UK bans fake reviews and sneaky fees | Hacker News Reader

UK bans fake reviews and sneaky fees

theguardian.com

88 pointscharlieirish57 comments

From the actual government announcement (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fake-reviews-and-sneaky-h...):

> Website hosts are accountable for the reviews on their page. Businesses and online platforms will be legally required to take steps to prevent and remove the publication of fake reviews that are published on their websites. This could include, for example, having adequate detection and removal procedures in place to prevent fake reviews being published.

I guess the big question is what that ends up meaning, and how well it's enforced. If companies start getting significant fines for hosting fake reviews (especially the likes of Google and Amazon) then that might encourage them to do something about them - but that requires an enforcement agency with teeth, and for them to prove that the reviews are fake, which often isn't easy.

Hosting a website in the UK carries a lot of liability for the actions of your users. What would this mean for e.g. a consumer reviews forum someone is hosting as a hobby? Or a forum about any hobby, that includes discussions and reviews about the products used by that hobby, e.g. bicycle reviews on a cycling forum?

The web is becoming professionalised: if you want to publish user-generated content on the web, you will need to moderate all of that content. The Internet is going the same way as radio: for most people, you'll be tuning in to regulated, commercial services. For enthusiasts, there will be a separate space where you can do whatever you want, but you can't offer laissez-faire services on behalf of the great unwashed. It's a great loss of theoretical freedom, but it'll have no impact on anyone's real life.

Given that the internet has almost completely supplanted the public square, I wouldn't say that putting it all under corporate control ("regulated, commercial services") would have no impact on real life.

The public square has always been controlled by private interests. Before the internet, public discourse occurred in newspapers and magazines. Coffeehouses and pubs were always privately-owned, and their proprietors and clientele-at-large determine what conduct and conversation is acceptable within.

Free speech absolutism isn't a real thing, you know: everyone has a set of ideas that they're not willing to listen to.

Coffeehouses and pubs weren't remotely as consolidated as social or traditional media, nor did they have as much power to regulate the speech of its patrons - not everything the patrons said was overheard or written down by the owner.

The nature of public discourse contained in newspapers and magazines hasn't changed. What has changed is that more and more of person-to-person communication is mediated.

> everyone has a set of ideas that they're not willing to listen to.

Yes. But are they choosing what they will listen to, or are they forced by law to have that choice made for them by a government-approved corporation?

To fine a business for fake reviews, the state must prove there are a lot of unaddressed fake reviews, which is very hard to demonstrate.

With AI, it will be almost impossible to do unless you enforce some kind of generalized ID check.

Proving reviews are fake is hard indeed. A few years back I fell for fake reviews. I was booking a trip and saw a fairly new "boutique hotel" with good reviews (on booking.com). Once we arrived, it was nothing of the sort. The hotel was grimy, the room was small, things were broken etc etc.

Once home I looked at the reviews again and I noticed a pattern: each review had only a few sentences and, in hindsight, odd language. For example, it was praising the management in quite a few of them. I don't know about you, but I've never considered the quality of "the management" of a hotel, let alone that I would be inclined to write about it in a review.

I'm sure they paid a shady company to post those reviews in order to boost their rating. I complained to booking.com, but of course they never did anything with it. I imagine it is hard for a platform to do, but I'm also sure they can do more than they do now.

It's never going to be perfect, because then you get into the arguments about exactly what a "fake" review is. But it could be better.

Because as you say, it's pretty common for companies to just go out and buy reviews. You see it all the time on places like Amazon - where a new product suddenly has hundreds of 5* reviews, all saying similar things, from accounts that just go round giving 5* reviews to all kinds of products. It's blatantly obvious to anyone who ever takes a cursory look at the reviews, let along to the company who has all the backend and analytical data about them.

Hopefully this means that companies are required to start doing something about that, or at the very least to respond to complaints like yours rather than just ignoring them.

It sounds great but how do you prevent it? The sellers are all based abroad.

