Posting fake reviews is not just an unfair practice; it is potentially criminal: Forum

I have always known that some businesses post fake reviews online, but I am shocked to learn of the scale and organised nature of this unethical practice (Competition watchdog acts against fake review provider, 45 businesses for fabricating online reviews, Sept 30).

I am glad that under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act 2003 (CPFTA), which prohibits various unfair business practices, the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCS) is taking action against those involved in such fraudulent acts – both the providers of fake review services and the businesses that use them.

I do not use the word “fraudulent” lightly. Providing fake review services, or using them, can arguably amount not only to an unfair practice under the CPFTA, but also to the crime of fraud by false representation under section 424A or 424B of the Penal Code 1871. That offence is punishable by a fine and/or up to 20 years’ imprisonment.

Sections 424A and 424B make it an offence to fraudulently make a false representation. The Penal Code defines “fraudulently” broadly. The definition includes acts intended to deceive others to benefit oneself or someone else. The word “representation” refers to a statement communicated to others.

When someone posts a review of a business, they thereby, by implication, declare to the public that they are a real person; that they honestly believe in the content of the review; and that there is some factual basis to the review, such as the reviewer’s experience with the business.

If any of these implied statements is false, that may show that the intent behind the review was to deceive others into thinking that the business is more popular or well-regarded than it otherwise is, with the aim of securing financial advantage for the business.

It appears to me that this would fall within the legal definition of acting “fraudulently”. That is so even if the fake review is not the decisive factor that causes consumers to patronise the business in question.

Further, I would point out that it is not only the providers of such fraudulent review services and the businesses that use them who might get into trouble. The CCS press release included screenshots of a Telegram channel that invites users to post fake reviews in return for money. Those users, too, could potentially face criminal liability.

Finally, if the business in question provides certain regulated professional services (such as medical or legal services), there can be professional disciplinary consequences for the professionals involved.

Errant doctors, lawyers and other professionals who commit acts involving fraud or dishonesty are often suspended, if not stripped of their licence to practise altogether, because they have abused the trust that the public places in them as professionals.

Benjamin Joshua Ong

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

ADV: Open for pre-sale: The Singapore Judiciary – A Bicentennial History Seeing P2 boy with HSA fine for vaping spurred SMU law student to create app for youth to quit habit