Skin Care Company, Sunday Riley, Somehow Gets No Consequences In Fake Reviews FTC Settlement
from the none-off-their-back dept
We've long discussed the problem that is astroturfing and companies that abuse website reviews sections by inputting fake positive reviews for their own products. These fake reviews break the ecosystem of sites like Yelp and many others, where a big part of the draw to the sites are the communities that provide helpful, honest reviews. It's also been the case, however, that such fake review campaigns have occasionally come with fines or lawsuits with limited clarity on precisely what laws were being broken.
Still, the FTC is a thing and it would seem to be in that organization's purview to mete out some kind of punishment for the truly bad actors out there. In the case of skincare company Sunday Riley, however, it seems that FTC settlements for truly egregious fake review campaigns are entirely without teeth.
Let's start with the scheme itself. According to the FTC, for two years, spearheaded by founder Sunday Riley herself, employees and interns were tasked with both voting down real negative reviews on Sephora.com, as well as setting up fake accounts for Sephora and inputting fake positive reviews. This, again, was directly communicated by Riley herself.
The FTC shared snippets of multiple emails sent by the CEO. In these emails, Riley urged her employees to always use a "virtual private network", or VPN, before writing fake reviews so they aren't traced back to the company.
"If you see a negative review -- DISLIKE it," Riley said in one of her emails to employees. "After enough dislikes, it is removed. This directly translates to sales!!"
Most recently in April 2018, interns of the company were also asked to make fake Sephora accounts and write reviews of Sunday Riley skincare products.
So, yeah, really blatant, really fake, and really shady. This was a coordinated attempt to falsely manipulate the review system of Sephora for the purposes of fooling the public into buying more product. That certainly feels like about as blatant a case requiring FTC involvement as the fake review subject is going to get.
And the FTC did get involved. It pushed Sunday Riley into settling with the agency. And boy, what a settlement it was.
As part of the settlement, Sunday Riley agreed not to write fake reviews. The company did not admit wrongdoing or receive any form of punishment. FTC commissioners Chopra and Slaughter disagreed with the settlement, arguing that the company should have paid a higher price.
"Going forward, the FTC should seek monetary consequences for fake review fraud, even if the exact level of ill-gotten gains is difficult to measure," Chopra and Slaughter said in their letter.
"Today's proposed settlement includes no redress, no disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, no notice to consumers, and no admission of wrongdoing. Sunday Riley and its CEO have clearly broken the law, and the Commission has ordered that they not break the law again."
Yeah, that's basically right. The FTC settled with Sunday Riley by simply asking that they please not break the law and act so shitty again. Meanwhile, the company has admitted no wrong doing, paid no fine, or suffered any other consequence. Honestly, what the point of this FTC settlement is, is beyond me. Are we to reach settlements with thieves that consist of a request that they not steal any longer?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: fake reviews, ftc, punishment
Companies: sunday riley
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
'... and let that be a lesson to you.'
As part of the settlement, Sunday Riley agreed not to write fake reviews. The company did not admit wrongdoing or receive any form of punishment.
Well, with a punishment like that I'm sure they and other companies watching will be super careful not to do the exact same thing again, lest they face a sternly worded letter telling them to really knock it off and stop doing that.
Bang up job protecting the public there FTC. With a 'settlement' like that showing how 'serious' the FTC considers leaving fraudulent reviews and gaming the system to get rid of legitimate ones the agency has all but ensured that such a practice will ramp up, because if there's no penalty even for activity that blatant then it's clear that there's no penalty for such actions at all, as the FTC simply does not care.
Honestly, what the point of this FTC settlement is, is beyond me.
Clearing the workload so they can go home early would be my guess, because it sure as hell wasn't punishing a company for poisoning the trust of review systems for personal gain.
Are we to reach settlements with thieves that consist of a request that they not steal any longer?
Only if they're rich enough, for those that don't reach that mark there's still penalties and repercussions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: '... and let that be a lesson to you.'
"...with a punishment like that I'm sure they and other companies watching will be super careful ..."
And this may generalize to other business sectors under "regulation" by the FTC. Fear the wrath, FEAR THE WRATH, I say to potential abusers of Net Neutrality, like all those big ISPs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fake Reviews? That's what you want to write about? Fake Reviews? Practically every comment on this site is a Fake Review! Fake names, fake profiles, women posing as men, straights posing as gays, white people posting as black, lesbians posing as men, this is the very definition of FAKE NEWS and FAKE COMMENTS.