If I look at any product on Amazon now, say a USB C cable, it’s full of fake reviews. Take this one as an example which came up as a sponsored link - 4.3/5 rated - https://amzn.eu/d/bHCXNQG - 7% of reviews are 1* and variously say that the description is misleading in capabilities of the cable, the cable broke, etc.

If you look at the 5* reviews and click through to any profile writing them, they’re giving out all 5* reviews on a totally random array of cheap Chinese products. On top of that they’re always on products that no real person would buy since they’re always a mixture of things aimed at young/old and male/female, and yet the reviews are all written in the first person. If you’re not at least skeptical you will end up wasting money on rubbish. You have to now look at the distribution of reviews rather than the overall average since fake ones at 4 and 5 star swamp all else.

Here in the U.K. I prefer Argos for small purchases I used to make from Amazon, but it’s not got the full range of items you might want to buy online unfortunately.

Completely agree with you on Argos. Even better, you can go there when it's open and often you can collect straight away.

+1 on Argos. They will do same day delivery too.

I'm hearing this sentiment a lot, and I agree. I hope Argos are forward thinking and aware enough to capitalise on this opportunity to improve their services further.

> You have to now look at the distribution of reviews rather than the overall average since fake ones at 4 and 5 star swamp all else.

An unfortunate recent change for anyone using Amazon as a general review resource is they login-gated links to everything except the summary page. So without an account or logging in one can't view lower starred reviews.

Fakespot helps for this kind of thing https://www.fakespot.com/product/yish-usb-c-to-usb-c-charger...

It sound like a good way to encourage people to buy from properly regulated UK sellers

I find 1* is the only useful metric these days. If non of the 1* reviews raise issues ifind to be deal breakers, then we're good to risk it.

That has been true in all days not just recently.

I just ignore all reviews with more than 2 stars.

People still don't realize the entire internet is one giant SEO/marketing septic tank. You'd think the fake cable reviews would be easy to detect at least. I've gotten a few higher budget items when I was poorer by doing a bunch of reviews like this, and I imagine our methods would be much harder to detect than the fiverr reviews most companies look like they're using. You'd basically need a whistleblower or be much more proactive about auditing companies.

The emails look like this: ----

Hi David, Thank you for supporting our test. To leave a review on Amazon, we need you to order it on Amazon first, then we refund you as soon as you send us the order details.

If you are worried about the price, let me know the total in your cart, and I'll send you the money to cover it so you can make the purchase.

Please have a look at the steps below, if you have any questions, or encouter any difficulties, just don't hesitate to let me know.

You can check the following to participate the free test of $highbudgetcamera

● Go to Amazon.com and search for "camera specifications". Look for our camera (refer to the image below). It should be on Page 1.

● Purchase the camera and let us know your Order ID by replying to this message. You could use the 10% coupon on product page to reduce the order price.

● Try out the camera for 3 to 5 days and then leave a review on Amazon. Don't forget to send us a snapshot of your review.

● You will receive a full refund + a small gift: extra 10$ cash (by Paypal or Amazon Gift card).

Thanks again, -Some Russian name representing a Chinese company

Glad to see this.

Booking fee, service fee, transaction fee, technology fee, banking fee, payment handling fee, convenience fee, venue fee, ticket handling fee, verification fee, administration fee etc etc etc.

So underhanded - they're just making fees up at this stage.

    Mutha?ucka charge a two buck transaction fee
    Makes my payment short, my rent comes back to me
    Minus a twenty-five dollar penalty
    So, you'll feed me 'cause of your mutha?uckin? fee

well done UK! Airlines and car rental companies are crazily misleading with their sneaky fees.

I hope the EU outlaws this too (which I thought it did at some point, but Ryanair and Wizzair keep doing it anyway so I may have been mistaken).

Ryanair doesn’t have sneaky feees. It’s entirely possible to book a flight with them for the price advertised and first quoted when you search. They do prompt you to pay for heaps of extras but there are none that are unavoidable.

The real offenders are ticketing companies that charge mandatory service fees or convenience fees without providing a way to purchase the item at the advertised cost.

Yes it's all the mandatory fees that you must pay to then make a purchase that I think are being banned.

