Online reviews: what’s changing under the AGCM’s new guidelines

That’s not all: by way of example, the public should always be made aware of the procedures by which the professional collects or obtains reviews, any ‘objective, relevant and verifiable criteria’ they use to select which reviews to publish and which not to, and the verification methods authenticity and for calculating average scores – also known as ratings – specifying whether these are influenced by incentivised reviews (for example, in return for payment of a commission) or by other types of contractual relationships.

It is always the responsibility of professionals to adopt ‘reasonable and proportionate measures’ to ensure that reviews reflect the actual experiences and tests carried out by real consumers, whilst at the same time taking into account the need not to discourage the publication of more genuine and less controlled comments and opinions.

They can be divided into three categories: the first comprises tools used to verify that the customer has actually used or purchased the item or service they have reviewed (a request for authentic tax or accounting documents, including, for example, a card statement confirming the purchase, or the order and/or booking number; sending a link to submit a review to the email address used for the purchase, only after verifying that the order has been completed, delivered and used; the review will only be published in the user’s private area or via dedicated channels, such as a QR code).

The second includes tools to ensure that the authors of the reviews can be traced: systems for registering the authors of reviews on the channel; confirmation links sent to their email addresses; and verification of IP addresses. The third, on the other hand, provides automated tools to root out fraud by detecting anomalies such as a large number of reviews posted in a short space of time, all from the same IP address; repetitive linguistic patterns; and usernames that cannot be traced back to real people.

In general, this is a system for assessing the “risk” regarding the lack of authenticity of reviews: therefore, should any anomalies be detected, the review is not automatically deleted but is subjected – prior to publication – to a further rapid verification. This verification may involve contacting the author to obtain evidence demonstrating their good faith and genuine experience of the product or service prior to the comment’s publication.

Last but not least, the final two points concern, respectively, incentivised reviews (by professionals offering the goods or services being reviewed) and the avoidance of practices designed to manipulate negative reviews. In the first case, the practice is always considered unlawful when the content results from an incentive provided by the supplier of the product. Therefore, where a business owner intends to encourage reviews by offering a benefit to consumers, this must not compromise the authenticity of the final result. And even if the incentive has no impact, the public must always be provided with a disclaimer highlighting the fact that these are ‘incentivised’ reviews, and these should perhaps be marked with specific graphical elements.

In the second case, however, venue managers and business owners – both small and large – in the sector should avoid removing or hiding negative reviews, creating templates for exclusively positive reviews, presenting aggregate ratings based on vague criteria, and involving users in moderation to persuade them to amend or delete opinions they have already published.

Even professionals who host or make reviews available, whilst not offering the goods or services to which they relate, should take steps to prove that the comments come from people who have purchased or tested the item.

These measures tend to vary depending on the review service offered and the business model adopted: for example, large platforms with high levels of fraudulent activity may use more sophisticated tools than smaller organisations to detect inauthentic content, for instance by incorporating artificial intelligence. Among the required obligations, particular importance is attached to the timely handling of of complaints relating to published reviews: requests for removal must be precise and justified.

The tools they can use are, essentially, the same as those available to those who receive the reviews.

Online reviews of services governed by the AGCM Guidelines are permissible if posted no later than 30 days from the date on which the product was used or the service was received. This period should be calculated from the date on which the transaction was completed.

The text will be supplemented or updated in the event of changes to national or European legislation, or in the event of significant developments in case law or in its application. In any event, it will be reviewed within one year of its publication.