But it is legal.
The obligation is on the reviewer to highlight they've been paid for a review, otherwise they are illegally misleading their readers.
Whether that's moral is another thing.
The obligation is on the reviewer to highlight they've been paid for a review, otherwise they are illegally misleading their readers.
Whether that's moral is another thing.
> Don’t commission third parties to write fake reviews – you may be liable for their actions
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-reviews-an...
With proper disclosure there may be some leeway, but I wouldn't just assume paying someone for a fake review is legal. UK advertising laws can be very strict in some cases (and rightfully so, in my opinion).
But perhaps it's viewed as too loosely defined or hard to enforce.
In context here, liable:
1) Liable for claims that the fake review makes, i.e. held to the same standards as any other marketing/claims you make about your product,
2) Liable if you mislead consumers by making them think it's a real review.
"You are liable, i.e. you are the entity that may break the law"
The Digital Markets Bill may affect this in 2024 (?) - Not sure whether it will be more focused on regulating 'platforms'.
Regardless, the legal obligation[1] to transparently advertise this is on the firm, not (just) the bought reviewer. IIRC the Advertising Standards Authority recently had a case on a social media paid promotion, which reinforced this. Regardless, IMO the statute is quite clear the obligation is on the firm.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/part/2/made
The UK Government are also in processing tightening this up…
The majority of companies that gets punished by consumers these days seem to me to be those who think that just because something is legal, then it's without consequences.