
Amazon Sues Fake Reviewers on Fiverr - mintplant
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-16/amazon-targets-web-freelancers-peddling-fake-customer-reviews
======
6stringmerc
This is interesting - I do believe shill reviews are a form of fraud, and this
lawsuit will put that perspective to the test. We'll get a court answer
eventually.

What I find interesting is trying to prove harm done by the fake reviews. If
they're against the terms of service, okay, ban the accounts, and take some
back-room steps to monitor if those persons try to rejoin (e.g. limited
utility of IP address focus). I don't think we're talking about criminal
masterminds here.

I'm kind of joking here, but I'd almost try out the defense that paid five-
star reviews are a "necessary evil" to counter the inevitable "idiot with a
keyboard" which enables any wrong-thinking person to write a one-star review.
What I mean is will this case include evidence that non-paid reviewers are
just as damaging - if not more so - than paid fake ones. Or, in other words,
can Amazon prove genuine harm via "fraud" is able to be differentiated from
"stupid people saying stupid, wrong things" in the comment environment.

Personally, I think it's an "in-house" Amazon issue where they should be
'moderating' comments, but that takes labor and effort; if I've learned
anything about Amazon's view of menial labor tasks such as fulfillment, I
don't think anybody would want the job. If there's better money in fraud than
policing the fraud, then maybe the business model should be re-evaluated. I'm
not trying to justify what is done for hire - to me it's about on par with
"essay writers for hire" and I hate that shit - but it does make for an
interesting problem of commerce.

~~~
devit
It's pretty obvious that it is far more damaging.

The reviews from "stupid people" are limited by the ratio of "stupid people"
to "smart people", and thus merely change the scale and add some noise, mostly
uniformly across all products in a given category: the system is worse, but
still usable.

On the other hand, enough fake reviews on a system with discretized scores
will result in all products having the maximum score and having almost all
reviews presented being fake: the system is now completely useless.

~~~
z6
Exactly this.

I've recently come across a lot of these very highly rated products (with
thousands of reviews) and almost immediately you see many of the reviews
saying "company gave me the product for free to write an honest and unbiased
review."

To me, this completely invalidates the rating and I typically try to find a
different product because it's too time consuming to try to find real reviews.
On the other hand, 'stupid people' don't tip the scale like that and in some
ways their reviews are useful because you can be sure those people were not
'paid'. Also, they may complain about something that isn't really a negative
in general, or specifically to you, so you can use that to make your decision.

~~~
6stringmerc
This reminds me of radio advertising on AM/FM - the personalities will
frequently discuss how they've used the Service Provider X and you should too!
They've received compensation. They're in the business of entertainment, yet
are "breaking the fourth wall" to advertise.

I think I need to clarify a bit more though: Sometimes stupid people can be
the loudest voice, as in, anti-vaccine folks who cite discredited science and
refuse to back down. A more specific instance is when I worked retail - a guy
bought his son a Nirvana CD, this one:

[http://images.weltrecords.de/img/cover/000/000/827/000000827...](http://images.weltrecords.de/img/cover/000/000/827/000000827012.jpg)

He came in with a head of steam at me, mad because he couldn't returned the
opened disc, and said, "This is garbage, it sounds like a bunch of home
demos!" But that's exactly what the CD was, a collection of demos being
offered to people who were interested in such things. He wanted to give it 1
star, essentially, for it being exactly what it was supposed to be.
That's...bullshit. But that's an example of how yeah, people might read the
review and not find it helpful, but this is how an erroneous opinion is
spread. Should moderating that be the role of the platform like Amazon?

For the record, I told him "Yes, that's what that CD is, and while you can't
return it, you can probably sell it to a used CD store in your area and get a
few bucks back. Here's the CD you want."

[http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1FEoCdDUmoE/TQ8Gz27WulI/AAAAAAAAAu...](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1FEoCdDUmoE/TQ8Gz27WulI/AAAAAAAAAus/ALRdEKdy9AI/s1600/68116998.jpg)

Note: Edited due to accusations of shilling, now just images for your
reference. Tough crowd.

~~~
foob
Are the referral links really necessary in this context? The fact that you
don't even mention the CD names makes this feel like click bait for Amazon
referrals.

~~~
6stringmerc
Haha wow, well, I guess if you want to see it that way. I can edit it to just
show the graphics of the CD covers, so I'll do that. I seriously was not
trying to plug anything, just, you know, give a citation for context. I'll fix
it tout de suite.

------
dsfyu404ed
Isn't this basic enough to be covered under tort law?

The reviewer is negligent through misrepresentation (withholding the fact that
the reviewer is being paid) and Amazon suffers.

On a separate note, it's a shame that many of these reviews are bought by
advertising agencies and the manufactures or the products usually have no idea
when this is done. So the manufacture might be looking at online reviews
thinking people love the product when in reality it's just some of the
advertising they paid for.

