Selectively removing negative reviews is so sleazy, one wonders if it is actually even legal. Surely there's some truth-in-advertising legislation this falls under?
I've literally had to stop using my airbnb account that had dozens of possitive reviews after a single bad review left in bad faith (owner privetly asked for money to remove it) meant that each new owner was hesitant about me and asking me specifically about that single comment.
I contacted airbnb support with proof of this and they said it can't be removed. Ive stopped using the service since then.
I think a good solution would be setting aside all owner-removed comments, concealed but available for review if someone clicks on them:
+ (124 comments removed by the author)
I've had Yelp and AirBnB remove reviews. I don't know what to do about it. They Yelp one I can't verify the service (a dentist) didn't get better. The AirBnB one I can tell nothing was fixed because the issues are verifiable in the listing itself.
https://thenextweb.com/syndication/2019/02/18/how-i-got-bann...
Wow, it get more and more evil the further I read down this thread. What a shitty, shitty companies are involved in all these shenanigans!
I met a person that rented the same horrific Airbnb I rented in Snoqualmie, WA. They were horrified too and wanted their money back. Airbnb said it was possible but they had to check with the owner. This was two years after my stay and after the host had been warned multiple times and had their superhost status stripped!
The law can compel publication, but that power is typically used for material arising in judicial proceedings or documents of inherent public interest (like the Watergate tapes, etc.). So, it would be unlikely to apply here.
It is far more credible to believe that a loose association of similar tactics across a small number of large business entities might reasonably create a chilling effect upon speech.
An example; as a renter I have heard rumors of others who've left low reviews in public places and find it difficult to find willing renters in the future. I have no basis for this but the process of qualifying a renter is also opaque so I have no evidence to refute it either. It isn't unreasonable to think market forces could coincidentally cause various entities to reach a similar logical conclusion, or that an outsourced background check agency checks for various public posts that might be relevant to the rental agencies.
> Whether your summer plans include replacing your air conditioning, installing new flooring, or riding the range, you will probably read customer reviews to learn what people say about their experiences with a business or product. Shoppers benefit from knowing what others have to say, and the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA) protects people’s ability to share their truthful experiences and opinions.
> The FTC enforces the CRFA and recently sued three businesses (and two of their owners) for violating that law. According to the FTC, the companies used form contracts that barred customers from sharing negative comments and that imposed financial penalties against customers who did so. Under proposed agreements with the FTC, the businesses — including an HVAC and electrical contractor, a flooring seller, and a company that takes people on horseback rides — will stop using, and will not enforce, those contract provisions. They will also inform people who signed the contracts that the provisions can't be enforced.
> The CRFA protects your ability to share your honest opinions about a business’s products, services, or conduct in any forum, including social media. You can publish your honest review even if you say something negative about a business or the services it performed for you. If you have a signed form contract that restricts you from sharing reviews or penalizes you for doing that, the business may not be able to enforce those restrictions. If a business tries to enforce a restriction or penalty, let the business know about the CRFA, and please report it to the FTC or your state consumer protection agency. [0]
[0] https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2019/05/your-right-post-ho...
The DMCA doesn't do that.
The DMCA allows a host to do that without liability for infringement, and continues to provide the host immunity to liability for any claims the user would otherwise have for the original takedown so long as they do that (the second half is the closest thing to force, but it usually is immaterial because hosts usually structure their contracts with users so that they would have no liability to them to immunize against, which is also why hosts are much more likely to provide reliable notice-takedown than counternotice-restorartion.)
No liability for taking down generally
[...]unless[...]
C) replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice [...]
USC 512.g.2.c
Now is that illegal? I sure don't know. Is it provable? That could be tough, too. But if someone asked me if it's legal to doctor reviews of products, I'd tell them to consult a very good lawyer or two.
Laws in the US can, and often do, require disclosure of certain factual information when publishing other information; this is particularly common in the context of commercial (and political) advertising.