Hubbry Logo
Customer reviewCustomer reviewMain
Open search
Customer review
Community hub
Customer review
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Customer review
Customer review
Customer review
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A customer review is an evaluation of a product or service made by someone who has purchased and used, or had experience with, a product or service. Customer reviews are a form of customer feedback on electronic commerce and online shopping sites. There are also dedicated review sites, some of which use customer reviews as well as or instead of professional reviews. The reviews may themselves be graded for usefulness or accuracy by other users.

History

[edit]

Before the arrival of the internet, customers could review products and services through customer comment boxes and customer service helplines. These methods still exist today although internet review sites are used more in recent years.

Reliability

[edit]

The reliability of customer reviews has been questioned.[1] Abuses akin to ballot stuffing of favourable reviews by the seller (known as incentivized reviews), or negative reviews by competitors, need to be policed by the review host site. Indeed, gathering fake reviews has become big business.[2] In 2012, for example, fake book reviews have been revealed as significantly affecting ratings on Amazon.[3][4] In 2016 Amazon banned the practice of reviewing complimentary products, researchers have shown that the process still continued as of 2021, but without any disclosures.[5]

Since few sites restrict users to reviewing only items they have actually purchased, it is difficult to know if a customer is real, has actually used the product they are reviewing, and is giving honest, unbiased feedback about the product or services being reviewed. Tools like Fakespot and ReviewMeta can help spot fake reviews on shopping sites like Amazon.[6] Unfortunately, the tools do not work on most other websites that show customer reviews.

Public calls have been growing stronger, demanding that review sites be held accountable for publishing fake reviews. Most recently (June 2021), the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) in the United Kingdom has launched an investigation into whether Amazon and Google are doing enough to prevent fake reviews from being published on their sites.[7] Both businesses claim to have sufficient resources and policies in place to prevent fake reviews from being published.[8] Legal steps could be taken against the giants if CMA determines those claims to be false. The problem has become so widespread that in 2023, the FTC announced plans to ban fake reviews and testimonials.[9]

Whether a customer receives an invitation or not, many businesses have expressed the wish that customers let the business know in the moment if some aspect of their interaction or product is unsatisfactory, so they can have the opportunity to fix it on the spot or provide compensation, rather than customers leaving unnecessarily disappointed and writing negative reviews.[10]

Fake review scandals

[edit]

In 2010, British historian Orlando Figes posted reviews on Amazon praising his own work and criticizing that of his rivals.[11]

In August 2012, The New York Times revealed that John Locke had paid an online service to write reviews of his books, in order to artificially boost sales.[12]

In 2022, researchers from UCLA documented that millions of Amazon sellers purchase fake 5-star reviews through private Facebook groups.[13]

Spoof reviews

[edit]

Humorous customer reviews are common on some major shopping sites, such as Amazon. These are often ironically or sarcastically praising reviews of products deemed kitsch or mundane. Another example is methylated spirits described in the style of a wine review.[14] A product may become an internet meme attracting large numbers of spoof reviews, which may boost its sales.[14][15] Famous examples include Tuscan Whole Milk and the Three Wolf Moon T-shirt.[15]

Examples of spoof reviews include:

British spoofers have targeted several build to order novelty products made by Media Storehouse from two million licensed photo library images, including a canvas print of minor celebrity Paul Ross, and a jigsaw puzzle of Nick Humby, a former finance director of Manchester United.[14]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Customer review

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A customer review is a form of consumer-generated feedback in which individuals who have purchased or used a product, service, or share their opinions, experiences, and evaluations, often detailing specific attributes such as , , and value. These reviews, traditionally exchanged via word-of-mouth or written testimonials, evolved significantly with the advent of the in the late , transitioning to digital platforms where they became publicly accessible and scalable, beginning with sites like in 1999 that enabled buyer ratings and comments to build trust in online transactions. In contemporary , customer reviews exert substantial influence on consumer behavior, with indicating that 93% of shoppers report that online reviews impact their purchasing choices, as they provide and reduce perceived risk in decisions. The proliferation of review platforms—such as Amazon, Yelp, and TripAdvisor—has amplified their role, aggregating millions of user inputs that platforms algorithmically summarize into star ratings or sentiment scores to guide recommendations. Studies demonstrate that positive reviews can boost sales by enhancing perceived product quality and purchase intention, while negative ones deter buyers through heightened skepticism, with effects varying by review volume, valence, and consumer self-construal. However, this system faces systemic challenges from inauthentic content, including incentivized or fabricated reviews, which empirical analyses estimate comprise up to 30% of online feedback in some markets, leading to distorted market signals, financial losses exceeding $150 billion annually, and diminished consumer trust. Regulatory efforts, such as the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's 2024 rule prohibiting deceptive review practices, underscore the causal tension between reviews' informational value and their vulnerability to manipulation by sellers or competitors. Despite these issues, genuine reviews remain a cornerstone of informed consumerism, fostering accountability for providers while revealing empirical discrepancies between advertised and actual performance.

Definition and Scope

Core Definition

A customer review constitutes feedback from a who has directly purchased and utilized a product or service, typically encompassing both qualitative textual descriptions of their experience and quantitative ratings such as scores. This form of aims to convey personal opinions on aspects like , , value, and satisfaction, thereby assisting prospective buyers in . Authentic reviews derive from empirical firsthand interaction, distinguishing them from promotional testimonials or unverified claims, as empirical studies emphasize their role in reflecting genuine post-purchase evaluations. In and contexts, customer reviews function as peer-generated evaluations disseminated via online platforms, e-commerce sites, or third-party aggregators, often influencing market perceptions through aggregated . They may highlight specific attributes, such as or , and can include elements like photos or videos in modern formats, though core elements remain tied to experiential assessment rather than abstract speculation. Reliability hinges on verifiable purchase history, as unverified or incentivized submissions risk distorting informational value, a concern underscored in analyses of review ecosystems.

