Hook four: reviews
The reviews a social media manager may not write
The reviews a manager may not write are fake or misleading ones, and the ACCC’s description of a misleading review includes one written by someone the business has paid in some way to write it, without saying so. The ACCC says it is against the law for a business to create fake or misleading reviews, or to arrange for others to create them.
General information. This is general information about the Australian Consumer Law, not legal advice. The ACCC is the place to check.
The rule, in the ACCC’s words
The ACCC says: “Reviews should be independent and reflect the genuine opinion of the person who experienced the product or service.” Its advertising and selling guide adds a warning: “omitting negative reviews can be just as misleading as posting fake reviews.”
The Australian Consumer Law names testimonials directly. Section 29(1)(e) prohibits making “a false or misleading representation that purports to be a testimonial by any person relating to goods or services”. And section 29(2) adds that, in a proceeding about such a representation, it “is taken to be misleading unless evidence is adduced to the contrary.” Section 29(3) says that this does not mean a representation is not misleading merely because such evidence is adduced, and does not place on anyone an onus of proving that it is not misleading. The ACCC’s guide suggests businesses check reviews and testimonials carefully and keep good records, so they can show the reviews are honest and accurate.
Where a manager meets the rule
| What the ACCC says | Where it can arise with a manager |
|---|---|
| The ACCC lists, among reviews that can mislead, those “written by family, employees, or people paid in some way by the business to write the review, without stating the personal connection or commercial relationship with that business”. | A five-star review from the manager or someone on their team, with no mention of the connection. |
| Reviews can mislead if they are created by someone who hasn’t actually used the product or service. | Reviews written to “get the page started” before real customers arrive. |
| Reviews can mislead if they are edited or changed by someone else after being created. | Tidying a customer’s review, or trimming its complaint, before featuring it. |
| A business may mislead consumers if it suppresses or edits negative reviews, or removes genuine reviews that are negative. | Hiding or deleting a fair but unwelcome review to keep the rating up. |
| Incentives for reviews must apply whether the review is positive or negative, and be clearly disclosed. | A discount offered only to customers who leave five stars. |
Featuring reviews brings its own duty. The ACCC says businesses must consider the context that affects how people read reviews on their website, platform or social media, and gives an example: show clearly how many reviews a star rating rests on, such as ‘3 stars – 24 reviews’.
Platforms have their own rules on top of the law. Google’s policy for reviews on Maps, for example, treats content based on a conflict of interest as rating manipulation, and gives a contractual relationship as one example of such a conflict.
What it has cost businesses
- $6,600
A removalist copied testimonials from an unrelated review website, changed them, and published them as genuine on its own review site. It was issued an infringement notice and paid the penalty. The ACCC took the action in 2011.
- $600,000
A tasking platform let businesses draft their own reviews and star ratings, which were sent to customers and published automatically if the customer didn’t respond within 3 days. The Federal Court ordered the penalties for making false or misleading representations by publishing these reviews.
- $2.9 million
An online health marketplace admitted it did not publish a large volume of negative reviews and edited others to remove negative parts. The Federal Court ordered the penalties, which also covered other conduct.
The second case is worth reading with a manager in mind: the reviews were drafted by the businesses being reviewed, and a customer’s silence was enough to publish them.
The ACCC’s guide also describes a marketing firm that, for a fee, posts fake positive reviews to lift a business’s rating. The firm’s conduct would breach the law, it says, and “the paying business may also have breached the ACL by being involved in the marketing firm’s conduct.” In a sweep reported in December 2023, the ACCC reviewed 24 businesses that offered to create fake reviews, or to remove, prevent or edit negative ones.
When a bad review arrives
Removing a review is not always wrong, but it needs a reason. The ACCC says a business concerned that a platform has published a false or misleading review about it should contact the platform and ask for it to be removed, or respond to it to correct the public record. It also says: “Businesses or review platforms that don’t remove or correct reviews they know, or should be aware, are fake may be in breach of the law.” But a business needs “an adequate basis” to conclude a review is likely fake or misleading before removing or editing it.
business.gov.au’s advice for social media puts it plainly: don’t delete a public complaint or review, which may breach the Australian Consumer Law, with an exception where the customer uses offensive or threatening language. The ACCC also asks businesses and review platforms to clearly display their policy for publishing, editing and removing reviews.
Those two lines make a fair standing instruction for a manager. Paid posts, a close cousin of the paid review, are in paid posts, and saying so, and putting the instruction in writing is in the agreement.
A short written review policy, agreed with the manager and shown where customers can see it, gives everyone the same rule to work from on the day a hard review lands.