Competition watchdog acts against fake review provider, 45 businesses for fabricating online reviews

A fake review provider and 45 businesses that had used the service have been taken to task by Singapore’s competition watchdog for fabricating online reviews.

In a statement on Sept 30, the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCS) said two websites – BuyReviewSG and GetReviewSG – were found to have provided fake review services to about 100 businesses.

The websites were owned by Julian Tung Yan Kai, who is the sole director of Reputifly – a company that operated the websites.

This marks the commission’s largest fake review investigation to date in terms of the number of businesses involved, prompting a two-phase probe.

The first phase covers the fake review provider and 47 businesses that had procured its services.

Of these, 45 businesses admitted they had bought fake reviews from the provider.

They have agreed to stop their unfair practices, remove the fake reviews and publish a public apology for six months on their websites, social media accounts and at their physical premises.

The fake review service provider admitted to aiding and abetting these unfair practices by generating fake reviews, recruiting and paying reviewers, and taking steps to make the reviews appear authentic.

It has also committed to stop providing such services and publishing a public apology on Reputifly’s website for six months. In addition, it voluntarily committed to donating proceeds from its fake review services to a charity.

Two of the businesses, however, declined to commit to the commission’s terms. CCS said it will continue to investigate these two firms and take firmer action if necessary.

Meanwhile, the second phase of the investigation, which extends beyond the remaining businesses to other businesses that may have used fake review services, is ongoing.

In a media reply on the night of Sept 30, CCS said Reputifly and most of the businesses involved posted their public apologies on the same day. Some businesses were granted extensions due to technical constraints, it added.

It said that it will reopen investigations and apply for a court injunction to stop the unfair practices if Reputifly or any of the 45 businesses renege on their commitments.

CCS added that it has in the past obtained court orders against businesses that engaged in misleading practices.

“If the business fails to comply with a court injunction obtained by CCS, CCS may commence contempt of court proceedings, which may result in a fine or imprisonment,” it said.

For example, in a case involving the managing director of Nail Palace Entities, the director was sentenced to jail for persistent disregard of court orders, it added.

CCS said it did not take enforcement action against people recruited to post fake reviews in this investigation, and that the investigation’s focus was on the fake review provider and the businesses that used its services.

“In an appropriate case, however, CCS can act against recalcitrant individuals who aid or abet unfair practices by repeatedly posting fake reviews for businesses,” it said.

It also advised the public not to post fake reviews, and added: “Honest reviews help consumers make informed decisions, and individuals should only post reviews based on genuine experiences. Everyone has a role in building a trusted online marketplace.”

CCS chief executive Alvin Koh said in an earlier statement the same day: “In the digital age, consumers increasingly rely on online reviews to decide what to buy and which businesses to trust. They should be able to expect that these reviews reflect genuine experiences, not manufactured ones.

“Fake reviews deceive consumers, distort competition and disadvantage businesses that compete honestly.”

He warned that CCS will “pursue not only those who buy (the fake reviews), but also those who profit from supplying them”.

In its earlier statement, the commission urged other fake review providers, as well as businesses that bought fake reviews, to come forward voluntarily.

It added that those who do so before CCS starts investigations will have their cooperation viewed favourably.

How the fake review operation worked

CCS investigations found that Tung started providing the fake review services in or before 2023, eventually expanding his services to about 100 businesses.

The fake reviews would be posted on online platforms including Google, Facebook, Tripadvisor, Carousell, Yelp and Trustpilot.

Companies could buy packages of fake reviews to be posted periodically. They could even use a rating calculator to determine how many five-star reviews were needed to reach their desired Google rating.

To make the reviews resemble genuine customer experiences, the provider used generative artificial intelligence.

The technology was used to vary writing styles and sentence structures, include details specific to the Singapore context, and introduce natural imperfections. Clients could also edit the generated reviews before publication.

As the operation grew more sophisticated, an online dashboard was introduced to generate, manage, and track the fake reviews.

The dashboard could draw from a business’ existing four- and five-star Google reviews to generate new ones containing relevant details.

Some fake reviews deliberately described initial reservations before recounting a positive experience, creating an illusion of authenticity.

To recruit people to post reviews, Telegram channels were used, with payment offered in exchange for posting the prepared content and ratings. These reviewers were instructed to avoid duplicating reviews to reduce the risk of detection.

The provider also offered to replace reviews that were removed by online platforms.

Customers could have been misled into believing the businesses or their products and services were more popular or positively received than they actually were, CCS said.

The 45 businesses found to have procured fake reviews are:

1. Apax Medical Kovan

2. Apax Medical

3. Aqua Luxe

4. Atop Aesthetic

5. Bavarian Capital

6. BrandLoom Digital

7. Certified Translation Services

8. Chrysalis Spa

9. Data Savers

10. Dots ‘n’ Tots Interior

11. FAS Auto Services

12. First Security & Private Investigation

13. For the Love of Laundry

14. Forest Darts Bishan

15. Groupasia Hospitality

16. Harmony Essentials

17. Harmony Funeral Care

18. Haven Enterprises

19. Haven Tech

20. Hiremop

21. Integral Facilities Management (IFM)

22. J & S Management

23. Kuisine Koncepts

24. L E Autoshop

25. Label-Line Corporation

26. Le Wave Art of Hair

27. Le Wave Hair

28. Le Wave Hair Studio

29. Martin Luxury

30. MB Karaoke Solution

31. Meso Ceramics

32. Nails In Dulge

33. Nanyang Brew Coffee

34. Picasso Hair Boutique

35. Play! Ball

36. Play! Tennis Now

37. Print Scream

38. Sanook Group

39. SBLab Beauty

40. The Hamper Story

41. TM Designers

42. Torio Japanese Restaurant

43. TT8 Logistics

44. UniWise Admissions Consulting

45. Yeo & Associates

Under Singapore’s Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act, posting or buying false reviews is an unfair practice because it deceives or misleads consumers.

Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) president Melvin Yong welcomes the enforcement action.

“Such fake reviews are not harmless. They mislead consumers into believing that a business or its products and services are more positively received than they actually are,” he said in a Facebook post on Sept 30.

He added: “CASE is also concerned about businesses incentivising consumers to only leave good reviews, often by dangling discounts or free gifts if consumers leave a five-star rating.”

He shared some signs consumers can look out for when assessing online reviews such as multiple reviews with similar wording and an unusually high number of five-star ratings within a short period.

He also encouraged them to compare reviews across different platforms before making a purchase.

Consumers who encounter misleading or unfair practices may approach CASE for assistance on 6277-5100 and at its website: www.case.org.sg

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

ADV: Open for pre-sale: The Singapore Judiciary – A Bicentennial History Director of car leasing firm jailed over $11m shortfall in duty, GST and registration fees