Types and Formats

Customer reviews encompass diverse types distinguished by solicitation method, content focus, verification status, and presentation format. Active reviews are actively solicited by es through mechanisms such as post-purchase emails, surveys, or dedicated review prompts, enabling structured collection of feedback. In contrast, passive reviews emerge unsolicited from customers, often shared voluntarily on or third-party sites without business prompting. By content focus, reviews divide into product-specific evaluations, which assess attributes like size, quality, fit, and of individual items, and company-oriented reviews, which evaluate broader aspects such as , delivery, and overall experience. Verification status further classifies reviews: verified reviews require proof of purchase or service interaction, such as order linkage or , lending them higher , while unverified reviews lack such and can be submitted freely, potentially introducing or fabrication risks. Formats range from structured to unstructured and variants. Structured formats include numerical ratings, commonly on a 1-5 scale, offering quantifiable sentiment for easy aggregation and comparison across products. Unstructured formats consist of free-form textual feedback, varying from brief quotes to detailed narratives outlining pros, cons, and personal experiences. formats incorporate photos or videos, where customers upload visual demonstrations of product use, such as "before-and-after" images or footage, which empirical observations indicate boost review persuasiveness by providing tangible evidence over text alone.
Format TypeDescriptionExample Platforms
Numerical RatingsQuantitative scores (e.g., stars or scales) for rapid assessment,
Textual ReviewsQualitative written commentary, short or elaborateGoogle Reviews,
Photo/Video AttachmentsVisual media evidencing claims, enhancing trust product pages,
These formats often combine, as in star-rated text reviews with images, to maximize informational density and consumer utility in settings.

Historical Development

Pre-Digital Practices

Prior to the widespread adoption of digital technologies, reviews primarily occurred through interpersonal word-of-mouth communication, where individuals shared experiences verbally within personal networks, , or communities, influencing decisions based on trust and proximity rather than aggregated . This method, while effective for local goods and services, lacked scalability and verifiability, often relying on without systematic documentation. Formalized written complaints provided an early structured mechanism, with historical records tracing back to approximately 1750 BC, when a Mesopotamian named Nanni inscribed dissatisfaction on a regarding substandard copper ore received from a supplier, preserved in the . In the pre-industrial era, consumers directed grievances via letters or in-person visits to retailers and manufacturers, prompting internal adjustments but rarely public dissemination. By the early , as expanded, complaint volumes grew, leading to organized channels like by trade associations or local chambers of commerce. Institutional efforts formalized review-like processes through complaint aggregation and product evaluations. The (BBB), founded in 1912 amid concerns over deceptive advertising during economic booms, centralized consumer complaints against businesses, assigning ratings based on complaint volume, resolution rates, and ethical practices rather than individual product verdicts. By the 1920s, groups like Consumers' Research, established in 1929, began independent laboratory testing of products such as appliances and foods, publishing comparative ratings in bulletins for subscribers to guide purchases. This model expanded with Consumers Union in 1936, formed by dissident staff from Consumers' Research after a labor dispute; it issued Consumer Reports magazine, featuring empirical tests on durability, safety, and performance—e.g., rating tires for tread wear or refrigerators for energy efficiency—drawing on scientific methods to counter manufacturer claims. These pre-digital practices emphasized collective advocacy over individual endorsements, with organizations like Consumers Union reaching hundreds of thousands of subscribers by the mid-20th century through print media, but access remained gated by membership fees and limited circulation. Government interventions, such as the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's establishment in 1914, indirectly supported reviews by enforcing truth-in-advertising, though direct consumer input was sporadic via hearings or postal correspondence. Overall, reliability hinged on organizational credibility and empirical testing, mitigating biases from unverified personal anecdotes, yet constrained by slow feedback loops and incomplete market coverage.

Emergence of Online Systems

Amazon.com pioneered structured customer reviews in 1995, enabling users to post textual evaluations and star ratings for and other products sold on its platform. This feature, introduced amid skepticism about its value, compensated for the absence of in-person product inspection by buyer insights to inform future purchases. At launch, reviews were voluntary and unmoderated, relying on self-policing to maintain utility, though early adoption was modest due to limited penetration, with only about 16 million U.S. users online by mid-decade. eBay followed suit in 1996 with its bidirectional feedback system, implemented six months after the site's inception as an auction marketplace. Buyers and sellers could assign positive, neutral, or negative ratings post-transaction, accumulating scores visible on user profiles to signal reliability. This mechanism addressed fraud risks in trades, where transactions lacked traditional safeguards, and by 1997, it had processed over 500,000 feedback entries, demonstrating rapid uptake as 's user base grew to millions. The late 1990s saw diversification beyond silos, with independent aggregators like Epinions debuting in 1999 to compile user-submitted reviews across diverse categories, including consumer goods and services. Platforms such as Deja.com and RateItAll emerged concurrently, emphasizing comparative rankings and incentives for detailed submissions. These developments scaled informal feedback into searchable databases, amplifying informational efficiency but introducing challenges like variable quality, as early systems lacked robust verification, with studies later estimating 10-20% of content as potentially biased by 2000. Overall, online reviews evolved from ad-hoc tools to foundational elements of digital trust, driven by expansion and dot-com exceeding $100 billion annually by 1999.