~~~
Oatseller
"... the manufactures or the products usually have no idea when this is done"

Some of them (or at least the marketplace resellers) do. In an article linked
from another discussion here on HN [0], there is evidence that some of the
fake reviewers would have empty boxes shipped to them so they would have the
"Verified Purchase" qualifier in the review, the kindle book sellers simply
put their books in a free promotion for 5 days so the reviewers have the
"Verified Purchase" even though the cost was $0.00

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10402480](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10402480)

~~~
plonh
These sound like problems in Amazon's system, Amazon mistakes mislead
customers.

~~~
Oatseller
There's nothing wrong with Amazon's system, these people are committing fraud,
it's illegal to submit a paid review without disclosing that the reviewer has
been compensated.[0][1][2]

    
    
        ... The Guides, at their core, reflect the basic truth-in-advertising
        principle that endorsements must be honest and not misleading. ...
    
        In addition, the Guides say if there's a connection between an
        endorser and the marketer that consumers would not expect and it would
        affect how consumers evaluate the endorsement, that connection should
        be disclosed...
    
        OTHER THINGS FOR ENDORSERS TO KNOW
    
        Besides disclosing my relationship with the company whose product I'm endorsing, 
        what are the essential things I need to know about endorsements?
    
        The most important principle is that an endorsement has to represent 
        the accurate experience and opinion of the endorser:
    
            You can't talk about your experience with a product if you haven't tried it.
    
            If you were paid to try a product and you thought it was terrible, 
            you can't say it's terrific.
    

Amazon's terms also forbid paid reviews [3]

    
    
        Who can create customer reviews?
    
        Anyone who has purchased items from Amazon.com. All we ask is that you
        follow a few simple rules (see "What's not allowed" below).
    
        ...
    
        What's not allowed
    
        ...
    
            Reviews written for any form of compensation other than a free copy of
            the product. This includes reviews that are a part of a paid publicity
            package
    

The comment I responded to said that the manufacturers may not have known. I
simply pointed out the fact that, as stated in the complaint, some reviewers
arranged to receive empty boxes so their reviews would appear to have come
from a "verified" purchaser.

Amazon doesn't ship a lot of the items listed, many are merchant-fulfilled.
Apparently some merchants were soliciting paid reviews and conspiring with
those reviewers (by shipping empty boxes so there's a trackable package) to
give those reviews more legitimacy. Again, without disclosure, that is illegal
and against Amazon's terms.

The ability to have a 5-day, free download promotion is great for new kindle
authors; it gives them a chance to receive legitimate reviews for their work.
That doesn't translate to a problem with the system, rather a problem with
some of the people using the system. That's what Amazon is trying to correct.

    
    
        "Amazon mistakes mislead customers."
    

Victim blaming?

I don't even know how to respond to that statement because it makes no sense.
Are you saying that it's Amazon's fault that people are mislead (by illegal
reviews) because they provide a review mechanism? If so, that's absurd.

[0] [https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-
center/guidance/ftc...](https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-
center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking)

[1] [https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/truth-
advert...](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/truth-
advertising/advertisement-endorsements)

[2] (pdf) [http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-
rel...](http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-
publishes-final-guides-governing-endorsements-
testimonials/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf)

[3] [http://www.amazon.com/gp/community-help/customer-reviews-
gui...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/community-help/customer-reviews-guidelines)

------
codifiedhabits
Way to fight the easy fight Amazon. Didn't sue Fiverr of course, but sue 1k+
John Does? Don't want to invest a little into fixing your easily gamed, crappy
ranking algorithm, but want to scare people off from gaming it instead?
Priorities straight, not even once.

~~~
uxcn
I have to wonder how effective this will actually be considering that Amazon's
reviews are completely unmoderated, and explicitly open to the public.

The one thing I will credit Amazon with, is that they are quick to reimburse
for fraudulent products when you can demonstrate that it is fraudulent.
Quality might be slightly more debatable, but I would be willing to bet Amazon
will reimburse on that as well.

------
bhitov
The complaint is available here: [https://www.scribd.com/doc/285422882/Amazon-
Complaint](https://www.scribd.com/doc/285422882/Amazon-Complaint)

------
downandout
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.

