“Avoiding Pitfalls” Becomes a Consumer Trap? Media Calls for Evaluation and Crackdown on “Third-Party Assessments”
Nowadays, “watching reviews before shopping” has become a common practice for many consumers. Ms. Chen from Jiangsu purchased a dress after watching a video from a reviewer with 2 million followers, only to find that the actual product was significantly different from what was shown in the video. In recent years, some reviews that were supposed to help consumers avoid pitfalls have turned into traps, with some reviewers conducting fake evaluations while genuinely promoting products, using absolute terms to exaggerate their claims.
On e-commerce platforms, a wide array of products is available, and marketing strategies can be highly misleading, leaving many consumers feeling confused. In this context, “third-party review” bloggers and their videos, which are intended to help consumers avoid pitfalls, have become increasingly popular. When this type of video first emerged, accounts that provided empirical data and conducted scientific evaluations indeed helped consumers quickly compare product advantages and disadvantages to make purchasing decisions. However, as the ability of these videos to attract followers increased, more and more bloggers joined the review ranks to seize market opportunities, leading to “wild growth” characterized by a lack of qualifications, low evaluation standards, fake reviews that promote products, and smear campaigns against other companies, causing a gradual loss of trust in “third-party reviews.”
Whether it is the significant discrepancy between reviews and actual products, the use of absolute terms for exaggeration, or fake reviews that genuinely promote products, all of these practices involve misleading consumers through false evaluations, especially when promotion is disguised as review. Such actions may violate laws including the Advertising Law, the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and the Consumer Rights Protection Law. For instance, the Advertising Law clearly states that “advertisements must not contain false content and must not deceive or mislead consumers.”
False “third-party reviews” can also infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of some producers and operators, disrupting a healthy market order. Recently, the Intermediate People’s Court of Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, disclosed a typical case: a company published review articles on social media comparing eight brands of sunscreen clothing without scientific basis. The court found that the data indicated in the defendant’s review articles lacked scientific validity and reliability, easily misleading the public and affecting consumers’ purchasing decisions, constituting unfair competition.
Therefore, we need to conduct a review and crackdown on “third-party reviews.” Relevant platforms should strictly verify the qualifications of review bloggers and establish an effective control mechanism. For example, they should improve certification and access management mechanisms, enhance the review content audit process, and establish emergency complaint handling procedures, while fully utilizing digital technology for real-time monitoring of “third-party review” content. Regulatory authorities should impose severe penalties on review practitioners who seriously violate laws and regulations, creating a fair and orderly market environment and legally protecting consumers’ rights. Additionally, regarding false reviews, the legal liability of the platform should be clearly defined to compel the platform to take action. Review bloggers should strictly adhere to relevant laws and regulations, ensuring that their content is truthful, objective, and accurate, and should take explicit measures to remind consumers about commercial advertising content, firmly rejecting commercial smear and defamation practices.
Only by continuously improving the authenticity of “third-party reviews” can they withstand scrutiny from society. A new avenue that should serve as a helpful tool for consumers must not slide into the abyss of public fear and skepticism.
