4 ms·

I will be watching this case with some interest, as I don't see what legal grounds Amazon could possibly have to sue these people. Reviews are free speech, and

I will be watching this case with some interest, as I don't see what legal grounds Amazon could possibly have to sue these people. Reviews are free speech, and as such it will come down to whether or not Amazon can prove that these reviews, whether or not they were purchased, contain demonstrably false statements of fact (only then would these reviews be considered fraudulent by a US court). One cannot be sued over their opinion.

JDDunn9 11y ago
Free speech doesn't cover fraud. These reviews are generally just lies with the intent of deceiving others for profit.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  But Amazon is put in the position of legally proving that they are lies- tricky. This sounds like grounds for banishment from the site, not legal action.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - rwmj 11y ago
    Because you show they received money for that opinion, with the intent of deceiving genuine customers.
    - downandout 11y ago
      That's just not the way it works, at least in the US.
      - caseysoftware 11y ago
        I think it's simpler than that. If the Reviewer agrees that "I own this product" or "this is the truth" then it's a simple breach of contract, not a "freedom of speech" issue.
newjersey 11y ago
Absolutely. Terms and conditions are not laws. I'd date say they are not even proper contracts.
dot 11y ago
These people profited from damaging one of amazon's biggest competitive advantages. Amazon is going to go throw the book at them and rightly so.
notahacker 11y ago
I assume they're aiming more to discourage people from offering the service than actually win. The occasional $5 isn't worth the risk of being sued, even if you expect to win. 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.
- DonHopkins 11y ago
  Next thing you know people will be offering $5 legal advice against Amazon's lawsuits on Fiverr.
Marazan 11y ago
Any review which states that the reviewer has purchased the item through Amazon or the 3rd party seller when they have not will be a clear an easy breach of fact. The review will be attached to an account. The account's purchase record is available to Amazon.
- chrisBob 11y ago
  That only shows they haven't purchased it on Amazon. If they didn't want to enable reviews for items not purchased with your Amazon account that limit would already be in place. It is very hard for Amazon to prove they didn't buy something at Target.
  - Marazan 11y ago
    If they said they bought it from Amazon
paulsutter 11y ago
Commercial speech is not protected the same way as political speech. More importantly, there are plenty of laws against fraud. For example: "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 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.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- downandout 11y ago
  You are correct that there are laws against fraud. The issue is that the expression of one's opinion, however biased, cannot constitute fraud under US law. If there are demonstrably false statements of fact in each and every one of the more than 1,000 reviews that they are suing over, then and only then will this lawsuit be successful.
  - mgkimsal 11y ago
    maybe some of these reviews had statements about purchases that didn't happen? "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)
  - travisp 11y ago
    Amazon contacted many of these users and the people targeted in the lawsuit were offering guaranteed 5 star reviews and/or to let the purchaser write the review. Given that Amazon actually contacted many of these users, it may not be so hard to be successful with the lawsuit. Amazon is claiming breach of contract and violations of several Washington state laws (including the Consumer Protection Act). If you read the actual lawsuit, there are examples of things like: 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.
mootothemax 11y ago
Couldn't they just be suing the fake reviewers for breaching Amazon's terms and conditions? (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.)
codecamper 11y ago
Amazon's tactic may backfire. They may publicly lose the case & then cause a swarm of me too fake review shops to bloom.
- MicroBerto 11y ago
  I'm thinking this too. They need to solve the actual problem, not chase the side effects. 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.
  - pgrote 11y ago
    I know that verified purchase reviews won't fix the entire problem, but it would get you most of the way. 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.
    - dagw 11y ago
      Is there a reason Amazon allows reviews of the product from people who haven't bought it? I know amazon is working hard to solve this, but it's still possible to buy things from not-amazon
- facetube 11y ago
  As soon as they accidentally sue one of the people who posted a funny review of their out-of-stock 80 gallon barrel of Astroglide, this will _definitely_ backfire.
300bps 11y ago
A great summary including a link to a (lengthy) position paper by the FTC: http://blumenthals.com/blog/2014/01/26/fake-reviews-everyone-is-doing-it-so-it-must-be-legal/ http://blumenthals.com/blog/2014/01/26/fake-reviews-everyone... In summary, reviews like this are illegal.
- sigmar 11y ago
  Thanks for the link. This is the best comment on this thread because it gives an actual reference instead of just stating an armchair-lawyer's opinion of the case.
CPLX 11y ago
They have legal grounds to sue them clearly, in the sense that they have at least superficially plausible causes of action. If they didn't then they wouldn't have been able to find a lawyer past the bar willing to file a summons and complaint. 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.
sitkack 11y ago
If news doesn't have to be truthful [1] why should reviews? http://www.projectcensored.org/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/ http://www.projectcensored.org/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  Bemused by this, because if the same standards applied to the ad world, hardly any ads would be made. 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.

