Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 101kWORD 18k
6 June 2018
Question for written answer E-003093-18
to the Commission
Rule 130
Virginie Rozière (S&D) , Sergio Gutiérrez Prieto (S&D)

 Subject:  Authenticity of customer online reviews
 Answer in writing 

Online reviews contribute to the success of online platforms. They are crucial to customers’ decisions. However, these comments are subject to many types of abuse. In several Member States, competition authorities express concern regarding bad practices and the importance of non-compliant opinions. While the phenomenon of fake reviews continues to grow, genuine ones face manipulation through excessive moderation and unfair practices.

At a time when online trust is fundamental for EU digital economic growth, the behaviour of certain platforms should not put this trust at stake. Fake reviews are already banned under EC law, but the ban has proved almost impossible to implement. Increasing the transparency of platforms regarding how they control the authenticity of reviews would improve the fight against this phenomenon. France has already adopted an obligation for platforms which publish customer reviews to inform their users about the methods used for checking the reliability of reviews. Such provisions at EU level could boost consumer confidence and benefit the digital single market.

Neither the recently proposed New Deal for Consumers nor the regulation on platform-to-business relations seem to tackle this issue sufficiently.

Why did the Commission not tackle this problem in these proposals?

Is the Commission planning further actions to solve this issue?

Last updated: 19 June 2018Legal notice