Can you imagine how fantastic the next election is going to be? WOW! The left is now EXPOSED as the LIARS and FRAUDS that they are, and when Americans go VOTE, the country is going to be on the RIGHT PATH! RIGHT! RIGHT!
God, aren't you guys tired of peddling your bullshit on this site? Everyone knows that this is the propaganda on Steroids with fake idiots running their mouth about COMPLETE BULLSHIT!
Not like me. I'm a statesman. Like Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you hate this site so much, leave it. I’m sure Stormfront would love to have you, Shiva.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why would they, people keep falling for their bait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(And of course the follow-up sentence only came to me after hitting 'Submit'...)
... not to mention if they moved to that cesspit they'd just be one more bigoted loser in a pool of them, just one more internet 'tough guy' throwing out garbage on a platform already filled with it with more piling on every second, as opposed to here where as one of the few garbage throwers they get much more attention and stick out much more compared to those around them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm a statesman. Like Trump.
Exactly. If El Cheetos can lie at a press conference, why can't Corporations lie whenever they want? Make America Racist Again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Did I tell you today how much I love you? Really, I do. I used to think I hated you leftist assholes, but now I have come to see the light. I love you guys, every day, sincerely, from the bottom of my political heart.
Don't you see what you have done? You CREATED Trump! Without your stupid name calling bullshit and irrational unfounded rhetoric that does not stand up to even mild scrutiny, Trump would not be attractive, at all. Who cares about Trump? I don't. But I care about America! And if it takes Trump to call out your leftist socialist communist bullshit for what it is, then I love Trump! And I love you!
I love America, where at least I know I'm FREE! And I'm proud to stand up, next to (not you but others) and defend her from the likes of THEE!
YOU CREATED TRUMP! YOU PROMOTE HIM STILL! YAY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOLwut.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did you flunk Reading Comprehension? Very few people care about Trump. We only care about what he DOES to expose IDIOTS like YOU!
YOU ARE TRUMP, MR. Smith! Trump is YOU! TRUMP LOVE COMES FROM YOU!
Everyday!
Try it - if you were quiet, no one would talk about Trump. Try it. I care you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Says a lot about you that you revel in the pain and misery and suffering of those you deem the Repugnant Cultural Others.
None of what that says is good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Tell the truth, Stephen (for once): that phrase "Repugnant Cultural Others" is just you masturbating ideologically in public and humiliating yourself. Did you get that phrase from Michelle (the Gorilla in high heels and lipstick) Obama? You didn't make it up yourself, did you? You're so scripted and insincere it's pathetic.
Who cares what you think is good. You should be deported after you are tarred feathered and put in stocks for a week while people throw rotten eggs and tomatoes at your face.
Well maybe not literally. But you get my point. "Cultural Others"? What stupid horseshit phrase is this, anyway?
Americans love other cultures. You're the BIGOT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ah, good old-fashioned racism. How...quaint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Only losers like you project that much bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You wrote a bunch of words, but the sentences they formed had little to no coherent meaning, and I’m not sure you understand the meaning of more than half of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
These two claims are inconsistent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But enough about yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Really? Enough about me? Naw, there is a lot more that I have to share.
For example, what do you think of this idea: A Trump Rally where EVERYONE COMES ARMED! Want to come? It would be like a game, a sporting event. Imagine it - 50,000 people in an Arena, and there is Trump, RIGHT THERE, and you have a GUN!
Of course, if you pointed it anywhere in the direction of Trump, you would be dead, fast. You would be shot from every direction. And Trump could laugh! That would be good, right? He rolls his eyes, shakes the big fingers and says "Gotcha! No more shit from you, ever again".
We could call it "Trump Sports Mania!" and broadcast it all over the world. We would invite everyone, like a quick draw contest.
The truth, of course, is all you pale faced anti-fa basement dwelling pussies would never come. You can't handle a gun, you don't have any convictions, and you have no cause that you would lay down your life for. You're whimpering babies complaining about how the adults are running the most successful country in the history of the world, and you are financed by the most corrupt international cartel of globalists ever assembled.