Major Milestones and Evolution

Amazon introduced customer reviews in 1995, enabling users to rate and comment on books sold on its platform, marking the first widespread implementation of user-generated feedback in . This feature, initially viewed with doubt by industry observers who feared it would undermine sales, instead enhanced trust and personalization by leveraging collective consumer experiences to inform purchases. By aggregating opinions directly on product pages, Amazon demonstrated the causal link between transparent feedback and increased buyer , setting a precedent for integrating reviews into transactional flows. The late 1990s saw the proliferation of independent review aggregators, with sites like Epinions, Deja News, and RateItAll launching in 1999 to facilitate cross-vendor comparisons rather than siloed retailer-specific input. These platforms shifted the paradigm from proprietary feedback to open ecosystems, where users could evaluate products and services across competitors, fostering a more competitive market dynamic driven by empirical user data over marketing claims. Epinions, for instance, emphasized detailed pros-and-cons breakdowns, influencing early algorithmic ranking of reviews based on perceived helpfulness votes from the . Sector-specific platforms accelerated adoption in the : launched on February 15, 2000, specializing in and reviews, which by 2005 had amassed millions of user submissions impacting hotel bookings and decisions through volume-weighted ratings. followed in July 2004, targeting local businesses with geotagged reviews, rapidly expanding to cover restaurants and services via mobile check-ins and elite user incentives, reaching 1 million reviews by May 2007. These developments coincided with broadband growth and protections under the 1996 , which shielded platforms from liability for user content, enabling scalable moderation without stifling participation. By the late 2000s, reviews integrated into search and mapping: introduced reviews via in 2007, later incorporating them into local business profiles, with enhancements like photo uploads in 2016 amplifying visual evidence in assessments. The marked a mobile and social evolution, as smartphone apps from platforms like and emerging ones such as (2008) and (2008) normalized on-the-go feedback, correlating with a surge in review volume—e.g., surpassing 100 million reviews by 2016. Authenticity efforts intensified, with Amazon's verified purchase badges (introduced around 2007 and refined post-2015) and program (early 2000s) prioritizing incentivized yet disclosed reviews to counter manipulation, reflecting causal responses to detected patterns in unverified data. This progression underscored reviews' transformation from novelty to core infrastructure, where empirical aggregation increasingly trumped anecdotal promotion in shaping market outcomes.

Economic and Behavioral Impacts

Influence on Consumer Decision-Making

Customer reviews exert a substantial influence on decision-making by serving as a primary source of and reducing purchase uncertainty in environments. Surveys indicate that 93% of consumers report online reviews impacting their buying choices, with nearly all American shoppers consulting them prior to purchases. This reliance stems from reviews providing experiential insights that complement product descriptions, fostering trust in otherwise impersonal transactions. Empirical research confirms a strong causal link between reviews and purchase intentions. A meta-analysis of 156 studies encompassing 69,006 observations found review valence—the overall positive or negative tone—to be the most potent antecedent, with a correlation coefficient of r = 0.563 to purchase intention. Similarly, eye-tracking experiments demonstrate that consumers allocate greater visual attention to negative reviews, correlating with reduced buying propensity; for instance, 70% of participants fixating on negative content opted against purchase. These effects are moderated by factors such as gender, with females exhibiting heightened sensitivity to negative feedback due to elevated risk aversion (p < 0.001). Quantitative impacts on sales underscore this influence. Products featuring at least five reviews exhibit a 270% higher likelihood of purchase compared to those without, with amplified effects for higher-priced items (380% conversion uplift). Optimal star ratings cluster between 4.0 and 4.7, as perfect scores may signal inauthenticity, while review volume beyond five yields . Negative reviews, paradoxically, can enhance perceived credibility by tempering overly positive aggregates, thereby guiding more informed decisions rather than blindly driving sales. In behavioral terms, reviews function as heuristics that mitigate , particularly for experience goods where quality is post-purchase verifiable. High review volumes signal popularity and reliability, while credible reviewer attributes (e.g., verified purchases) boost by 15% in conversion . However, this influence varies by product category and cultural context, with individualistic societies showing stronger valence effects in meta-analytic models. Overall, reviews shift decisions from price or toward peer-validated quality assessments, empirically elevating average sales uplifts to 18% across reviewed versus non-reviewed items.

Effects on Sales and Market Dynamics

Online customer reviews exert a significant influence on product sales, with empirical evidence indicating that both the valence (average rating) and volume (number of reviews) positively affect sales performance. A meta-analysis of 25 studies encompassing over 1,200 products across various categories found that review valence has a stronger impact on sales elasticities (effect size = 0.78) compared to review volume (effect size = 0.41), with effects amplified for high-involvement products and on third-party review platforms. This relationship holds across retail contexts, as higher valence signals perceived quality, driving purchase intent and reducing buyer uncertainty. Specific sector analyses quantify these effects: in the book market, Chevalier and Mayzlin (2006) analyzed data from Amazon.com and BarnesandNoble.com, revealing that improvements in review valence led to relative sales increases for reviewed titles, with the platform featuring more and longer reviews (Amazon) experiencing greater uplift compared to its competitor. Similarly, in the sector, Luca (2011) examined data and determined that a one-star rating increase correlates with a 5-9% boost, attributable to heightened trust and traffic. Negative reviews demonstrate asymmetric potency due to , often reducing sales more than equivalent positive reviews increase them, as supported by applications in review valence studies. For unknown or small-scale sellers, such as leather craftsmen on platforms like Etsy, initial 50–100 reviews from friends or early customers, often accompanied by photos, provide crucial social proof, building trust and visibility on marketplaces. High ratings (e.g., 4.8–5.0) from satisfied buyers emphasizing quality lead to increased sales, as seen with individual sellers like Tanner Leatherstein achieving over $1.1 million in sales through hundreds of positive feedbacks. Beyond direct , reviews reshape market dynamics by lowering barriers and intensifying . They enable consumers to discriminate transparently, incentivizing firms to invest in product improvements and responsive strategies, such as addressing to sustain ratings. In two-stage markets, the presence of reviews prompts early-stage enhancements and price reductions to build volume and positive sentiment, fostering competitive pricing and innovation. This transparency benefits high-quality entrants by accelerating building, potentially eroding incumbents' advantages in low-barrier environments, though initial review scarcity can pose hurdles for new products. Overall, reviews contribute to market by aligning with verifiable experiences, reducing returns (e.g., up to 20% fewer via informed decisions), and shifting share toward differentiated offerings.