~~~
paulsutter
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.

~~~
downandout
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.

~~~
CydeWeys
The FTC regulates advertising with a much stricter scrutiny than free speech.
There are few limits on what opinions you can express, but there are many
limits on what you can advertise. I'm not saying that the FTC is involved in
regulating online reviews, but the precedent seems to be set here. Especially
given that these reviews are compensated, it seems clear to me that we're
talking about regulation of advertising, not restriction of free speech.

~~~
DanBC
In the US: [https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-
center/guidance/ftc...](https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-
center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking)

In the UK: [https://www.asa.org.uk/News-resources/Media-
Centre/2014/Maki...](https://www.asa.org.uk/News-resources/Media-
Centre/2014/Making-ads-Clear-The-challenge-for-advertisers-and-
vloggers.aspx#.ViPE6NKrS01)

See, eg, [http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/26/youtube-ad-
oreo...](http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/26/youtube-ad-oreo-banned-
advertising-lick-race)

------
sb8244
So going along with the idea that misrepresentation of fact is fraud and you
can be sued for it, does it mean that users who put a fake name in order to
get free service in a freemium can be sued?

In that case, I would expect the answer is tighten up what you do as a company
to make it not worth the time. That is the same answer I have for this
situation. It should be on amazon to protect their review portal from false
reviews, even non-automated.

------
jellicle
Four hours in and I don't see any comment here with the right take on it, so
here you go: Amazon is not suing these 1,000 "John Does" in order to win,
they're suing them in order to identify them and ban their Amazon accounts.

Once Fiverr is forced to divulge all the info it has regarding these people,
Amazon will ban their accounts and drop the lawsuit.

~~~
task_queue
That's a lot of money to spend to not follow through and put the last nail in
the coffin.

~~~
jellicle
What money? They have lawyers on payroll and filing fees are minimal. Their
direct outlays so far in the three figures.

And I don't get what "following through" is supposed to mean? Trying to
convince a judge that someone who got $5 for posting a review on Amazon
encouraging people to buy from Amazon has damaged Amazon's business and should
pay $XXX because of it? Multiplied by 1,000 defendants? That would be the
laughable part. And that's the part Amazon won't be doing.

------
imaginenore
I predict the whole thing will turn more black market and anonymous. Nothing
will really change.

------
JumpCrisscross
> _Amazon gives anyone, whether they are customers or not, the ability to
> review products sold on its online store._

Makes sense for books. Anyone know why this policy is maintained for products?

~~~
parka
If you limit reviews to only Amazon customers, you limited the number of
people who can write reviews. I buy a lot of things from other places as well,
not just Amazon.

~~~
MicroBerto
It's to the point where Amazon really needs to re-investigate this policy
though. They have enough sales volume that they can limit to verified
purchasers and still have plenty of good content. Quality would trump the
quantity too.

That's just one of a dozen things Amazon _should_ be doing here though. We
work with a few startups close to this situation, wow is it a mess.

------
micwawa
This is fantastic. Manipulating ratings is a big business, and it is good to
see that Amazon is being aggressive toward this.

There was a time last year when they gave MediaBridge a rough time after they
hired a lawyer to harass genuine reviewers. This is a much more proactive
approach compared to Yelp, who is hoping congress passes anti-SLAPP laws.

If nothing else, this move may call attention to how much mischief is allowed
in online ratings.

~~~
rebootthesystem
I am not opposed to what Amazon is doing on Fiverr. That said, I don't think
you might be aware of the entire picture. Amazon itself is likely to be the
very reason some sellers feel they have to play these games. See my post:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10408396](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10408396)

Unless you have at least a couple of years of experience dealing with Amazon
from a seller's perspective it will be impossible for you (or anyone else, not
focusing on you at all) to form an opinion based on all of the facts and
nuances of the ecosystem Amazon has created. We get feedback from a large
number of sellers we service with our management tools. Believe me when I say
that the view from the seller's perspective is far, far less pristine than
from the vantage point of Amazon buyers.

In a few words: For third party sellers being on Amazon can be a really fucked
existence. A few have even gone bankrupt.

Again, not defending the wrongful purchasing of fake reviews but rather saying
I understand precisely why some might feel the pressure to do something,
anything, to save their businesses when going up against a mess of a system
almost entirely rigged against honest sellers.

------
mrfusion
It seems like fixing reviews would be a good startup opportunity right? Any
ideas what you would do?

~~~
codecamper
Yes, definitely. My app suffered for years in Apple's app store against a
competitor with an inferior product, but with high quantities of glowing
"reviews". If Apple can't figure out fake reviews, and Amazon can't figure
them out... then I'd say there is a HUGE opportunity here.

