied by 1,000 defendants? That would be the laughable part. And that's the part Amazon won't be doing.
Makes sense for books. Anyone know why this policy is maintained for products?
That's just one of a dozen things Amazon should be doing here though. We work with a few startups close to this situation, wow is it a mess.
There was a time last year when they gave MediaBridge a rough time after they hired a lawyer to harass genuine reviewers. This is a much more proactive approach compared to Yelp, who is hoping congress passes anti-SLAPP laws.
If nothing else, this move may call attention to how much mischief is allowed in online ratings.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10408396
Unless you have at least a couple of years of experience dealing with Amazon from a seller's perspective it will be impossible for you (or anyone else, not focusing on you at all) to form an opinion based on all of the facts and nuances of the ecosystem Amazon has created. We get feedback from a large number of sellers we service with our management tools. Believe me when I say that the view from the seller's perspective is far, far less pristine than from the vantage point of Amazon buyers.
In a few words: For third party sellers being on Amazon can be a really fucked existence. A few have even gone bankrupt.
Again, not defending the wrongful purchasing of fake reviews but rather saying I understand precisely why some might feel the pressure to do something, anything, to save their businesses when going up against a mess of a system almost entirely rigged against honest sellers.
Feels like a soft problem where Apple can do it badly and not feel any pain or see the needle move if they did it better. Mildly frustrated users won't leave because they have to climb over the garden walls.
It was only a matter of time.
Faced with link farms, Google penalized the beneficiaries in the search rankings; they didn't file lawsuits.
BTW, notice I did not say "pay for positive reviews" but rather "pay for reviews".
Now, of course, one could setup something like a paid focus group where those who like the product are then encouraged to review on Amazon. That's not necessarily what happens on Fiverr. I am astounded at how blatantly some of these reviewers advertise on Fiverr. And, yes, Fiverr does look the other way. Not their problem. Well, at least not yet.
How is the Amazon system unfair?
Source/disclosure: I own a company that provides management services to Amazon third party sellers (A3PS). No, we have nothing to do with reviews yet we do see how the system works and how messed-up it is.
- Bad reviews can absolutely tank product sales
- No mechanism to protect from stupid or unfounded bad reviews
- Negative reviews carry way too much weight
- Amazon routinely removes positive reviews from listings
without justification
- Amazon never removes negative reviews
- Review posters can use fake names
- Search ranking is influenced by review score
- Reviews are being used as business weapons
- Amazon allows people who never bought the product to post a review
- There are zero standards to control who can post a review
- Buyers use neg reviews to extract frebbies
The first problem is that people who would post a negative review are far more motivated to do so than positive reviewers. This is common sense. Posting a review is a hassle. Motivation is important here. Someone who is unhappy about something --anything-- is far more motivated to take the time to post a review. And, in some product categories, dissatisfaction might have nothing whatsoever to do with the product.
This means that reviews are not a true representation of the product except in category-dependent corner or near-corner cases.
Example: Weight loss. Person buys an exercise widget. Doesn't use it consistently. Does not alter their diet. Three months later they've lost no weight at all and they are angry at something. They get an email from Amazon asking for a review. They lash out at the product. It feels good. In the process they've caused a situation for the A3PS whereby they might have to find dozens to hundreds of positive reviews in order to counteract the weighted average effect of that one utterly unfair negative review.
The review system treats weight loss pills and a screwdriver as though the review posting mechanics (motivation, satisfaction requirements, product-buyer relationships, effort required for success, etc.) are exactly the same.
That is just one example of the sort of thing that can drive sellers mad. There's real financial damage to sellers because of the ranking and in-page sales consequences of these reviews.
When someone says "reviews are being bought on Fiverr" the assumption is "positive reviews". The truth of the matter is that less-than-reputable sellers know full-well how deadly negative reviews are on Amazon. And some of them engage in attacking competitors with damming negative reviews.