Empirical Studies and Data

Empirical studies demonstrate that online customer exert a substantial influence on purchasing decisions. A encompassing 156 studies and 214 effect sizes from 69,006 observations established a significant positive relationship between online reviews and purchase , with review valence exhibiting the strongest effect (correlation coefficient r = 0.563), surpassing volume and other characteristics; this effect was moderated by factors such as and involvement, which amplified the impact in high-involvement scenarios. An eye-tracking experiment involving participants evaluating products on platforms revealed that allocate greater visual attention to negative reviews, evidenced by higher fixation dwell times and counts (p < 0.001), leading to purchase avoidance in 70% of cases where attention focused on negatives; differences emerged, with females showing stronger correlations between negative review attention and non-purchase decisions (p = 0.007). On the economic front, reviews drive measurable changes in volumes and conversion rates. A of 26 empirical studies, yielding 443 elasticities across diverse products like books and , quantified review valence's at 0.78—indicating a robust positive association with —and at 0.41; valence proved more influential overall, with effects strengthened for high-involvement products, third-party platforms, and critic reviews. Analysis of data by the Spiegel Research Center indicated that products accompanied by five reviews exhibit a 270% higher purchase likelihood compared to those without, with conversion rates rising 190% for low-priced items and 380% for high-priced ones; optimal star ratings clustered between 4.0 and 4.7, as nearing 5.0 stars paradoxically reduced conversions, while verified buyer reviews boosted purchase odds by an additional 15%. These findings underscore reviews' role in altering market dynamics, where incremental review accumulation yields diminishing but persistent uplifts, particularly for experience goods reliant on peer validation.

Reliability and Integrity Issues

Factors Compromising Reliability

Several empirical studies identify the prevalence of fake or manipulated reviews as a primary factor undermining the reliability of customer reviews. For instance, analyses of Amazon product reviews have estimated that up to 30% of reviews for top-selling items may be fake, often generated through organized campaigns involving paid reviewers or bots. Similar patterns appear across platforms, with showing 10.7% questionable reviews, 7.1%, and TripAdvisor 5.2%, based on algorithmic detection of suspicious patterns such as unnatural volume spikes or templated language, which, while intended to detect fake reviews, can inadvertently filter out genuine reviews that exhibit similar patterns, such as sudden increases in submission volume. These manipulations distort aggregate ratings, as fake positive reviews inflate perceived while suppressing negative feedback, leading consumers to overestimate product value. Incentivized reviews further compromise integrity by introducing bias through compensation, whether monetary or in-kind. Platforms like Amazon have historically allowed programs such as , where reviewers receive free products in exchange for honest opinions, but illicit incentives—such as discounts or cash payments from sellers—prevalent in ecosystems encourage overly positive feedback. Research distinguishes incentivized reviews by their linguistic traits, including higher positivity rates and repetitive phrasing, which reduce perceived authenticity and erode trust when detected by consumers. Such practices violate platform terms and regulatory standards, yet their persistence stems from sellers' incentives to boost visibility in algorithm-driven search results. Self-selection arises because reviewers tend to represent extremes of rather than the , skewing toward dissatisfied or exceptionally satisfied users. Statistical models applied to review datasets reveal that this can amplify perceived variance, with positive self-selection inflating satisfaction metrics on high-rated products while underrepresenting neutral outcomes. For example, who encounter major flaws are more likely to post detailed negative reviews, whereas routine users often abstain, resulting in polarized aggregates that mislead on typical performance. Additional reliability issues include reviewer and unverifiable identities, which facilitate without , and conflicts of where insiders or affiliates post disguised endorsements. Studies applying highlight how low —due to absent verification or suspicious reviewer histories—diminishes trust, prompting consumers to discount reviews lacking contextual details like purchase proof. Exaggerated for personal gain, such as reviewers seeking reciprocity from brands, further erodes factual accuracy, as linguistic detects inflated claims uncorrelated with product attributes. Newly established companies may lack online customer reviews or user feedback because they have operated for a short time and have not yet accumulated sufficient operational history or public feedback. This absence can compromise reliability assessments by limiting available data for consumers to evaluate the business, potentially hindering trust and purchase decisions. Collectively, these factors foster systemic , with surveys indicating that a majority of consumers now approach reviews cautiously, cross-referencing multiple sources to mitigate .

Prevalence and Forms of Fake Reviews

Fake reviews represent a substantial fraction of online consumer feedback, with peer-reviewed and industry analyses estimating that 15% to 30% of reviews on major platforms may be fraudulent. On , a econometric study identified approximately 16% of reviews as potentially manipulated, often through coordinated posting patterns or reviewer behavior inconsistent with genuine users. Prevalence varies by platform and sector; for instance, Amazon has faced scrutiny for millions of products affected by fake endorsements, while reported removing over 2.1 million suspicious reviews in 2019 alone, indicating systemic issues in travel and domains. Consumer surveys corroborate high exposure, with around 80% of shoppers encountering suspected fakes annually, particularly among younger demographics who rely heavily on review aggregators. The forms of fake reviews can be broadly classified into promotional manipulations aimed at inflating ratings and destructive efforts to undermine competitors, though both exploit platform vulnerabilities. Promotional fakes include paid reviews, where businesses or third-party services compensate individuals—often via "review farms" in low-wage regions—to post fabricated positive feedback, a practice documented in FTC enforcement actions against operations generating thousands of such entries. Incentivized reviews involve offering free products, discounts, or other perks in exchange for favorable comments, violating disclosure norms and skewing authenticity, as highlighted in systematic reviews of consumer deception tactics. Fabricated reviews from non-purchasers or automated accounts further distort perceptions, with academic classifications noting their reliance on generic language or burst patterns uncharacteristic of organic posting. Destructive forms encompass negative fake reviews posted by rivals to sabotage sales, such as coordinated campaigns targeting high-rated products, which empirical studies link to measurable drops in demand. Review hijacking repurposes legitimate feedback from one product to another, often via copied text or manipulated metadata, amplifying misinformation across listings. Emerging variants include AI-generated reviews, leveraging large language models to produce scalable, seemingly human-like endorsements or criticisms; the FTC's 2024 rule explicitly prohibits these as deceptive testimonials, citing their potential to evade traditional detection. Additional subtypes involve astroturfing by insiders (e.g., friends or employees posing as customers) or trolling for disruption, though these are less prevalent than commercial manipulations per forensic analyses of review networks. Across categories, fakes often cluster in linguistic simplicity, extreme sentiment, or temporal anomalies, enabling partial detection but underscoring the challenge of eradicating them without compromising genuine expression.

