A federal rule banning fake online reviews is now in effect.

The Federal Trade Commission issued the rulein August banning the sale or purchase of online reviews. The rule, which went into effect Monday, allows the agency to seek civil penalties against those who knowingly violate it.

“Fake reviews not only waste people’s time and money, but also pollute the marketplace and divert business away from honest competitors,” FTC Chair Lina Khan said about the rule in August. She added that the rule will “protect Americans from getting cheated, put businesses that unlawfully game the system on notice, and promote markets that are fair, honest, and competitive.”

  • mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 month ago

    IMO, corporate punishments should work like that: steal a little from someone? Lose 90 days of profit. Steal a lot? Lose a couple years of profits. Kill someone? Lose 20 years of profits

    • Entertainmeonly@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Jailing CEOs works better only because money is easy to manipulate. Loosing 20 years of profit just means bankruptcy. Make a new name new company buys all assets of bankrupt at fault company and nothing but the name changes. I’m with the idea that if companies have personhood than the person in charge is responsible for harm that personhood does.

        • moakley@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          The CEO would just be a fall guy, and the decision-making would go to someone else.

        • Fedizen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          I mean given the depths they’ll go through to dodge taxes I think they absolutely would change behavior.

      • Traister101@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        No. That’s not what that means. Profit by definition is the excess revenue that isn’t required to run the business.

        • zbyte64@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Cool, so just do stock buy backs to eat the profits while rewarding the executive suite

          • Traister101@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            So again. Profit is the excess revenue (this time in bold and italicized) that isn’t needed to run the business. Believe it or not stock buy backs aren’t required to run a business. Weird huh?

            • zbyte64@awful.systems
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              Compensating your employees is an expense needed to run the business. Those buybacks is just the cost of doing business.

    • Wogi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      They tried that when McDonald’s served coffee that gave an old woman 3rd degree burns on her genitals.

      A single days profits from coffee.

      McDonald’s fought that in court, and spent many thousands of dollars on a PR campaign to vilify the woman they burned.

    • Sabata@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      Jail or volcano sacrifice. I’m sick of rich fucks being above the law and fines are just an expected, calculated, and bet against expense to a big business.