The mandatory booking fee, the mandatory service fee, mandatory transaction fee, mandatory technology fee etc just so you can checkout. Optional upsells are something else.

I guess the next step for Ryanair is:

flight ticket: $10

extra for sitting: $100

extra for oxygen provided by Ryanair: $100

I think they had some pilot project on a concept level for planes with standing passangers. Maybe it was joke though I don't remember.

Edit: Nope, real idea pitched by CEO in 2012.

While mostly agree, they do have some questionable practices. Like pretty much guaranteeing a middle seat if you don't reserve one, except if you purchase "avoid middle seat" from the popup right before checkout. Or deliberately breaking up random seat allocation for group booking, even if the seats are for an adult and a small child.

They do offer free reserved seating options though for certain group bookings, so I'm not complaining much. I could even arrange things through customer service chat with them.

it's been a while, but doesn't ryanair force you to pick seats (and pay for the privilege) when traveling with small kids, even tho _they_ are required to seat you together?

Car rental companies are the worst because they actually act like the mafia. "It would be a nightmare if something happened to the vehicle...we are forced to charge £1500 for each and every separate piece of damage". Actual quote from an employee of Enterprise while trying to upsell me extra insurance

Sure but I don't think he even implied the rental company would smash it?

They implied they would screw me up to the maximum amount possible, beyond any cost of the actual repair

Car rental companies, not this one to be fair, are well known for finding hidden and unrecorded damage when you return too

But the company isn't called "Mafia" so I guess my comparison doesn't hold any water right?

Ye I was mainly pointing out that the mafia also cause the damage when you don't pay the "fee" in the classical use of the saying.

This is a ridiculous way to view things.

Of course, it is their job to try to upsell you insurance.

In the US though, the insurance is completely reasonable if you want to have no risk. Drop the car off with no risk of a ding or scratch for a few bucks.

Framing it like the mafia loan sharking is completely absurd.

The UK has great consumer protection laws.

I didn’t realise this until I lived abroad (Colombia, USA). It’s something we should be proud of and I wish other countries would emulate

Looks somewhat promising. They've given the regulators a bit more power. Time will tell if companies are actually scared of the regulators. And if larger companies just take it as the cost of doing business and smaller companies give up, with the added burden of even more red tape (unfortunate timing with the trade war perhaps.)

The fake reviews part is just political theatre. It would take a multi year investigation by the regulators and probably will lead nowhere. And smaller companies may decide not to advertise their reviews for fear of investigation, so bigger companies will get away with it. Bigger companies are probably excited about this new law

So far ... It's alleged one of the demands in the current US/UK trade negotiations is removal on all these "restrictions" on US internet companies.

Edit: Source - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/03/uk-trade-dea... and another one from a campaigning group: https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/...

How exactly will they enforce a ban on fake reviews? Will reviewers be needing to upload a copy of their photo id for verification?

It's just a ban on buying and selling fake reviews, so the same way they regulate buying and selling anything.

It's like how when you buy something now you need to take a photo and email it to your local police station to prove you weren't buying drugs or something.

I know, imagine what would have happened to society if people unwinded after a long day of work in their own home with weed, or if they drank coffee every morning. /s

It's not though. There's no govenment enforcement on either of those parties. The ban is worded below from a government page, and puts the entire burden on the website host to enforce it all.

By the government's own wording, it sounds like any competent Amazon seller and competent Amazon reviewer can continue buying and selling fake reviews with each other over Facebook, Gmail, and PayPal, just like they have for years, with no consequences, even if they publically admit to it to a government prosecuter. They just have to stay under the radar of Amazon. Don't do too many under one account; make sure to sprinkle a lot of legitimate reviews in with the fakes. Amazon just needs to say in court that they did their best to look for these people.

All Amazon can do is look at the data they have—which is pretty much just the actual reviews written by actual people on actual products—and do some data science, astrology, and tea leaf reading to call some of them fake reviewers. When really, there's no possible way they can detect a skilled one. They don't have subpoena power to check their Facebook messages or PayPal transactions.