Detection, Mitigation, and Market Responses

Detection of fake customer reviews primarily relies on algorithms that analyze textual, behavioral, and network features of reviews and reviewers. Supervised models, such as those employing techniques like DeBERTa, achieve high accuracy by processing linguistic patterns, sentiment inconsistencies, and metadata like review timing or rating distributions. Unsupervised methods detect anomalies through probabilistic distributions of non-fraudulent versus fraudulent content, while network-based approaches identify clusters of suspicious reviewer-product interactions, as fake reviews often involve coordinated buyers or sellers. Platforms like enhanced detection in 2023 with algorithms that removed 45% more fake reviews than in 2022, focusing on automated flagging of bulk submissions and spam patterns. However, these automated spam detection systems can sometimes filter genuine reviews if there is a sudden spike in volume, as this triggers alerts for unnatural patterns typically associated with fake review campaigns. There is no official threshold for what constitutes excessive volume, but steady review inflow is recommended to avoid such filtering, based on platform practices and community reports. Mitigation strategies encompass platform-enforced policies and technological interventions to reduce fake prevalence, estimated at around 30% of online reviews as of 2025. Review sites implement verification requirements, such as verified purchase labels on platforms, and user flagging systems to prioritize suspicious content for human . Automated removal campaigns have scaled significantly; for instance, major platforms deleted over 170 million suspected fake reviews in 2023 alone, targeting incentivized or fabricated feedback. Additional measures include limiting review volumes per account and integrating or behavioral analytics to deter bot-generated content, though challenges persist due to evolving tactics like AI-assisted review generation. Market responses reflect heightened consumer skepticism and business adaptations amid widespread fake review exposure, with 75% of consumers expressing concern over authenticity in 2024 surveys. Businesses counter by soliciting genuine reviews through post-purchase prompts and transparent engagement, aiming to dilute fake impacts via volume and credibility of authentic feedback. Negative fakes erode , prompting firms to invest in services that monitor and respond publicly to discrepancies, fostering trust through accountability rather than denial. Consumers increasingly cross-verify across platforms and prioritize reviews with detailed, photo-supported content, while markets see growth in third-party verification tools like Fakespot to grade review reliability. These adaptations underscore a shift toward empirical validation over unverified endorsements, though persistent fakes continue to undermine overall utility.

Key Regulations and Laws

In the United States, the (FTC) enforces key guidelines under Section 5 of the FTC Act prohibiting deceptive practices in advertising, including consumer reviews. The FTC's revised Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, updated on July 26, 2023, mandate that advertisers ensure endorsements like reviews reflect honest opinions and require clear disclosures of any material connections, such as payments or free products, between reviewers and sellers to avoid misleading consumers. Violations can result in civil penalties, with the FTC pursuing enforcement actions, such as the 2023 settlement against for suppressing negative reviews without disclosure. Complementing these guides, the FTC's Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials, finalized on August 14, 2024, and effective October 21, 2024, explicitly bans businesses from procuring, selling, or disseminating fake or fabricated reviews and testimonials, as well as from offering incentives to suppress honest . The rule imposes civil penalties up to $51,744 per violation and targets practices like review hijacking or altering ratings, aiming to curb manipulation observed in empirical studies showing up to 30% of reviews on some platforms as incentivized or fake. In the , the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (2005/29/EC), implemented across member states since 2008, classifies misleading representations of consumer reviews—such as faking or significantly altering them—as prohibited under Articles 6 (misleading actions) and 7 (misleading omissions), with national authorities enforcing fines for deceptive practices that distort consumer choices. For instance, France's 2023 consumer code amendments strengthened penalties for fake review operations, with fines up to €300,000 for platforms hosting undisclosed paid endorsements. The 's (Regulation (EU) 2022/2065), fully applicable to very large online platforms since August 17, 2024, requires intermediaries to prevent and remove fake reviews as illegal content, conduct risk assessments for systemic manipulation, and ban the buying, selling, or submitting of false reviews to promote products, with fines up to 6% of global turnover for non-compliance. This builds on the directive by imposing proactive obligations on platforms like Amazon, which reported removing over 200 million suspected fake reviews in 2023 under emerging DSA transparency requirements. Internationally, frameworks like the OECD's 2019 Recommendation on in influence national laws, emphasizing truth-in-advertising prohibitions against fake reviews, though enforcement varies; for example, the UK's Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, effective April 6, 2025, criminalizes commissioning fake reviews with penalties up to two years imprisonment.

