MN have used my quote to promote a product I’ve never bought 🤔

And by the way I posted on the “why was third thread deleted” thread in Site Stuff just now and it immediately went to about the 5th thread on Active.

Yes, excellent spot @JessyCarr - so Mumsnet can and do suppress a thread from Active or make it appear lower down Active.

Mumsnet Doesn’t In Fact Swear By must be a meaningful source of revenue if they are so keen to hide it from scrutiny.

By the way, for those interested: I am a lawyer, and a very senior litigation lawyer at that. I CBA to go through and discuss all the potential causes of action but it’s a clear breach of the ASA guidelines in my view. And, as I have frequently had cause to say in my practice over the years, the cover up is often much worse than the initial wrongdoing. Apart from anything else it tends to make it really obvious that you know you’re bang to rights.

I have emailed to request that all my posts are taken down as I did not give consent for the content I provided to be used to promote products and services that I did not use or recommend. I do not have trust that they will use content (or in fact data) I provided respectfully or legally. So far they are ignoring me, maybe because they’re away for the bank holiday weekend. I will pick it up again next week.

It's because they're all hands on deck changing everything to comply!

Wow, so after all this, you just got the same level of communication as all of us. Terrible!

Yes, I think I feel a bit like this.

Finding a corner of the internet that feels like a mainly positive, nourishing place, with all the intelligent, witty women here, has been a good thing over the years.

This episode, and crucially, the handling of it, has made me realise that we're not particularly valued by MN, and maybe it was naive to think otherwise. MN never felt 'them and us' before, and now it's seemingly how that landscape lies.

The ongoing attempt to hide the issue from as many members as possible feels very much like the tipping point.

Have been following this thread and it seems to be in Active now (quite far down the list).

Would love to think it might actually cause them to rethink their approach to 'Swears By'.

Wow. What a cowardly and dishonest approach in this instance

oh dear 😅 not holiding my breath for mn response

Either that or MN will now go silent and wait/ hope for the issue to die down, I've seen that happen before

“Calm down dears…”

So to quote Mumsnet Michael from 2021:

"Removing a thread from Active gives things a chance to calm down..."

Which is exactly what they're attempting here.

I'm guessing that MNHQ have been advised not to post on this matter further until they have had a chance to seek legal advice. So we'll be hidden from view over the bank holiday weekend.
We'll still be here though.

I have nominated for classics.

I can well imagine their hollow laugh!

I think the more people that report this to asa the better. The response from
mumsnet has been shocking.

That's such a good summary

Gosh, you're right. This thread is not appearing in active conversations.

I know there are a lot of bad things happening in the world right now ... but I can't help feeling aghast at this. First outright lying, and now the sneakiness of hiding this thread! Noooo.

The saddest part is that this thread just reminds me of what drew me to MN in the first place. You're such a smart, articulate, funny bunch ... I want to leave the site forever to express my outrage at MN's behaviour at the same time as I want to keep talking to you all. Is there a good alternative to MN? I want one 😩.

And also asked which UK laws this practice is breaching

1.
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

This regulation makes it illegal to mislead consumers with false or deceptive information. Presenting fake testimonials or taking user posts out of context to create a false impression of a product’s effectiveness or popularity is a clear violation.

2.
The UK Code of Non-Broadcast Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing (CAP Code)

Under the CAP Code:

• Rule 3.1 (Truthfulness): Advertisements must not mislead consumers. Fabricated or manipulated testimonials are misleading.
• Rule 3.3 (Honesty): All claims must be substantiated. Using fake reviews or testimonials is not only dishonest but also unsubstantiated.

3.
Data Protection Act 2018 (GDPR)

If user posts are used without consent for marketing or commercial purposes:

• Consent: Businesses need explicit consent from individuals to use their data, including posts.
• Fair Use: Even with consent, posts should only be used within the context they were given, and in a transparent way.

4.
The Trade Descriptions Act 1968

This law mandates that products and services must be described accurately and not in a misleading manner. Fabricating or manipulating testimonials misrepresents a product or service, breaching this act.

5.
The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013

This regulation ensures that consumers receive accurate and truthful information about products or services. Using fake testimonials to influence purchasing decisions violates the requirement to provide clear, honest information.

6.
Breach of Contract (if applicable)

If users agreed to specific terms and conditions regarding how their content would be used, and Mumsnet uses their posts for commercial purposes without permission, this could breach the contract formed between the user and the platform.

7.
Fraud Act 2006

The Fraud Act makes it a criminal offense to engage in deceptive practices, such as intentionally misleading others in order to gain financially. If Mumsnet is knowingly using fake testimonials to boost product sales or platform engagement, this could be seen as fraud.

8.
Misrepresentation Act 1967

This Act deals with situations where false statements are made to encourage others to enter into a contract (or purchase goods or services). Presenting fabricated testimonials is a form of misrepresentation, which could result in legal action.

9.
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) Guidelines

The CMA actively enforces rules to protect consumers from unfair practices, including the use of fake testimonials. If Mumsnet is promoting products with fabricated or misleading content, the CMA could investigate and impose penalties

I asked chat GPT what it thinks of this matter

First and foremost: it’s illegal. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 make it unlawful to mislead consumers, including through fake reviews and undisclosed paid endorsements. Falsely presenting a product as popular, effective or highly rated tricks other users into making buying decisions they might not otherwise make. It damages trust, distorts the marketplace and can result in legal action — not just against businesses but against individuals who knowingly spread false claims.

But beyond the legalities, it goes against everything a community like Mumsnet stands for. We come here because we trust the shared experiences and honest advice of fellow parents. When fake testimonials slip through, that trust erodes. It undermines the value of real recommendations from real people who genuinely want to help each other — not just shift a product or pad out someone’s profits.

Good find. So MN are admitting they do this. It’s clear it’s happened in this case. Anyone from MN want to comment?

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/site_stuff/4374698-Hiding-a-thread-from-Active-and-Trending-Now

I scrolled through 10 pages of active and it’s not appeared.

This. Is. Shocking

I was going to ignore this all but now I’m reporting to ASA. It’s despicable

This whole thing is shocking and disappointing. MN response has been very poor and clearly it is a much bigger issue than they have acknowledged. It comes across as knowing deception. Very poor way to treat the site users. Once again site users are being treated with absolute disdain by MN.