~~~
duncanawoods
If Apple is not motivated to do it themselves, why would they use\buy a start-
up?

Feels like a soft problem where Apple can do it badly and not feel any pain or
see the needle move if they did it better. Mildly frustrated users won't leave
because they have to climb over the garden walls.

~~~
cube00
Buying a start-up (assuming they already have proven the product) is much less
riskier then building it in house.

------
programminggeek
Because reviews are used so heavily in the ranking algorithm, buying reviews
on Amazon is like buying links on Google. Breaking the ranking algorithm
potentially hurts their core business, so of course Amazon is going to take
legal and other punitive actions.

It was only a matter of time.

~~~
carbocation
The parallel between paid Google links and paid Amazon reviews is apt.
Therefore, I do not understand the conclusion that Amazon is going to "take
legal ... action".

Faced with link farms, Google penalized the beneficiaries in the search
rankings; they didn't file lawsuits.

------
rebootthesystem
Amazon have created a system that is so one-sided and unfair in many ways that
sellers could be pushed into resorting to pay for reviews.

BTW, notice I did not say "pay for positive reviews" but rather "pay for
reviews".

Now, of course, one could setup something like a paid focus group where those
who like the product are then encouraged to review on Amazon. That's not
necessarily what happens on Fiverr. I am astounded at how blatantly some of
these reviewers advertise on Fiverr. And, yes, Fiverr does look the other way.
Not their problem. Well, at least not yet.

How is the Amazon system unfair?

Source/disclosure: I own a company that provides management services to Amazon
third party sellers (A3PS). No, we have nothing to do with reviews yet we do
see how the system works and how messed-up it is.

    
    
        - Bad reviews can absolutely tank product sales
        - No mechanism to protect from stupid or unfounded bad reviews
        - Negative reviews carry way too much weight
        - Amazon routinely removes positive reviews from listings 
          without justification
        - Amazon never removes negative reviews
        - Review posters can use fake names
        - Search ranking is influenced by review score
        - Reviews are being used as business weapons
        - Amazon allows people who never bought the product to post a review
        - There are zero standards to control who can post a review
        - Buyers use neg reviews to extract frebbies
    

I won't discuss all of these in detail unless someone asks for clarification.

The first problem is that people who would post a negative review are far more
motivated to do so than positive reviewers. This is common sense. Posting a
review is a hassle. Motivation is important here. Someone who is unhappy about
something --anything-- is far more motivated to take the time to post a
review. And, in some product categories, dissatisfaction might have nothing
whatsoever to do with the product.

This means that reviews are not a true representation of the product except in
category-dependent corner or near-corner cases.

Example: Weight loss. Person buys an exercise widget. Doesn't use it
consistently. Does not alter their diet. Three months later they've lost no
weight at all and they are angry at something. They get an email from Amazon
asking for a review. They lash out at the product. It feels good. In the
process they've caused a situation for the A3PS whereby they might have to
find dozens to hundreds of positive reviews in order to counteract the
weighted average effect of that one utterly unfair negative review.

The review system treats weight loss pills and a screwdriver as though the
review posting mechanics (motivation, satisfaction requirements, product-buyer
relationships, effort required for success, etc.) are exactly the same.

That is just one example of the sort of thing that can drive sellers mad.
There's real financial damage to sellers because of the ranking and in-page
sales consequences of these reviews.

When someone says "reviews are being bought on Fiverr" the assumption is
"positive reviews". The truth of the matter is that less-than-reputable
sellers know full-well how deadly negative reviews are on Amazon. And some of
them engage in attacking competitors with damming negative reviews.

Using simple math one can see the effects of bad reviews. The weighted
averaging Amazon uses to calculate average review score has changed; for the
purpose of this discussion I'll used the older and simpler version.

Say a product has 10 5-star reviews. They have a score of 5.0. Perfect.

If I now post 5 1-star reviews to that page the score goes down to 3.7. This
is bad. It costs sales and ranking. My fake negative review served to damage
my competitor.

How many 5-star reviews would it take for my competitor to repair the damage?

The answer is shocking: They need an additional 60 5-star reviews, for a total
of 70, in order to get to 4.7, which would show five stars. Ranking would be
affected less and buyers would see five yellow stars.

In order to get back to 5.0 they would need 500. Yes FIVE HUNDRED 5-star
reviews for a rounded score of 5.0.

