Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

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

979 replies

Wondermoomin · 01/05/2025 20:52

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.

MN have used my quote to promote a product I’ve never bought 🤔
MN have used my quote to promote a product I’ve never bought 🤔
OP posts:
Thread gallery
63
Shynapple · 04/05/2025 10:24

TURNYOURCAPSLOCKOFF · 04/05/2025 10:20

By deregistration...

That's interesting and made me think... a couple of times when I looked through the Swears By emails the username links didn't work. I wonder if that's because the member had deregistered or name changed. If they have, is it still OK to use their words from a years old post?

Wondermoomin · 04/05/2025 10:31

TURNYOURCAPSLOCKOFF · 04/05/2025 10:20

By deregistration...

That’s probably what it amounts to, but does that remove all the content too? Or do people need to request that separately/in addition? GDPR gives people the right to withdraw consent and right to be forgotten, MN T&Cs can’t override that.

OP posts:
MurdoMunro · 04/05/2025 10:38

Deregistration does not remove the content you created nor remove your consent (which I dispute was given) for Mumsnet to edit and then use to sell goods and services to which you have no connection to.

’oh it’s only a gazebo, so what’. Happy to have your user name and content misrepresented to sell sex toys, medical products, political camapaigns? Oh no, Mumsnet would never do that…

Hangingonthewall · 04/05/2025 10:42

Ooo this is pretty bad mumsnet. Interested to see what happens next I don’t think the wise women of this site will let this one blow over

MNChiefInspectorThreadPolice · 04/05/2025 10:42

Mumsnet Terms of Use @MurdoMunro:

2. Submissions to Mumsnet
a. We may now or in the future permit users to post, upload, transmit through, or otherwise make available on the Website (collectively, "Submit") messages, recipes, text, illustrations, files, images, graphics, photos, comments, sounds, music, videos, information, content, and/or other materials ("User Content"). We have the right to publish, edit or reject any User Content that you Submit, send us either via email, via the Website or in writing via post for any purpose whatsoever, commercial or otherwise, without payment to you - unless we have specifically agreed otherwise in writing prior to submission. If you wish to contact us in relation to User Content that you have uploaded to our Website and that we have taken down, please contact us at [email protected].

b. By uploading User Content to our Website, you confirm to us that it is not confidential and not protected by any trade mark, patent, copyright or any other intellectual property right ("non-proprietary"). By submitting User Content to us you automatically grant to us a worldwide, fully-paid up, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, fully sublicensable, and transferable right and license to use, store, record, sell, lease, copy, reproduce, distribute, create derivative works based upon (including, without limitation, translations), publicly display, publicly perform, transmit, publish and otherwise exploit the User Content (in whole or in part) as Mumsnet, in its sole discretion, deems appropriate forever. We may exercise these rights in any format, media or technology now known or later developed for the full term of any copyright and other intellectual property rights that may exist in such User Content. You also grant to us, in our capacity as non-exclusive licensee, the right to sue; bring proceedings, claims or actions; obtain relief (and retain all damages, accounts of profits, costs and other sums recovered) in respect of any suspected third party infringements of the intellectual property rights in the User Content which are directly connected to the rights granted to us under this clause. You agree that we will have sole conduct of any such actions and sole discretion to negotiate and settle them. You also agree to (at our cost) provide us with reasonable, non-financial assistance if we ask you to, in relation to any such actions (for example, by signing additional documents to give full effect to this clause).
c. Subject to the rights and license you grant to us under these Terms of Use, you retain all your right, title and interest in your User Content submissions. This means that copyright in your User Content will remain with you and that you can continue to use the material in any way, including allowing others to use it.

d. You agree that you will not submit any User Content protected by copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret, moral right, or other intellectual property, personal, contractual, proprietary or other right owned by a third party without the express permission of the owner of the respective right. You are solely liable for any damage resulting from your failure to obtain such permission or from any other harm resulting from User Content that you submit. You represent, warrant, and covenant that you will not submit any User Content that:

