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

[Wondermoomin]

Welcome to part 2. The quote I’ve added in the title is actually a generic quote about MNHQ not specifically about product recommendations, but it’s very eloquent and quotable.

Here is part one: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5326652-mn-have-used-my-quote-to-promote-a-product-ive-never-bought

And here’s a brief summary so far:

• MN were caught out, allegedly acting in breach of ASA guidelines among other things
• The thread was temporarily hidden
• MN then provided a few explanation posts saying that this was a one-off cock-up and sorry that we MNers were confused
• Then we were told that in 99% of cases, the quotes refer to the specific products being featured; in a tiny minority, they are referring to a generic product category and will make that clearer
• Several users easily discovered multiple other examples, suggesting that it wasn’t just 1% of cases, or a one-off cock-up
• MN went on an editing spree of their swears by/recommendations sections (editing about 64 out of 75 things), also suggesting it’s not just 1% or an isolated cock-up
• The thread largely disappeared from active and trending, suggesting it’s been suppressed
• MN says it hasn’t been suppressed, threads appear in active based on popularity and how new they are
• Another MN source shows that they do sometimes remove threads from active to give them a chance to “calm down”

Please feel free to use this thread to capture any other examples you find, to update on anything you hear back from ASA, to provide your own professional or common sense input.

If you don’t agree, it’s probably not the thread for you so please feel free to pass on by! An issue doesn’t have to be the most pressing matter of our times to be important, and I think it’s important that trusted brands don’t mislead consumers.

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

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Have you heard anything back from MN yet @Wondermoomin?

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

Recent guidance from the Competition and Markets Authority.

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.

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.

@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.

Commenting to keep it trending/active

Surely none of this should come as a surprise, don't we all know that we are the product being sold?!

Really surprised there's been no response from MNHQ yet.

There are now two substantial threads - if you read them you will see that this is not about us being sold, but rather us being both the instrument and the target of misselling. The misrepresentation of MNers’ words to induce other MNers to make purchasing decisions is not something any of us would reasonably expect.

No, I haven’t.

I nominated the previous thread for classics.

This is the response I've had today:-

We will certainly pass on your nomination, thanks!
Best,
Hope
MNHQ

I won't hold my breath 🤣

I wonder how many Classics nominations it will receive 🤔 don't hold your breath I'd say!

The business of online reviews is so shady in general and I'm surprised to see that Mumsnet has stooped to that level. Clearly I'm just naive, one more reason to never take any online recommendations into account, they are all doctored.

No, that’s not the case.

On the one hand: Mumsnet user says “I recommend this specific item” and Mumsnet uses those words in a Swears By article endorsing that specific item. in this scenario we accept MN is entitled to use our words, it’s part of the Terms of Service, we accept that they monetise our words for any affiliate link, advertising revenue etc

On the other hand: @Wondermoomin says in 2017 that she has a pop up gazebo (no brand specified) and it is good. In 2025 MN uses that quote to advertise a specific gazebo, falsely implying that the Moomin recommends that specific gazebo in breach of ASA rules about misleading advertising. MN apologises but says this sort of thing is an isolated incident. Turns out it is not an isolated incident and has been done on countless occasions. MN then hides the Moomin’s thread by “taking it down to have a look at it”, then reinstates it but hides it from Active, and meanwhile goes on a massive editing spree of more than a hundred Swears By articles (including ones relating to Black Friday 2024, where there would seem to be no reason to edit those unless it was to remove evidence that they have misused quotes from users repeatedly in the past).

Can you see the difference between those two scenarios?