Fake review are already illegal, according to the article. Nothing has stopped waves and waves of fake reviews, especially on Amazon. Nor has this stopped sellers from changing the product...
Fake review are already illegal, according to the article. Nothing has stopped waves and waves of fake reviews, especially on Amazon. Nor has this stopped sellers from changing the product pictures, title, and description for well reviewed products, while keeping all the positive reviews. This is straight up fraud in my book. Seeing reviews on a hand vac that say, "this is the best dishcloth I ever bought" is infuriating.
Who bears the burden of "proving" that reviews are AI generated or otherwise fraudulent? Who will actually do that work? One would imagine that the FTC takes on this burden by passing thus ruling, but I imagine their plate is already quite full. Unless they set up a division and start issuing fines left and right, sellers will blame third parties and say they didn't know any better.
I hope this changes the landscape for online selling, but I fear it's too little, too late. It's 2024, these laws should have been brought forward and enforced from day 1 of the internet.
It says why this is useful in the article: So this makes it possible to hit Amazon for it rather than just targeting every individual account that abuses these tactics.
It says why this is useful in the article:
Under the new rule, companies that might have policed themselves in the past will now be subject to stricter government oversight.
Rather than prosecuting individual cases through the Department of Justice, this rule will streamline and strengthen the FTC’s ability to enforce the ban in house.
So this makes it possible to hit Amazon for it rather than just targeting every individual account that abuses these tactics.
Great question, one I think we should all be asking when rulings like these come down now. As I understand it, the Chevron reversal means that these companies get to define what ambiguous terms...
Great question, one I think we should all be asking when rulings like these come down now.
As I understand it, the Chevron reversal means that these companies get to define what ambiguous terms mean in practice. So here, Amazon gets to dictate what constitutes a "fake review" or "misleading practices" (using language in the article, not sure if that's 1:1 in the rule).
For examples, they could try to claim that someone that has made a purchase is leaving a real review, even if the purchaser is the seller and they've bought their own product 1,000 times to pump in 1,000 fake reviews. They could also try to claim that swapping out the product page of a successful item for an entirely different item isn't misleading since the product info is accurate.
If someone knows better though, I'd appreciate a correction :)
Edit: yeah now that's it's been pointed out, I remember this isn't quite right -- these terms get decided in courts by lawyers rather than informed policy makers was the key.
Chevron was about deferring to federal agencies, not companies. Since Congress is unable to plan for every imaginable contingency, most laws are intentionally vague (think something like "Agency X...
Exemplary
As I understand it, the Chevron reversal means that these companies get to define what ambiguous terms mean in practice.
Chevron was about deferring to federal agencies, not companies.
Since Congress is unable to plan for every imaginable contingency, most laws are intentionally vague (think something like "Agency X has the authority to set standards for harmful substance Y"). When Chevron deference was still good law, the courts would defer to the federal agency's interpretation when promulgating rules since agencies employ policy experts (who have the best idea of what "harmful" means for hypothetical substance Y). In general the agency's interpretation remained valid unless (1) Congress had already spoken precisely about the issue in question or (2) the interpretation was not "based on a permissible construction of the statute" (to quote from the original Chevron ruling).
With the invalidation of Chevron, now courts do not need to give an agency's interpretation of the law any special weight, effectively increasing the power of the judiciary and decreasing the power of the agency when setting standards.
How will the reversal of Chevron play into the FTC's attempt to enforce?
For almost anything involving federal agencies, the answer is now (and almost always will be) the following: without Chevron, it is now easier for the rule to be challenged and invalidated.
The Chevron reversal means courts get to determine things. It doesn't mean they have to make their own decisions; it just means they don't have to agree with what agencies say. I'm not sure where...
The Chevron reversal means courts get to determine things. It doesn't mean they have to make their own decisions; it just means they don't have to agree with what agencies say.
I'm not sure where you're getting anything about companies getting to define things and it's making me question if there was something I totally missed about Chevron. ChatGPT agrees with me though and says companies could argue their definitions in court, but not that judges have to agree with them. It gave this for instance:
For instance, Amazon might try to convince a court that certain practices, like fake reviews or product page swapping, aren’t misleading, but it would ultimately be up to the courts to decide.
But the problem still remains that it’s impossible to enforce. Most of the companies doing these fake reviews are not based in the US. A foreign country isn’t going to extradite their citizens for...