Platform Policies and Enforcement

Major online review platforms maintain strict policies against fake, manipulated, or incentivized s to preserve authenticity and user trust. These policies typically prohibit compensated endorsements, fabricated experiences, conflicts of interest, and systematic solicitation, with violations leading to removal, account suspensions, or legal referrals. Enforcement combines automated detection algorithms, human moderation, and proactive blocking, often informed by to flag suspicious patterns such as unnatural volumes or linguistic anomalies. Amazon's Community Guidelines explicitly ban review manipulation, including paid or incentivized reviews, self-reviews, and false content, with the platform employing and investigators to detect violations. In 2024, Amazon blocked over 275 million suspected fake reviews before publication and suspended thousands of accounts involved in abuse networks. Enforcement extends to legal action against review brokers; for instance, in 2023, Amazon pursued a under the for trademark infringement related to fake reviews, marking its first such claim. Yelp's Content Guidelines prohibit , fake submissions, and conflicts like employee-written reviews, applying penalties such as deranking affected pages in search results for detected systematic abuse. The platform removed violating content following moderator reviews of flagged reports and, in 2023, closed over 278,600 user accounts for policy breaches while preventing more than 40,700 suspicious pages from launching. By 2024, Yelp upgraded its recommendation software to enhance detection of unhelpful or policy-violating reviews, filtering them from public visibility. Google's policies for Profiles and Maps require reviews to reflect genuine experiences, banning spam, fake , incentivized content, and or harassing posts. Violations trigger removal after automated or manual review, with the platform prohibiting businesses from demanding review deletions in exchange for refunds or services. Enforcement focuses on maintaining platform integrity, though specific annual statistics on removals remain undisclosed in public reports; collaborates with users to report spam, emphasizing real-time filtering to curb manipulation. Across platforms, challenges persist due to evolving tactics by bad actors, prompting investments in AI-driven monitoring and, in some cases, alignment with regulatory frameworks like the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's 2024 rule banning the sale or purchase of fake reviews. While platforms report high removal rates, independent analyses suggest fake reviews still comprise 10-30% of content on major sites, underscoring the limits of self-regulation without consistent third-party audits.

Debates on Regulation Efficacy

The Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) final rule on consumer reviews and testimonials, effective October 21, 2024, explicitly prohibits the creation, purchase, sale, or dissemination of fake reviews, aiming to deter deceptive practices through civil penalties up to $51,744 per violation. Similarly, the European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA), fully applicable to large platforms since August 2024, mandates risk assessments for systemic issues like fake reviews and requires swift removal of illegal content, with fines up to 6% of global turnover for non-compliance. Proponents of these measures, including FTC officials, contend that codifying prohibitions into enforceable rules enhances deterrence beyond prior voluntary guidelines, citing historical enforcement actions—such as the FTC's 2023 settlement with a review brokerage firm for $4 million in fake reviews—as evidence of potential impact. Critics argue that regulatory efficacy remains limited by challenges, including the sheer volume of reviews (billions annually across platforms) and difficulties in detecting AI-generated or incentivized fakes, as evidenced by ongoing in empirical post-existing guidelines. For instance, despite FTC endorsement guides dating to 2009 requiring disclosure of material connections, studies indicate fake reviews continue to distort markets, with one NBER analysis estimating welfare losses from manipulated reviews exceeding billions in consumer surplus annually. In the EU, early DSA implementation has revealed loopholes, such as platforms misusing notice-and-action mechanisms to suppress legitimate negative reviews, undermining trust rather than enhancing it. Cross-border enforcement further complicates efficacy, as fake review operations often originate in jurisdictions with lax oversight, evading U.S. or penalties; a 2021 comparative legal review highlighted that while instruments impose proactive platform obligations, U.S. reliance on reactive FTC cases yields inconsistent results due to resource constraints. Business advocacy groups have expressed concerns that the FTC rule's broad scope may stifle legitimate incentives without addressing root causes like low detection rates (estimated below 10% for sophisticated fakes in recent surveys), potentially leading to over-reliance on imperfect algorithmic moderation. Empirical data from post-regulation periods, such as persistent fake review markets on freelance sites, suggest that while regulations signal intent, causal reductions in fakery require verifiable metrics like platform-reported removal rates, which remain opaque and contested as of 2025.

Criticisms and Broader Implications

Subjectivity and Consumer Responsibility

Customer reviews are inherently subjective, embodying personal opinions shaped by individual experiences, expectations, and contextual factors rather than standardized metrics. This subjectivity manifests in wide rating variances for identical products, as perceptions diverge based on usage scenarios, prior biases, and emotional states. Analysis of over 2 million Amazon reviews via convolutional neural networks demonstrated that linguistic subjectivity correlates with perceived review helpfulness, yet excessive blending of subjective and objective elements can overwhelm and yield subadditive effects on evaluations. Contributing factors include self-selection, where only those with strong positive or negative views contribute, yielding polarized distributions unrepresentative of typical users; for experience goods, post-purchase timing further embeds subjective assessments of intangible qualities like satisfaction. Negative reviews amplify influence through heightened subjectivity, as consumers interpret them as diagnostic signals of potential flaws, mediating sentiment's impact on deemed usefulness. Such dynamics underscore that aggregate star ratings obscure underlying opinion heterogeneity, potentially misleading uncritical readers. Consumers bear responsibility for navigating this subjectivity by actively verifying review authenticity and , as passive reliance on volumes or averages heightens to skewed signals; surveys indicate 82% of U.S. consumers consult reviews for initial purchases, with negative ones exerting outsized sway on decisions. Effective strategies involve scrutinizing consistency across diverse reviews, favoring verified purchaser accounts over anonymous ones, examining reviewer histories for patterns, and integrating objective data such as technical specifications or third-party tests. Educational efforts highlight detecting anomalies like repetitive phrasing or temporal clusters indicative of fabrication, fostering discernment to align choices with personal needs amid pervasive opinion variance. Overlooking these steps risks mismatched acquisitions, as no review universally predicts individual outcomes.

Impacts on Businesses and Competition

Fake reviews distort market competition by enabling unscrupulous sellers to artificially inflate product ratings, thereby diverting sales from honest competitors who rely on genuine feedback. Empirical analysis of Amazon data reveals that sellers purchasing fake reviews experience an 18.3% increase in sales and a 14% rise in profits, while non-manipulating sellers suffer a 3.5% sales drop and 4.7% profit decline, as consumers misallocate demand toward lower-quality offerings. This manipulation intensifies price competition, with fake-review users raising prices by a median of $0.19 and honest sellers lowering theirs by $0.06 in response, yet the net effect disadvantages ethical businesses by eroding their market share. The economic toll on businesses is substantial, with fake reviews estimated to cost U.S. firms nearly $152 billion annually in lost through misguided purchases and reputational harm. Small and medium-sized enterprises, which often lack the scale or tools to detect and counter review fraud, face amplified vulnerability, including targeted negative fake reviews from rivals that tarnish reputations and suppress demand. Such practices undermine merit-based , as superior products from legitimate sellers receive diminished visibility, fostering inefficiency where market outcomes reflect manipulation rather than quality or value. Overall, pervasive fake reviews erode trust in online reputation systems, compelling platforms to invest in detection while honest businesses incur ongoing costs to rebuild confidence, ultimately hindering innovation and fair rivalry in .