And that, right there, is one of the main issues with Amazon's scoring system.
Anyone can post a review. Hire a bank of people in China, have them create
fake accounts and start posting 1-star reviews on your competitor's products.
You'll destroy them. Their sales with tank and they'll have no humanly
possible way to recover their ranking. A minimal effort on the part of the
attacker is remunerated with massive damage to their competitor.

The situation that is created is mathematically insurmountable. Someone with a
great product and a perfect score would have to amass hundreds, if not
thousands, of perfect reviews in order to counteract a negative review attack.
This is, well, nearly impossible. And so, I can see how many sellers might be
forced to resort to buying reviews in order to protect their business from
attackers. The reward for attacking a competitor with negative reviews is
massive, the cost is minuscule and the consequences are non-existent.

Amazon flat-out refuses to allow the seller to engage with buyers PRIOR TO a
negative review being posted. In other words, something that is normal
behavior IRL does not exist on Amazon. If you have a business IRL and a
customer isn't happy with something you sold them they can either return it or
talk to you to seek resolution. That's why Walmart and Best Buy have a Returns
desk. People are serviced and everyone is happy.

On Amazon people get angry and post negative reviews. The seller isn't allowed
an opportunity to connect with the buyer and make an attempt to resolve the
issue. Perhaps the batteries were missing or the shipper broke the thing or
the color wasn't to their liking. It would be sensible to allow the seller the
opportunity to help buyers in this way.

Another horrible problem is that some buyers are very aware of the fact that
sellers fear negative reviews. We've seen buyers ask for heavy discounts or
100% discounts "or else". In a lot of cases sellers choose to give in to the
extortion because the consequences of bad reviews can cost them tens of
thousands of dollars per month in sales.

We've seen cases where people post a 1-star review when the product arrived
late. The review had nothing to do with the product. The seller was using
Amazon for fulfillment. In other words, Amazon shipped the product and they
screwed-up. Yet Amazon refuses to remove the negative review and the only way
to counter it is to find dozens of positive reviews, which is nearly
impossible.

In yet another case a seller got a 1-star review because they ordered three
units and only received two. Again, Fulfillment-By-Amazon screwed up. The
seller had nothing whatsoever to do with the act of picking, boxing-up and
shipping the product. Yet Amazon rules do not allow this review to be removed
and the seller would have to add dozens of 5-star reviews to fix the problem.

The Fiverr review jobs are not the problem, they are a symptom. One has to ask
"Why are sellers compelled to pay for reviews?". The answer takes you straight
back to Amazon. Sellers would have zero interest in reviews if the system was
fair, manageable and couldn't be used as an offensive weapon by shady
competitors.

I could go on for hours on this one...

------
sorokod
Wouldn't suing the businesses paying for the fake reviews, be more efficient?

~~~
Donzo
It's harder to catch them.

It's pretty easy to comb through fiverr and pick off schmoes advertising fake
reviews.

Identifying buyers is a different matter entirely.

I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon leveraged their position against the sellers
to have them turn on the buyers.

I mean, how much loyalty is five dollars going to buy?

~~~
sorokod
Maybe harder to detect but easier to prosecute. Also, the effect of a single
convection is greater.

------
x5n1
Aren't most of these reviewers in third world countries with horrible legal
systems?

~~~
fredkbloggs
It doesn't matter what their legal systems are like. The important thing is
that they don't have any assets in Washington (nor anywhere else in the US,
most likely). So when they don't show for trial, a default judgment will be
handed down and any of the defendant's assets in Washington (none) will be
seized to satisfy it. The first-order result of any such trial itself will be
Amazon spending many thousands of dollars to obtain a handful of uncollectible
judgments. Sometimes such judgments have value on the secondary market, but
against a nonresident foreign citizen, forget about it. Presumably their true
objective lies elsewhere, as others here have suggested.

------
rajacombinator
Scummy move by Amazon, no surprise. They obviously don't care about the
integrity of their core product as can be seen by the horrifically gamed
reviews and the misleading third party sales system. Suing a bunch of people
on Fiverr won't fix anything.

~~~
oldmanjay
care to explain where the scum layer is here?

------
forgotpwtomain
I don't know why amazon has to do this stupid (as others have pointed out on
dubiously legal basis) crap - when they have lots of smart people, loads of
user data and pretty much unlimited resources at their disposal.

It might be a hard to write an algorithm to distinguish shilled reviews from
legit ones -- but it should be well within their competence.

~~~
gahahaha
Making a great algorithm _combined_ with suing the fake reviewers might be
even better.

~~~
duncanawoods
It certainly makes a headline unlike "we made a new algorithm!".

