Government dodges issue in crunch fake reviews debate

 On Thursday 22nd June, the Countryside Alliance campaign against malicious, fake reviews of businesses, a favoured tactic of animal rights extremists targeting rural businesses, came to a head as two amendments to the Online Safety Bill that we have supported to address the issue were debated in the House of Lords. 

Baroness Buscombe (Con) set out that the purpose of the Bill was to make the internet safer, one of the means being to criminalise certain types of false communications. Her amendments, 266 and 267, aim to protect businesses targeted by malicious fake reviews posted on platforms such as Google Maps and TripAdvisor.  

She emphasised that such attacks on businesses could cause significant harm to individuals’ mental, physical, and financial well-being. She cited examples of rural businesses that have been targeted by ideologically motivated fake reviews, damaging the livelihoods of the people who own and work in them. Her amendments sought to include financial harm and to expand the definition of harm to cover not only intended recipients but also the subjects of the information or disinformation posted. She clarified that legitimate criticism and fair comment would not be affected: the focus was on reviews based on lies and written with the intent to harm. 

Lord Garnier (Con) supported Baroness Buscombe by highlighting the importance of fairness, justice and protecting those who cannot defend themselves due to the anonymity of online perpetrators. He drew on his experience as a legal practitioner, emphasising that criminalising fake reviews would not infringe on freedom of speech since it would only target posts that are malicious and deliberately false. 

There was welcome support from Lord Moylan (Con), who had brought an amendment to remove ‘psychological’ harm from the sphere of the Bill but argued that the addition of financial harm was both merited and practical. Lord Allan of Hallam (LD) expressed concern that the amendments might inadvertently capture legitimate behaviour, but cited no examples of actions he thought they might unfairly criminalise. 

Responding on behalf of the Government, DCMS Minister Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay said: 

“I am very grateful to them for raising these issues, and in particular to my noble friend Lady Buscombe for raising the importance of financial harm from fake reviews. This will be addressed through the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill, which was recently introduced to Parliament. That Bill proposes new powers to address fake and misleading reviews. This will provide greater legal clarity to businesses and consumers. Where fake reviews are posted, it will allow the regulator to take action quickly. The noble Baroness is right to point out the specific scenarios about which she has concern. I hope she will look at that Bill and return to this issue in that context if she feels it does not address her points to her satisfaction.” 

While it is encouraging that the Government means to take the matter seriously, we remain to be convinced that the Digital Markets Bill offers a viable legislative vehicle. Indeed, Baroness Buscombe had already pre-empted the direction of his response, saying during her speech:

“I am aware that the Government have responded to constituents who have contacted their MPs in support of these amendments to say that they intend to act through the Competition and Markets Authority against businesses that pay third parties to write fake disparaging reviews of their competitors. I must stress to my noble friend the Minister, with respect, that this response misunderstands the issue. While there is a problem with businesses fraudulently reviewing their competitors to gain commercial advantage—and it is welcome that the Government plan to act on it—I am concerned with extreme activists and other people with ideological or personal axes to grind. These people are not engaged in any relevant business and are not seeking to promote a competitor by comparison. It is hard to see how any action by the Competition and Markets Authority could offer an effective remedy. The CMA exists to regulate businesses, not individual cranks. Further, this is not a matter of consumer law.”

We are therefore concerned that the approach the Government is currently proposing will be insufficient to address the issue of malicious fake reviews posted by individuals based on ideological or personal hostility, which are the kind from which we believe rural businesses deserve urgent protection. We will therefore continue to seek clarity from the Government and to campaign for adequate relief from this blight on rural communities and businesses all across the country.