  • i. Violates or infringes in any way upon the rights of others, including, but not limited to, any copyright, trademark, moral right, or other third party right of any person or entity;
  • ii. Impersonates another or is unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, obscene, harassing or otherwise objectionable;
  • iii. Contains any illegal content or promotes any illegal content or activity;
  • iv. Contains a formula, instruction, or advice that could cause harm or injury; and/or
  • v. The licensed use by us hereunder would result in us having any obligation or liability to any party.
e. You are liable to us and will indemnify us for any breach of that warranty. This means you will be responsible for any loss or damage we suffer as a result of your breach of warranty.

f. We rely on you to present us with User Content that contains accurate and factual material. We assume no responsibility for the accuracy of information provided on Mumsnet. Notwithstanding the foregoing, you waive any and all claims you may now or later have in any jurisdiction to so-called "moral rights" or rights of "droit moral" with respect to the User Content.

g. We reserve the right to display advertisements in connection with your User Content and to use your User Content for advertising and promotional purposes.

MurdoMunro · 04/05/2025 10:44

I did not consent to fraudulent use or misrepresentation. I have read all that and I am sticking to my position.

MNChiefInspectorThreadPolice · 04/05/2025 10:47

MurdoMunro · 04/05/2025 10:44

I did not consent to fraudulent use or misrepresentation. I have read all that and I am sticking to my position.

Well I agree with you there!

whitewineandsun · 04/05/2025 10:47

Wondermoomin · 04/05/2025 10:31

That’s probably what it amounts to, but does that remove all the content too? Or do people need to request that separately/in addition? GDPR gives people the right to withdraw consent and right to be forgotten, MN T&Cs can’t override that.

Deregistration does not remove your posts.

whitewineandsun · 04/05/2025 10:47

MurdoMunro · 04/05/2025 10:44

I did not consent to fraudulent use or misrepresentation. I have read all that and I am sticking to my position.

Quite.

JessyCarr · 04/05/2025 10:48

Shynapple · 04/05/2025 10:24

That's interesting and made me think... a couple of times when I looked through the Swears By emails the username links didn't work. I wonder if that's because the member had deregistered or name changed. If they have, is it still OK to use their words from a years old post?

On the face of the T&Cs they retain their rights to use your content perpetually and irrevocably. You waive your intellectual property rights (so eliminating the opportunity to require their fair dealing in relation to your IP). You waive any moral right in relation to your User Content.

All of this is obviously subject to the question: to what extent are these T&Cs fair and enforceable, in the context of the Data Protection Act and more generally?

Overall, though, where “quote mining” takes place there is far less protection of the content creator whose words are misused than of the person misled by the false endorsement.

NamechangeforLCJ · 04/05/2025 10:53

Just a couple of points on the terms of service:

  1. They cannot possibly be interpreted as granting MN a licence to use your words in a way that is unlawful, contrary to ASA guidelines etc. The “you signed up to this and they can do literally anything” argument is, I’m afraid, just balls.

  2. I think it is strongly arguable that if MN wanted to use your words to publicise products that you recommend (or maybe that you do not in fact recommend!) the TOS should have sought express permission for this, rather than the generalised permission for content use in the TOS. Note that the ASA says that permission must have been given, save for some limited exceptions such as research where “express permission” need not be given. See screenshot.

  3. We are consumers and the courts tend to take a dim view of terms in consumer agreements that are unclear, so broadly drafted that they include anything, or are insufficiently drawn to consumers’ attention.

MN have used my quote to promote a product I’ve never bought 🤔
Wondermoomin · 04/05/2025 10:55

I want them to answer to their breaches of various consumer protection laws and advertising standards. And the extent to which they’ve been exposed as doing this. It’s not an isolated cock-up and it’s not 1% @JustineMumsnet

Not so concerned about the one-off potential breach of T&C with me, which they’ll resolve on technicalities anyway.
Edited to add: interesting to see though @NamechangeforLCJ views on strength of T&Cs.

