Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLCScarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLC

Firm Insights

FTC Settles Enforcement Action Against Retailer for Failing to Post Negative Online Reviews

Author: Michael J. Sheppeard

Date: February 16, 2022

Key Contacts

Back
FTC Settles Enforcement Action Against Retailer for Failing to Post Negative Online Reviews

For online retailers, it is important to take the bad with the good when it comes to online reviews...

For online retailers, it is important to take the bad with the good when it comes to online reviews. If not, you could face enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

The FTC recently announced that online fashion retailer Fashion Nova, LLC will pay $4.2 million to settle allegations that the company blocked negative reviews of its products from being posted to its website. “Deceptive review practices cheat consumers, undercut honest businesses, and pollute online commerce,” Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a press statement. “Fashion Nova is being held accountable for these practices, and other firms should take note.”

What Did the FTC Allege?

According to the FTC’s complaint, Fashion Nova is a “fast fashion” apparel company based in California. Each product page on the Fashion Nova website provides consumers with the opportunity to review the product and rate it on a five-star scale. At the bottom of each product page is a button labeled “Write a Review.” Consumers who click on the button are encouraged to give the product a star rating from one to five, write a review, and “Post” it. If there are no customer reviews for a particular product, consumers are encouraged to “Be the First to Write a Review.” Fashion Nova also sent its customers emails soliciting product reviews of the customers’ recent purchases. Each product page with existing reviews displayed the product’s average star rating and a summary graph of the number of reviews with each star rating, followed by individual consumers’ reviews and ratings.

According to the FTC, Fashion Nova installed a third-party online product review management interface, which allows users to choose to have certain reviews automatically post based upon their star ratings and hold lower-starred reviews for client approval prior to posting. From as early as late 2015 through mid-November 2019, Fashion Nova chose to have four- and five-star reviews automatically post to the website, but did not approve or publish hundreds of thousands lower-starred, more negative reviews.

The FTC’s complaint alleged that the product reviews on the Fashion Nova website did not accurately reflect the views of all purchasers who submitted reviews of the products because in numerous instances the company suppressed product reviews with ratings lower than four stars. These practices constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, according to the FTC. Section 5(a) authorizes the FTC to investigate and challenge “unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce.” 

What Are the Consequences for the Online Retailer?

Under the proposed settlement, Fashion Nova will pay $4.2 million. The retailer will also be prohibited from making misrepresentations about any customer reviews or other endorsements. In addition, it must post on its website all customer reviews of products currently being sold—with the exception of reviews that contain obscene, sexually explicit, racist, or unlawful content and reviews that are unrelated to the product or customer services like shipping or returns.

Is Additional Enforcement on the Horizon?

The FTC also announced that it is sending letters to 10 companies offering review management services, placing them on notice that avoiding the collection or publication of negative reviews violates the FTC Act. As discussed in prior articles, the FTC also has enforcement authority over online reviews under the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA). The statute prohibits companies from employing a contract provision that bars or restricts review of a company’s products, services, or conduct; imposes a penalty or fee against someone who provides a review; or mandates surrender of intellectual property rights in the content of reviews.

If you have questions, please contact us

If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Michael Sheppeard, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-896-4100.

No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLC

Related Posts

See all
Dissolving Your Business: Essential Legal Steps to Protect Your Interests post image

Dissolving Your Business: Essential Legal Steps to Protect Your Interests

If you’re considering closing your business, it’s crucial to understand that simply shutting your doors does not end your legal obligations. Unless you formally dissolve your business, it continues to exist in the eyes of the law—leaving you exposed to ongoing liabilities such as taxes, compliance violations, and potential lawsuits. Dissolving a business can seem […]

Author: Christopher D. Warren

Link to post with title - "Dissolving Your Business: Essential Legal Steps to Protect Your Interests"
The Role of Corporate Restructuring in Mergers & Acquisitions post image

The Role of Corporate Restructuring in Mergers & Acquisitions

Contrary to what many people think, corporate restructuring isn’t all doom and gloom. Revamping a company’s organizational structure, corporate hierarchy, or operations procedures can help keep your business competitive. This is particularly true during challenging times. Corporate restructuring plays a critical role in modern business strategy. It helps companies adapt quickly to market changes. Following […]

Author: Dan Brecher

Link to post with title - "The Role of Corporate Restructuring in Mergers & Acquisitions"
Crypto Enforcement: A Former Prosecutor’s Warning to Criminals and the Public post image

Crypto Enforcement: A Former Prosecutor’s Warning to Criminals and the Public

Cryptocurrency intimidates most people. The reason is straightforward. People fear what they do not understand. When confusion sets in, the common reaction is either to ignore the subject entirely or to mistrust it. For years, that is exactly how most of the public and even many in law enforcement treated cryptocurrency. However, such apprehension changed […]

Author: Bryce S. Robins

Link to post with title - "Crypto Enforcement: A Former Prosecutor’s Warning to Criminals and the Public"
Understanding Chattel Paper: A Key Component in Secured Transactions post image

Understanding Chattel Paper: A Key Component in Secured Transactions

Using chattel paper to obtain a security interest in personal property is a powerful tool. It can ensure lenders have a legal claim on collateral ranging from inventory to intellectual property. To reduce risk and protect your legal rights, businesses and lenders should understand the legal framework. This framework governs the creation, sale, and enforcement […]

Author: Dan Brecher

Link to post with title - "Understanding Chattel Paper: A Key Component in Secured Transactions"
Crypto Compliance: A Comprehensive Guide post image

Crypto Compliance: A Comprehensive Guide

For years, digital assets operated in a legal gray area, a frontier where innovation outpaced the reach of regulators and law enforcement. In this early “Wild West” phase of finance, crypto startups thrived under minimal oversight. That era, however, is coming to an end. The importance of crypto compliance has become paramount as cryptocurrency has […]

Author: Bryce S. Robins

Link to post with title - "Crypto Compliance: A Comprehensive Guide"
Supreme Court and Title VII: Implications for Reverse Discrimination post image

Supreme Court and Title VII: Implications for Reverse Discrimination

Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vitiating the so-called “background circumstances” test required by half of federal circuit courts.1 The background circumstances test required majority group plaintiffs pleading discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to meet a heightened pleading standard […]

Author: Matthew F. Mimnaugh

Link to post with title - "Supreme Court and Title VII: Implications for Reverse Discrimination"

No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!

Explore What Matters Most to You.

Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.

Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.

Let`s get in touch!

* The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!