JDDunn9 11y ago

Free speech doesn't cover fraud. These reviews are generally just lies with the intent of deceiving others for profit.

Karunamon 11y ago
But Amazon is put in the position of legally proving that they are lies- tricky. This sounds like grounds for banishment from the site, not legal action.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- rwmj 11y ago
  Because you show they received money for that opinion, with the intent of deceiving genuine customers.
  - downandout 11y ago
    That's just not the way it works, at least in the US.
    - caseysoftware 11y ago
      I think it's simpler than that. If the Reviewer agrees that "I own this product" or "this is the truth" then it's a simple breach of contract, not a "freedom of speech" issue.

newjersey 11y ago

Absolutely. Terms and conditions are not laws. I'd date say they are not even proper contracts.

dot 11y ago

These people profited from damaging one of amazon's biggest competitive advantages. Amazon is going to go throw the book at them and rightly so.

notahacker 11y ago

I assume they're aiming more to discourage people from offering the service than actually win. The occasional $5 isn't worth the risk of being sued, even if you expect to win. 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.

DonHopkins 11y ago
Next thing you know people will be offering $5 legal advice against Amazon's lawsuits on Fiverr.

Marazan 11y ago

Any review which states that the reviewer has purchased the item through Amazon or the 3rd party seller when they have not will be a clear an easy breach of fact. The review will be attached to an account. The account's purchase record is available to Amazon.

chrisBob 11y ago
That only shows they haven't purchased it on Amazon. If they didn't want to enable reviews for items not purchased with your Amazon account that limit would already be in place. It is very hard for Amazon to prove they didn't buy something at Target.
- Marazan 11y ago
  If they said they bought it from Amazon

paulsutter 11y ago

Commercial speech is not protected the same way as political speech. More importantly, there are plenty of laws against fraud. For example: "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 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.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
downandout 11y ago
You are correct that there are laws against fraud. The issue is that the expression of one's opinion, however biased, cannot constitute fraud under US law. If there are demonstrably false statements of fact in each and every one of the more than 1,000 reviews that they are suing over, then and only then will this lawsuit be successful.
- mgkimsal 11y ago
  maybe some of these reviews had statements about purchases that didn't happen? "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)
- travisp 11y ago
  Amazon contacted many of these users and the people targeted in the lawsuit were offering guaranteed 5 star reviews and/or to let the purchaser write the review. Given that Amazon actually contacted many of these users, it may not be so hard to be successful with the lawsuit. Amazon is claiming breach of contract and violations of several Washington state laws (including the Consumer Protection Act). If you read the actual lawsuit, there are examples of things like: 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.

mootothemax 11y ago

Couldn't they just be suing the fake reviewers for breaching Amazon's terms and conditions? (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.)

codecamper 11y ago

Amazon's tactic may backfire. They may publicly lose the case & then cause a swarm of me too fake review shops to bloom.

MicroBerto 11y ago
I'm thinking this too. They need to solve the actual problem, not chase the side effects. 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.
- pgrote 11y ago
  I know that verified purchase reviews won't fix the entire problem, but it would get you most of the way. 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.
  - dagw 11y ago
    Is there a reason Amazon allows reviews of the product from people who haven't bought it? I know amazon is working hard to solve this, but it's still possible to buy things from not-amazon
facetube 11y ago
As soon as they accidentally sue one of the people who posted a funny review of their out-of-stock 80 gallon barrel of Astroglide, this will _definitely_ backfire.

300bps 11y ago

A great summary including a link to a (lengthy) position paper by the FTC: http://blumenthals.com/blog/2014/01/26/fake-reviews-everyone-is-doing-it-so-it-must-be-legal/ http://blumenthals.com/blog/2014/01/26/fake-reviews-everyone... In summary, reviews like this are illegal.

sigmar 11y ago
Thanks for the link. This is the best comment on this thread because it gives an actual reference instead of just stating an armchair-lawyer's opinion of the case.

CPLX 11y ago

They have legal grounds to sue them clearly, in the sense that they have at least superficially plausible causes of action. If they didn't then they wouldn't have been able to find a lawyer past the bar willing to file a summons and complaint. 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.

sitkack 11y ago

If news doesn't have to be truthful [1] why should reviews? http://www.projectcensored.org/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/ http://www.projectcensored.org/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
Bemused by this, because if the same standards applied to the ad world, hardly any ads would be made. 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.