Ethical and Future Challenges

Ethical concerns in customer review systems arise primarily from incentives that encourage biased or fabricated feedback, creating moral hazards for both businesses and . Businesses often offer rewards such as discounts or free products for positive reviews, which can distort authenticity by pressuring reviewers to withhold or exaggerate satisfaction, as evidenced by studies showing that financial incentives increase the likelihood of dishonest feedback. Review gating practices, where companies selectively suppress negative reviews, further exacerbate this by presenting skewed representations of product quality, raising questions about transparency and fairness in online marketplaces. These tactics not only undermine trust but also create competitive disadvantages for honest firms, as manipulated ratings can artificially inflate market positions without reflecting true value. Privacy issues compound these ethical dilemmas, particularly as review platforms collect extensive from users, including purchase histories and behavioral patterns, often without adequate safeguards against misuse. In sectors like healthcare, soliciting reviews implicates regulations such as HIPAA, where disclosures could inadvertently reveal sensitive patient , highlighting tensions between feedback aggregation and individual . Broader data handling practices on platforms have led to concerns over unauthorized sharing or profiling, with consumers expressing high levels of unease about control over their in review ecosystems. Looking ahead, the integration of poses profound challenges to review integrity, as AI-generated fake reviews are projected to proliferate, mimicking human language patterns with increasing sophistication and evading traditional detection methods. By 2025, statistics indicate a surge in such content, with AI tools enabling scalable deception that could erode overall trust in online ratings, potentially rendering them unreliable for decision-making. While AI also offers tools for flagging anomalies—such as Google's systems removing 45% more fakes in 2023—the between generation and detection technologies risks escalating costs for platforms and regulators. Future mitigation may require innovations like blockchain-verified identities or mandatory disclosure of AI assistance, though implementation faces hurdles in global enforcement and user adoption, potentially widening disparities between large platforms with resources and smaller entities.