There are people who have been getting hundreds of $100-plus dollar products from Amazon free for 5+ years by just writing a quick fake review for it. There is a huge ecosystem of factories in China with Amazon seller accounts and fake review agents in Lahore, Pakistan, and places like that, who intermediate this, and then spreadsheets of thousands of products you can choose from, from hundreds of different sellers.

So will Amazon go to the trouble of infiltrating these networks to find the exact product pages that are being offered in exchange for fake reviews? As far as I can tell, Amazon wants fake reviews to happen. It's how a new product gets it's initial reviews. Nobody's going to buy a product with no reviews. I don't think the government is going to be able to burden Amazon with hiring Pinkerton detectives to infiltrate these networks; that type of enforement work doesn't seem like something that a court could require a private business to do. And the government hasn't said these networks are against the law; just that the website hosts can't host their reviews. So, I doubt this will have much effect on Amazon. It will probably only be enforced on more flagrant websites, where all the reviews are just AI-generated slop.

up to the individual website host

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43599562

Leave that up to the companies publishing the reviews, and fine the one who don't deal with it.

How is it that sneaky fees were ever legal? Surely the legal principle is very well established that the price shown is 'the price'? And that sneaky fees were already illegal?

I can't help but wonder whether a blind eye was turned, in order to then require new legislation that includes onerous clauses. Such as requiring photo id/verification etc, as others say. Ie that whatever this legislation is, it may be an open ended expansion of legal powers.

It's a common question about new legislation that appears to overlap with existing. AIUI it helps regulators/police etc with charging, as the new legislation can require less burden of proof etc. Happy to be corrected

But there is of course plenty of other political motivation for legislation and I can see what you're saying.

Legislation usually tries to catch up with technology. In the times when people paid cash at a ticket office and they would not have had hundreds of options many of the things mentioned would not have happened - life was slower, there were fewer options, reputation was more important.

Would it have been possible for legislation to change faster? Probably, but that's politics, deciding together what is the next things to solve while having different opinions and many things to solve.

It is not bad they try to fix it, am I personally sure this was the most important? Not sure. There are many horrible things out there when some group takes advantage of another one...

They are not hidden fees buried into a contract that you've signed. The term in the article is "dripped fees": the full price is disclosed step by step.

Ultimately the full price is shown before you enter into a contract and before you pay. You have no obligation to buy.

They are more of a misleading advertising practice to get your attention and further along the sale funnel.

>How is it that sneaky fees were ever legal?

The fees are still visible to you before you purchase; they are only visible at the last step. So you are giving consent. Nothing obviously illegal per se, just a poor experience. At least in the US, Biden was unable to anything about it. Whether it was lack of will or incompetence, he didn't achieve anything. At the local level, CA tried to pass some laws to similar effect, but they also didn't go anywhere and were ultimately watered down to create carve outs for the most profitable junk fees.

Does this extend to restraunts that now sneakily adding service charge onto a bill by default in order to prey on customers feelings of awkwardness? I always find that one stings and really irks me

They've been doing that for a good 20 years at least. Might be more common but it's nothing new. I only say that not to correct you but just to say it's pretty common knowledge. It also has to be written on the menu.

They do seem to be getting more reluctant and even sometimes angry when removing it though.

In London it’s gotten significantly worse in recent years (post-Covid).

Service charge used to be an exception only added to bills for large groups of diners, now they’re the rule.

But unlike in other countries that replaces a tip.

My view was that previously large groups might not tip especially if splitting the bill but ones and twos would tip.

Pretty standard in jurisdictions where tipping isn’t common, esp for larger groups. Usually noted on the menu but you can always decline if the hardworking minimum wage staff did not meet your satisfaction or if you can’t afford it.

good well done EU

This is not an EU thing, but I'd like it if it is proposed here as well.

I am not quite sure whether you misread the content, or misread the date, or maybe even got confused by the common bad habit of people calling the EU Europe (which is rather like calling the USA "North America" - but worse).

To be clear, it is a UK law that goes into effect today, many years post Brexit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com