But the problem still remains that it’s impossible to enforce. Most of the companies doing these fake reviews are not based in the US. A foreign country isn’t going to extradite their citizens for leaving fake reviews…
Even if you get them kicked off of a shopping site or whatever, they’ll be back a week later with a different brand name made up of random letters that sells the same crap.
If Amazon has to pay a fine every time that happens, then Amazon will make it their business to not have that happen to them, in whatever method costs them the least amount of money (so if the...
If Amazon has to pay a fine every time that happens, then Amazon will make it their business to not have that happen to them, in whatever method costs them the least amount of money (so if the fines are substantial, then you can be sure that Amazon will be taking a good hard look at the pop up account that just cost them a chunk of money, and make sure they can’t just do the same thing again!)
Fake review are already illegal, according to the article. Nothing has stopped waves and waves of fake reviews, especially on Amazon. Nor has this stopped sellers from changing the product pictures, title, and description for well reviewed products, while keeping all the positive reviews. This is straight up fraud in my book. Seeing reviews on a hand vac that say, "this is the best dishcloth I ever bought" is infuriating.
Who bears the burden of "proving" that reviews are AI generated or otherwise fraudulent? Who will actually do that work? One would imagine that the FTC takes on this burden by passing thus ruling, but I imagine their plate is already quite full. Unless they set up a division and start issuing fines left and right, sellers will blame third parties and say they didn't know any better.
I hope this changes the landscape for online selling, but I fear it's too little, too late. It's 2024, these laws should have been brought forward and enforced from day 1 of the internet.
It says why this is useful in the article:
So this makes it possible to hit Amazon for it rather than just targeting every individual account that abuses these tactics.
How will the reversal of Chevron play into the FTC's attempt to enforce?
Great question, one I think we should all be asking when rulings like these come down now.
As I understand it, the Chevron reversal means that these companies get to define what ambiguous terms mean in practice. So here, Amazon gets to dictate what constitutes a "fake review" or "misleading practices" (using language in the article, not sure if that's 1:1 in the rule).
For examples, they could try to claim that someone that has made a purchase is leaving a real review, even if the purchaser is the seller and they've bought their own product 1,000 times to pump in 1,000 fake reviews. They could also try to claim that swapping out the product page of a successful item for an entirely different item isn't misleading since the product info is accurate.
If someone knows better though, I'd appreciate a correction :)
Edit: yeah now that's it's been pointed out, I remember this isn't quite right -- these terms get decided in courts by lawyers rather than informed policy makers was the key.
Chevron was about deferring to federal agencies, not companies.
Since Congress is unable to plan for every imaginable contingency, most laws are intentionally vague (think something like "Agency X has the authority to set standards for harmful substance Y"). When Chevron deference was still good law, the courts would defer to the federal agency's interpretation when promulgating rules since agencies employ policy experts (who have the best idea of what "harmful" means for hypothetical substance Y). In general the agency's interpretation remained valid unless (1) Congress had already spoken precisely about the issue in question or (2) the interpretation was not "based on a permissible construction of the statute" (to quote from the original Chevron ruling).
With the invalidation of Chevron, now courts do not need to give an agency's interpretation of the law any special weight, effectively increasing the power of the judiciary and decreasing the power of the agency when setting standards.
So to answer @elight's question
For almost anything involving federal agencies, the answer is now (and almost always will be) the following: without Chevron, it is now easier for the rule to be challenged and invalidated.
The Chevron reversal means courts get to determine things. It doesn't mean they have to make their own decisions; it just means they don't have to agree with what agencies say.
I'm not sure where you're getting anything about companies getting to define things and it's making me question if there was something I totally missed about Chevron. ChatGPT agrees with me though and says companies could argue their definitions in court, but not that judges have to agree with them. It gave this for instance:
The fine is per instance, so I do wonder if anything could actually change on a massive scale. It would take years for Amazon to clean up their site.
But the problem still remains that it’s impossible to enforce. Most of the companies doing these fake reviews are not based in the US. A foreign country isn’t going to extradite their citizens for leaving fake reviews…
Even if you get them kicked off of a shopping site or whatever, they’ll be back a week later with a different brand name made up of random letters that sells the same crap.
The idea is to enforce it against Amazon for leaving the reviews up, thus incentivizing them to invest more in eliminating them.
If Amazon has to pay a fine every time that happens, then Amazon will make it their business to not have that happen to them, in whatever method costs them the least amount of money (so if the fines are substantial, then you can be sure that Amazon will be taking a good hard look at the pop up account that just cost them a chunk of money, and make sure they can’t just do the same thing again!)