UOKiK imposed penalties on Best-Review and SeoSem24 for publishing false opinions

The Office for Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) punished 2 companies – Best-Review from Leszno and SeoSem24 from Krakow – for publishing false opinions online. Best-Review is to pay PLN 35 thousand, while SeoSem24 – over PLN 50 thousand. In addition, both companies must inform about the decision of the UOKiK on their websites and on company Facebook profiles.

Violation of the Omnibus Directive

The actions of both companies were a violation of the collective interests of consumers and the alleged Omnibus Directive, which has been in force since 2023. This directive obliges traders making their opinions available on their websites to show how they verify their authenticity. Best-Review and SeoSem24 assessed the products and services of their contractors, even though they did not usage them, which misled consumers.

Quotes from advertising and company activities

Best-Review advertised its services with the slogan: “Remember that you don’t gotta wait for users to appreciate your work by posting affirmative ratings. You can have them right away. All you request is our support (...)”. SeoSem24, on the another hand, utilized the slogan: "We keep the rule of objectivity, which means we make a maximum neutral impression of content so that the information message does not appear to be advertising."

President of UOKiK: Tomasz Chróstny

President of UOKiK, Tomasz Chróstny, emphasises that the opinions published by the penalised companies were false and misleading to consumers. "Reviews published by penalised entrepreneurs faked reviews of actual customers. They misled due to the fact that they artificially increased the reputation of the seller or the quality of the product or service. Meanwhile, entrepreneurs' reputation and prestige should be based on real information and form within fair marketplace play," Chróstny said.

Validity of verification of opinions

Michał Herde, president of the Warsaw branch of the Consumer Federation, notes that most consumers are guided by opinions erstwhile buying products online. "From the consumer's point of view, it is more crucial than the content of the opinion itself whether and how it was verified," says Herde. It adds that the Omnibus Directive requires traders to inform if opinions are not verified.

Further activities of the UOKiK

These are not the first decisions of the UOKiK in cases concerning false opinions. The Office besides conducts further proceedings, including on publishing false opinions, selling likes and views on social media and generating artificial traffic on websites. UOKiK besides tries to fight entrepreneurs who pay for unreliable grades.

Cooperation with platforms

The UOKiK conducts a dialog with online platforms which, after the arrangements, introduce changes in the way opinions are posted and moderated. An example is the platform which, following the observations of the Authority, made available the counter of the deleted opinions and the option of selecting what affected the change of assessment or removal of comment.

Meaning of negative opinions

The UOKiK recalls that artificial overestimation by issuing ordered opinions is not allowed. Companies should print both affirmative and negative assessments. Michał Herde emphasizes that the deficiency of negative opinions may be suspicious. ‘It is worth checking in the Rules of Procedure whether opinions are verified or not. I'm certain it's suspicious erstwhile opinions are only positive. Experience teaches that no substance how pro-consumer the entrepreneur is, there will always be individual unhappy," says Herde.

Summary

The penalties imposed by the UOKiK on Best-Review and SeoSem24 show that publishing false opinions is simply a serious violation that misleads consumers. The UOKiK continues its efforts to defend consumers and honest entrepreneurs from unfair marketplace practices.