Using simple math one can see the effects of bad reviews. The weighted averaging Amazon uses to calculate average review score has changed; for the purpose of this discussion I'll used the older and simpler version.
Say a product has 10 5-star reviews. They have a score of 5.0. Perfect.
If I now post 5 1-star reviews to that page the score goes down to 3.7. This is bad. It costs sales and ranking. My fake negative review served to damage my competitor.
How many 5-star reviews would it take for my competitor to repair the damage?
The answer is shocking: They need an additional 60 5-star reviews, for a total of 70, in order to get to 4.7, which would show five stars. Ranking would be affected less and buyers would see five yellow stars.
In order to get back to 5.0 they would need 500. Yes FIVE HUNDRED 5-star reviews for a rounded score of 5.0.
And that, right there, is one of the main issues with Amazon's scoring system. Anyone can post a review. Hire a bank of people in China, have them create fake accounts and start posting 1-star reviews on your competitor's products. You'll destroy them. Their sales with tank and they'll have no humanly possible way to recover their ranking. A minimal effort on the part of the attacker is remunerated with massive damage to their competitor.
The situation that is created is mathematically insurmountable. Someone with a great product and a perfect score would have to amass hundreds, if not thousands, of perfect reviews in order to counteract a negative review attack. This is, well, nearly impossible. And so, I can see how many sellers might be forced to resort to buying reviews in order to protect their business from attackers. The reward for attacking a competitor with negative reviews is massive, the cost is minuscule and the consequences are non-existent.
Amazon flat-out refuses to allow the seller to engage with buyers PRIOR TO a negative review being posted. In other words, something that is normal behavior IRL does not exist on Amazon. If you have a business IRL and a customer isn't happy with something you sold them they can either return it or talk to you to seek resolution. That's why Walmart and Best Buy have a Returns desk. People are serviced and everyone is happy.
On Amazon people get angry and post negative reviews. The seller isn't allowed an opportunity to connect with the buyer and make an attempt to resolve the issue. Perhaps the batteries were missing or the shipper broke the thing or the color wasn't to their liking. It would be sensible to allow the seller the opportunity to help buyers in this way.
Another horrible problem is that some buyers are very aware of the fact that sellers fear negative reviews. We've seen buyers ask for heavy discounts or 100% discounts "or else". In a lot of cases sellers choose to give in to the extortion because the consequences of bad reviews can cost them tens of thousands of dollars per month in sales.
We've seen cases where people post a 1-star review when the product arrived late. The review had nothing to do with the product. The seller was using Amazon for fulfillment. In other words, Amazon shipped the product and they screwed-up. Yet Amazon refuses to remove the negative review and the only way to counter it is to find dozens of positive reviews, which is nearly impossible.
In yet another case a seller got a 1-star review because they ordered three units and only received two. Again, Fulfillment-By-Amazon screwed up. The seller had nothing whatsoever to do with the act of picking, boxing-up and shipping the product. Yet Amazon rules do not allow this review to be removed and the seller would have to add dozens of 5-star reviews to fix the problem.
The Fiverr review jobs are not the problem, they are a symptom. One has to ask "Why are sellers compelled to pay for reviews?". The answer takes you straight back to Amazon. Sellers would have zero interest in reviews if the system was fair, manageable and couldn't be used as an offensive weapon by shady competitors.
I could go on for hours on this one...
It's pretty easy to comb through fiverr and pick off schmoes advertising fake reviews.
Identifying buyers is a different matter entirely.
I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon leveraged their position against the sellers to have them turn on the buyers.
I mean, how much loyalty is five dollars going to buy?
I may be generalising but I believe most of the individuals targeted by the lawsuit are not in the position to just shrug off a fine and lawyer costs. But as Donzo said, it's certainly easier to sue them than the businesses that (IMO) are to blame for the fake review business. Maybe the goal is for the reviewers to turn over their accounts and thus the businesses involved?
It might be a hard to write an algorithm to distinguish shilled reviews from legit ones -- but it should be well within their competence.