References

  1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/customer-review
  2. https://results.shopperapproved.com/blog/the-history-and-evolution-of-online-reviews
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9216200/
  4. https://www.powerreviews.com/the-complete-guide-to-ratings-reviews/
  5. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.865702/full
  6. https://www.mdpi.com/0718-1876/19/2/55
  7. https://www.invespcro.com/blog/fake-reviews-statistics/
  8. https://wiserreview.com/blog/fake-review-statistics/
  9. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/consumer-reviews-testimonials-rule-questions-answers
  10. https://www.salsify.com/glossary/customer-reviews-meaning
  11. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220259990_What_Makes_a_Helpful_Online_Review_A_Study_of_Customer_Reviews_on_Amazoncom
  12. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0148296322005446
  13. https://misq.umn.edu/misq/article/34/1/185/499/What-Makes-a-Helpful-Online-Review-A-Study-of
  14. https://www.marketing91.com/customer-reviews/
  15. https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/customer-review/63267
  16. https://marketing.link/customer-reviews-types-and-examples-of-how-they-appear-on-a-page/
  17. https://blog.reviews.io/post/online-customer-reviews-ultimate-guide
  18. https://www.mod24.com/blog/verified-vs-unverified-reviews-key-differences
  19. https://www.opinew.com/help-center/knowledge-base/what-are-verified-and-unverified-reviews/
  20. https://zonkafeedback.com/blog/structured-vs-unstructured-data
  21. https://reviewinsights.pro/benefits-customer-reviews-with-photos-videos/
  22. https://www.bakergoodchild.co.uk/a-brief-history-of-customer-feedback/
  23. https://www.customerthermometer.com/customer-satisfaction/evolution-of-customer-feedback/
  24. https://www.lucidworks.com/blog/the-history-of-customer-service
  25. https://www.investopedia.com/what-is-the-better-business-bureau-5024818
  26. https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095634397
  27. https://impact.duke.edu/story/consumer-reports-archives-come-duke
  28. https://www.nyguild.org/about-consumers-union
  29. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/anticipating-21st-century-competition-policy-new-high-tech-global-marketplace/gc_v2.pdf
  30. https://www.encyclopedia.com/books/politics-and-business-magazines/consumers-union
  31. https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/policy-news-views/how-amazon-is-working-to-stop-fake-reviews
  32. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2009-10-15/amazon-turning-consumer-opinions-into-gold
  33. https://www.auctionnudge.com/guides/an-absolute-beginners-guide-to-the-ebay-feedback-system/
  34. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2014/03/12/epinions-the-path-breaking-website-is-dead-some-lessons-it-taught-us/
  35. https://expertreputation.com/the-history-of-online-reviews/
  36. https://www.chatmeter.com/resource/blog/the-history-of-online-business-reviews/
  37. https://matrixbcg.com/blogs/brief-history/tripadvisor
  38. https://www.yelp-press.com/company/fast-facts/default.aspx
  39. https://mashable.com/article/can-you-trust-online-reviews
  40. https://revulab.io/when-did-google-reviews-start/
  41. https://blog.yelp.com/news/yelp-100-million-reviews-and-counting/
  42. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kirimasters/2021/03/22/a-short-history-of-amazons-product-review-ecosystem/
  43. https://capitaloneshopping.com/research/online-reviews-statistics/
  44. https://www.chatmeter.com/resource/blog/25-stats-that-prove-the-power-of-online-reviews/
  45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2543925123000323
  46. https://spiegel.medill.northwestern.edu/how-online-reviews-influence-sales/
  47. https://www.dixa.com/blog/3-important-statistics-that-show-how-reviews-influence-consumers/
  48. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022435914000293
  49. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w10148/w10148.pdf
  50. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12626-018-0022-9
  51. https://yomarkick.com/customer-reviews-impact/
  52. https://www.alura.io/post/can-reviews-help-increase-sales-on-etsy
  53. https://www.tiktok.com/@tanner.leatherstein/video/7504797017575542062
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9990590/
  55. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883902618301344
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7501828/
  57. https://wiserreview.com/blog/are-google-reviews-reliable/
  58. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8294234/
  59. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329921529_Unfolding_the_characteristics_of_incentivized_online_reviews
  60. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10864415.2024.2401949
  61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923624000320
  62. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11628-025-00590-6
  63. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264253820_Factors_affecting_consumers%27_trust_in_online_product_reviews
  64. https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=marketing_pub
  65. https://truthinadvertising.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/1_9_23-TINA-Fake-Reviews-Comment.pdf
  66. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10864415.2025.2556642
  67. https://www.informs.org/News-Room/INFORMS-Releases/News-Releases/New-Research-Says-Displaying-Fake-Reviews-Increases-Consumer-Trust-in-Review-Platforms-by-80
  68. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9001162/
  69. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2211932119
  70. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/08/federal-trade-commission-announces-final-rule-banning-fake-reviews-testimonials
  71. https://pirg.org/edfund/resources/how-to-recognize-fake-online-reviews-of-products-and-services/
  72. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451958823000118
  73. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31836/w31836.pdf
  74. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969698921003374
  75. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-89453-8
  76. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9704690/
  77. https://searchengineland.com/google-says-it-took-down-45-more-fake-reviews-in-2023-thanks-to-new-algorithm-437437
  78. https://almcorp.com/blog/google-reviews-deleted-ai-legal-takedowns-2025/
  79. https://shapo.io/blog/fake-review-statistics/
  80. https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/five-practices-fight-fake-online-reviews-build-consumer-trust
  81. https://www.altexsoft.com/blog/fake-review-detection/
  82. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/knowledge-engineering-review/article/recent-stateoftheart-of-fake-review-detection-a-comprehensive-review/F02E8339C43A62BA63EBD54A1608F785
  83. https://www.emarketer.com/content/fake-online-reviews-spread--do-consumers--concerns
  84. https://www.entrepreneur.com/starting-a-business/6-ways-to-protect-your-online-reputation-from-fake-reviews/465597
  85. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14413582241283505
  86. https://www.bazaarvoice.com/press/bazaarvoice-study-reveals-consumers-concern-about-fake-reviews-63-think-brands-should-be-solving-the-issue/
  87. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/07/26/2023-14795/guides-concerning-the-use-of-endorsements-and-testimonials-in-advertising
  88. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/advertising-marketing/endorsements-influencers-reviews
  89. https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2024/08/ftc-issues-final-rule-on-consumer-reviews-and-testimonials
  90. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/it/ip_22_394
  91. https://www.dreyfus.fr/en/2025/06/30/fake-online-reviews-france-strengthens-legal-oversight/
  92. https://trustworthyshopping.aboutamazon.com/digital-services-act-dsa-amazon-eu-store-transparency-report
  93. https://one.oecd.org/document/DSTI/CP%282019%295/FINAL/En/pdf
  94. https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/insights-and-events/insights/2025/04/new-rules-on-fake-and-misleading-consumer-reviews
  95. https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=G8CXDFT9GLRRSV3G
  96. https://support.google.com/contributionpolicy/answer/7400114?hl=en
  97. https://terms.yelp.com/tos/en_us/20200101_en_us/
  98. https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/policy-news-views/amazons-latest-actions-against-fake-review-brokers
  99. https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/policy-news-views/amazons-latest-actions-against-fake-review-brokers-2023
  100. https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=GLHXEX85MENUE4XF
  101. https://biz.yelp.com/support-center/article/What-is-Yelp-s-review-solicitation-penalty
  102. https://www.yelp-ir.com/news/press-releases/news-release-details/2024/Yelp-Publishes-2023-Trust--Safety-Report/default.aspx
  103. https://trust.yelp.com/trust-and-safety-report/2024-report/
  104. https://support.google.com/business/answer/7667250?hl=en
  105. https://birdeye.com/blog/google-review-policy/
  106. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925527324001804
  107. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/dsa-impact-platforms
  108. https://ppc.land/german-businesses-systematically-delete-critical-reviews-using-eu-digital-services-act/
  109. https://myscp.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jcpy.1382
  110. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2019/09/understanding-online-consumer-ratings-and-reviews_0251efa5/eb018587-en.pdf
  111. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cb.2277
  112. https://www.anderson.ucla.edu/sites/default/files/document/2025-05/hollenbeck_gandhi_fake_reviews.pdf
  113. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/hollenbeck_fake_reviews_slides_ftc.pdf
  114. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/08/fake-online-reviews-are-a-152-billion-problem-heres-how-to-silence-them/
  115. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0148296323002539
  116. https://www.investigatetv.com/2022/10/17/five-star-fakes-small-business-owners-feel-big-impact-fake-online-reviews/
  117. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378795135_Incentivised_dishonesty_Moral_frameworks_underlying_fake_online_reviews
  118. https://www.textedly.com/blog/the-ethics-of-review-gating-what-you-need-to-know
  119. https://www.paubox.com/blog/navigating-the-ethics-of-soliciting-reviews-for-mental-health-professionals
  120. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022435920300361
  121. https://www.techradar.com/pro/im-an-ai-expert-and-heres-why-fake-ai-reviews-are-going-to-be-a-massive-problem-very-soon
  122. https://yec.co/blog/how-googles-ai-fights-fake-reviews-and-safeguards-reputations/
  123. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0969698925001791
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.