Too bad, don't you think? I think the rating would be GREAT! I would go, for sure, one gun in each pocket, and two in my socks.
But enough about me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And when someone trips over their own foot, triggering a widespread panic, the world will see what happens when idiots like you turn on each other in "self defense".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do you really think I am fake? Do I sound fake? Do I use a fake name? Do I have a fake profile? Do I sound insincere? Do I sometimes say I am black, or gay, or some other bullshit and then change my gender or orientation or race later?
I am SINCERE! I am WITHOUT WAX! (look it up)
And I love America! Unlike You!
Do you really think it is possible to FAKE commentary like mine? Of course not, any more than Trump is fake. He's not fake, I'm not fake, we are who we are, and we LOVE IT! LALALALA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Who the hell said they were black, then didnt? And where? Come on blue, you can do better than this, you due process hating bitch!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think a better question would be who, as a long-time poster (10,000+ posts) has NOT posed as someone else? All of them have. PaulT and Wendy write with the same voice. Mike and Stephen T. Stone whine in the same baby manner. AND, every other anonymous coward sounds like either Wendy the Lesbian Seperatist, Mike/Stephen the anally retentive and feces centered crybaby, or some international gay/trans/globalist asshole with a legal degree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Shiva lost. Bigly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Come on blue, you can do better than this".
Gosh you sound like MM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Are you closeted Texan today or an effeminate Masshole today bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hello, Hamilton. How's Harder coping with the sting from his Shiva loss? He really done fucked up, didn't he?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wouldn’t exactly call a comment on a news blog a “review”, fake or otherwise. Nor would I consider a comment “news”, fake or otherwise.
As for the “fake names” accusation, they’re called “pseudonyms”, and there’s nothing wrong or deceitful about them. And neither fake names nor fake profiles make the comments themselves “fake comments”.
And I have no idea where you got the idea of “women posing as men, straights posing as gays, white people posting as black, lesbians posing as men”. Do you have any examples or evidence backing up that assertion?
The only “fake comments” I’ve seen on this site have come from trolls like you.
Aren’t you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And this has nothing to do with using metrics about wins to get a budget & for ever nonwinner we take some away.
Imagine if they just funded them to the levels needed to ensure they could do their job against all companies not just revenge porn assholes like Craig.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In unrelated news
Ajit Pai’s skin looks great.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In unrelated news
I could stop confusing the FCC and FTC, but after all it IS unrelated news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the plus side, more people are aware of Sunday Riley and it's shitty snakeoil slash carcinogenic skin cancer-causing slime masquerading as moisturizer.
So there's that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Their product might not be toxic, but their reputation sure is
On the plus side, more people are aware of Sunday Riley and it's shitty snakeoil slash carcinogenic skin cancer-causing slime masquerading as moisturizer.
This being the first time I'd ever heard of the company I wouldn't go that far as I have no idea what it does or does not do, but the actions of the CEO and those under them speak louder than words that their company/product absolutely cannot be trusted and should be avoided at all costs, as if they believed their products could stand on their own merits they wouldn't have spent so much time and effort to game the reviews and give people a false impression of said products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What to do about it
This is a widespread problem, not just Sephora, not just Sunday Riley. (At least one comment here may be interference!)
Rather than get outraged at the specific people involved what can we do. Some ideas:
Well that a start.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What to do about it
Rather than get outraged at the specific people involved what can we do.
Better idea: Get outraged at the companies attempting to game the review system in order to give people a dishonest impression of their products and take steps to minimize/counter the damage they can do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is what you get when you support 'business friendly' politicians instead of those who protect the public interest first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see the problem
They forgot to say "pretty please".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let them have their Fake Reviews, just impose Statutory Damages
So fake reviews are basically manipulating the 'IP' of the company, now when plebes violate the 'IP' of corporations, there are statutory damages (since real damages are hard to show when they don't exist...).
So the FTC should impose Statutory Damages on each occurrence (just as IP lawyers try to use for every use of a specific thing) in the amount of $150,000 (if saving a song is worth this much, then saving a business should be worth more, and if a company is tilting the fiend in their favor, they are damaging multiple other businesses).
Not like corporations will ever be held accountable to the level the public is, but it's what should happen in a fair and just system (which neither we nor any other developed world have perfected yet).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]