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

[Wondermoomin]

AIBU to expect MN recommendations, where they quote a poster/member, to be genuine?

I like being able to rely on recommendations in MN swears by and other emails. I excitedly opened an email with the subject “Big bargains for our most loyal Mumsnetters” wondering what MN could make me buy this time (I should probably get other hobbies).

Imagine my surprise to see my own username quoted there with a recommendation! Imagine my further surprise when I realised it was a post I wrote almost 8 years ago, and it was being used directly under a specific product to give the impression I was recommending it - and I’ve never even owned that particular thing mine was more expensive.

I don’t like posts being misrepresented as a recommendation for a specific product. It makes me question the credibility of other MN recommendations.

Hoping I’ll manage to attach screenshots.

PS my gazebo broke but I’ve replaced it. Still not with the brand I supposedly recommended according to the MN email.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone is frantically consulting lawyers behind the scenes.

The more information that we get, the worse it appears. I really can’t believe that they’ve tried to justify any of this behaviour. It’s so clearly deceitful to anyone with an ounce of common sense.

The code I linked to above is legally enforceable. Breaking it is illegal.

There’s also the Online Safety Act 2023 (much of which came into force in January 2024) which I expect will be being scrutinised - including the S38 duty on certain providers of online services to use proportionate systems and processes designed to prevent individuals from encountering content consisting of fraudulent advertisements by means of the service.

Very new law, little tested so far and not my area, so I won’t comment as a lawyer.

For the first time ever I think this is a thread we should somehow share with the Daily Mail. Considering they’re hiding it on the site and from Active etc

The get-out may be “well you could always have clicked on the link to see what the reviewer actually said and in what context they said it”.

I think if Justine is paying MNEditor to do these Swear By articles then they should sack MNEditor for breaking the law. Any fool knows what false advertisement is, but for someone whose job is about advertisement it is staggeringly bad.

Isn't the government bringing something in this month regarding fake reviews?

Do the emails contain a link to the underlying post, as the Swears By articles do?

Ofcom released the draft Codes last week. I haven’t had a chance to look at them but they’re online.

I think the law would fall on the side of transparency without needing to click through. You’re meant to avoid including anything important in small print for example.

Why would people click on the link when the blurb at the top says “every item” has been recommended?

That’s actively misleading because it strongly implies that the specific item has been recommended. It’s very different from “mumsnetters think broadly speaking you should have a pop up gazebo”.

I see my image is under review. Go and check on the top of the Swears By page and you’ll see…

I won't be buying anything they recommend with confidence now I know the comments aren't about the actual product. I won't read "Swears by" at all now.

Exactly. There is absolutely no logical justification for the level of misleading that they have admitted to and it's really disingenuous to suggest it's a misunderstanding and not deliberate.

Also very different from 'a mumsnetter recommends this particular brand of plug in heater from x shop, so we will use their quote to sell a different brand of heater from a different shop at twice the price'

I think it almost doesn't matter what MN say, their whole "swears by" branding is totally damaged now.

The whole point of it was that you were meant to feel a particular was tried and tested and genuinely recommended by Mumsnet users. It's quite different if all it ever means is "a random mumsnetter, about 8 years ago, vaguely mentioned that they liked a product of the same "generic type".

[email protected]

But it wouldn't wash... It's misleading. It shouldn't be for the customer to verify the claims Mumsnet are making in adverts that have been deliberately miss written!

There's a level of reasonable questioning expected from consumers. But the honesty is on the company!

Blatantly not what's been going on ...

Oh yeah, I've just seen this. There are still a few Swears By that haven't been edited yesterday, and they still have generic reviews like "I like sleeping bags" that are posted under, say, Gro-bag, and it looks as if the user is recommending the specific brand. I'm fascinated and a little outraged by the whole thing.

That wouldn't wash. It's like trying to cram unreasonable terms into the small print. Theres plenty of rules to stop that kind of trickery by businesses.

Meanwhile, back in 2011...

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/1238118-to-think-the-Mumsnet-Swears-By-email-I-just-recieved?page=1

Good spot! This quote on the first page was very perceptive

I note that in your photo it refers to real parents, has someone been contacting posters whose words were used to check that they are in fact parents?