Part 2: MN misrepresentation in recommendations: a depressing blend of abject amateurism and outright greed

@MurdoMunro

Yes, it is clear is that publishing consumer reviews in a misleading way is an unfair commercial practice (para 13 of Schedule 20 to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024) and is thus prohibited under section 225 of the same Act.

I’ve copied these comments from the previous thread (page 38, UNREDACTED! UNEDITED!) to append to your comment

steelseries · Yesterday 18:22

Anon93249 · 01/05/2025 22:20
I wonder if it falls under the consumer protection law:
The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations mean you cannot mislead or harass consumers by, for example:
including false or deceptive messages
leaving out important information
using aggressive sales techniques

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regs have been replaced by the Digitial Markets Act, but the DMA explicitly prohibits misleading and fake reviews just like this one, so it’s even worse.

Note that the CMA guidance is mostly directed at traders (i.e. manufacturers or retailers) manipulating reviews, with publishers being required to take reasonable steps to detect fake reviews. The notion of the manipulation actually being carried out by the publisher isn’t squarely addressed.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67eeb64fe9c76fa33048c790/CMA208_-_Fake_reviews_guidance.pdf

Recent guidance from the Competition and Markets Authority.

Have you heard anything back from MN yet @Wondermoomin?

My knowledge comes entirely from listening to editors on podcasts! I know that a lot of reality shows have contracts that basically get contestants signing up to be portrayed in all sorts of ways, but I think the situation you describe would not be allowed now, if it has happened in the past.

Yes, to a degree. They might swap bits around, use different GASP reactions, edit to tell a preferred narrative etc..but the producer isn't trying to get you to buy something through their show in order to get their commission. They aren't misleading you into spending money... They "mislead" to keep you watching, so they get more advertising revenue... But that's not YOUR money being used.

I read an example where someone said something about ‘hitting the back door’ ie leaving, and it was altered to them saying they were hitting their girlfriend. If true, that’s not ok. I expect the TV company makes them sign a contract to say that they ‘own’ the words of the participants. Who knows.

Also, some critics have their reviews chopped up and a few words or phrases are then used by the restaurant or theatre company, which bear little relevance to the overall sentiment of that critic’s review. The lack of ethics is widespread I think.

Apparently this is OK if what they end up saying is similar to what they did say but said more clearly or better. What isn't OK is making them say things they didn't. So they can get someone saying they have a crush on someone in a more concise way that's easier to air, but can't have someone saying they have a crush on someone when they don't, for example.

That's my understanding. It's not a great thing to do though.

Is this a bit like the ‘frankenbiting’ they do on reality TV shows? Whereby they splice lots of different clips together so somebody is looking like they said something that they didn’t. I always wonder how earth they get away with that, legally.

Ha! I didn't fully register the other one!

I am astounded by the devious nature of MN and its treatment of its loyal users.
Of course they need to make money out of us, but they need us to make money. This is a thoroughly underhand way of doing it.
I don't like their response when found out either.

Indeed! The two similar threads recommended underneath are -

‘Fake reviews from businesses’

and

’To think MN is basically drowning in fantasists’

To quote Adam off Friday Night Dinner, outstanding 🤣

edit - sorry meant to quote/reply to you @Hamandpineapplepizza

I can't see this on Active any more. Mumsnet probably got their hands full destroying the evidence

I really hope the continued silence from MNHQ on this is because they are lawyered up and working out what to say, rather than just hoping it goes away.

I'm enjoying that MNs recommended "similar threads" for this include one entitled "fake reviews from businesses"

Agreed

https://www.asa.org.uk/make-a-complaint.html

I've helped resolve many a cock-up in the past. What often works is just a clear apology.

"At mumsnet, we have found a range of errors in how recommendation quotes have been applied in the past. We have done a clean-up and put in place new approval processes to prevent this sort of error from occurring again. We tried to hide the article because it's embarrassing, and we are sorry for that too."

Not exciting enough to make me stop blocking ads, but entertaining. Thanks for the audit effort OP and other contributors.

MN: Looking to buy a vacuum cleaner? You'd like to know which one's great? Which one will vacuum the best with the least noise and is super cheap? Here's a here's a relevant and helpful comment from a mumsnetter in order to help you decide to buy this Dyssson Maxxiflow Vortex 3300i.

MNer: I have a vacuum cleaner.

Want to propel yourself on two wheels by the power of your legs? I recommend bicycles .

Want to go on holiday? I recommend leaving your house for a short period of time

Yes I recommend you have a product that washes your clothes. If you need to wash your clothes. I would also recommend food if you want to want to feed children.

Glad we have a second thread and it's pretty amazing that examples of the 1% of misleading recommendations are still being found.

Maybe numbers are different in Mumsnet HQ.