OP posts:
NamechangeforLCJ · 04/05/2025 11:02

And just for anyone coming anew to the thread, these are the ASA rules about fake customer testimonials. Any suggestion that “implying that a general comment from 2017 relates to a specific product in 2025” is not in breach of these rules, is for the birds.

They have published a customer review in a misleading way in that they have:
omitted information relevant to the circumstances
published a testimonial that does not relate to the advertised product

MN have used my quote to promote a product I’ve never bought 🤔
JessyCarr · 04/05/2025 11:17

Also, it’s not just the courts that take a dim view of unfair contract terms - this area of consumer law is now regulated by the Competition and Markets Authority (formerly by the Office of Fair Trading) and firms can be required to amend unfair terms, especially where they are effectively imposed on the consumer without any negotiation. (Ask Ryanair!)

Spies · 04/05/2025 11:20

The legal bods on this thread are so informative, thank you for posting so succinctly so us non legal types can understand the legal ramifications of all of this. It's been very interesting reading.

Also it will come as no surprise but despite this thread being posted on continuously for the best part of the morning I've yet to see it in active once today.

Tryingtokeepgoing · 04/05/2025 11:24

The more I read the more my view that this site is run in a disorganised and unprofessional way is reinforced. I think it’s a key reason that this site is not the commercial success that sites like Money Saving Expert have been. It’s just not run well enough to be scaled profitably and be as successful / monetise-able in the way that Martin Lewis was able to. There have been so many basic failings, in techology and compliance that it’s hard to see who would be interested!

savory · 04/05/2025 11:24

I thought this was a lark at the beginning, but as the debate has progressed and further egregious examples have come to light, it has become a minor scandal for sure

Tryingtokeepgoing · 04/05/2025 11:26

Spies · 04/05/2025 11:20

The legal bods on this thread are so informative, thank you for posting so succinctly so us non legal types can understand the legal ramifications of all of this. It's been very interesting reading.

Also it will come as no surprise but despite this thread being posted on continuously for the best part of the morning I've yet to see it in active once today.

Edited

Well it’s very inconvenient for the MNHQ team to have to be troubled with compliance issues on a bank holiday weekend ;)

AlleycatMarie · 04/05/2025 11:32

TURNYOURCAPSLOCKOFF · 04/05/2025 10:07

You did give consent when signing up.

Consent to use quotes, not consent to use in providing false advertising. These are two very different things legally.

JessyCarr · 04/05/2025 11:37

It’ll be interesting to see whether this has any impact on MN’s Trustpilot ratings.

Tryingtokeepgoing · 04/05/2025 11:41

Spies · 04/05/2025 11:20

The legal bods on this thread are so informative, thank you for posting so succinctly so us non legal types can understand the legal ramifications of all of this. It's been very interesting reading.

Also it will come as no surprise but despite this thread being posted on continuously for the best part of the morning I've yet to see it in active once today.

Edited

Someone’s done something behind the scenes, as for the first time it is now showing in ‘active’ for me!!

Spies · 04/05/2025 11:44

Tryingtokeepgoing · 04/05/2025 11:41

Someone’s done something behind the scenes, as for the first time it is now showing in ‘active’ for me!!

Oh that's very curious I've just looked and it is indeed in active. I shall post this and go and check if it moves to the top...

ETA - it didn't. Hmm

Tryingtokeepgoing · 04/05/2025 11:58

The plot thickens…!!

JessyCarr · 04/05/2025 12:03

Puzzling - it is still not appearing in Active at all, for me.

NamechangeforLCJ · 04/05/2025 12:04

Spies · 04/05/2025 11:20

The legal bods on this thread are so informative, thank you for posting so succinctly so us non legal types can understand the legal ramifications of all of this. It's been very interesting reading.

Also it will come as no surprise but despite this thread being posted on continuously for the best part of the morning I've yet to see it in active once today.

Edited

Thank you - although in fact this thread demonstrates that 90% of law is about applying a bit of common sense. The vast majority of posters on here were absolutely right in their view that they couldn’t possibly have given permission for unlawful use. As I said before, Mumsnetters are no fools, and treating us as such is a bad move.