Amazon has decided to take legal action against more than a thousand users, accused of writing fake reviews.
One of Amazon’s strengths – in addition to the incredible vastness of its catalog – is undoubtedly the ability to read reviews left by buyers before proceeding to purchase the item of one’s interest.
Very often, subscribers, after having bought and started trying some goods, decide to leave a review, so as to guide future consumers.
Not only that: thanks to Amazon’s review system, those interested in an item but who have doubts about certain features can formulate specific questions, to which the “reviewer” users can answer based on their own experience and opinion.
Apparently, however, in the recent period something has not gone the right way: the staff responsible for reviewing controls has identified a group of users responsible for writing fake reviews.
Amazon has already filed a lawsuit against 1,114 defendants, as reported by the Ansa website.
These users would have in fact written fake positive reviews, in exchange for money. All to ensure that the products of certain companies could become more appealing and obtain positive opinions online.
Ansa explains that the minimum compensation for these users would be $5 on the fiverr.com website; the latter, according to what is learned, would not, however, be among the reported subjects.
On the other hand, Fiverr’s regulations also prohibit this kind of misconduct, so much so that measures have also been taken on this site against these users.
Amazon therefore wishes to protect itself and at the same time assure all products and merchants selling on the portal that the staff shows attention to these undoubtedly insidious aspects, as it risks undermining the seriousness of more than one brand.
Meanwhile, after gathering data and evidence, Amazon clarifies that the clearly false reviews have been eliminated, so as not to provide misleading and false judgments to potential buyers.
Developments in this matter are therefore expected in the coming months, certainly interesting as it is a possible prelude to future rulings for similar situations in this specific field.

Be the first to comment