Online reviews, from proof of purchase to tightening reviews in exchange for advantages: the Antitrust guidelines

A link to leave the review sent only after delivery, a QR code on the restaurant table, a receipt attached as proof. These are some of the tools with which hotels, restaurants and platforms will be able to demonstrate that the reviewer really slept in that room or ate at that table. The Competition and Market Authority has adopted the guidelines on online reviews provided for by article 21 of the annual law on SMEs, just published in the weekly bulletin.

This marks the end of a journey that began at the end of June. The scheme, preliminarily approved on 23 June, was in public consultation from 30 June to 15 July; the Authority then consulted Agcom, the Privacy Guarantor, the Ministry of Business and the Ministry of Tourism on the text. The law was waiting precisely for these operational indications. The perimeter is that of tourism and catering, but the Antitrust also provides "general indications" valid in principle for each sector, aimed at all professionals "wherever established" who operate towards the Italian market.

The heart of the text is the "reasonable and proportionate measures" to verify authenticity, to be calibrated according to the size of the company and divided into three categories. The tools to prove the purchase: tax documentation, card statement, booking number, review collected only in the customer's reserved area. The presumption established by law weighs heavily here: the review accompanied by evidence of the issue of tax documentation is considered authentic, unless proven otherwise. Then the traceability of the author, with registration, confirmation email and control of the IP address. Finally, automatic systems that intercept anomalies, such as many reviews in a short time from the same IP or repetitive linguistic patterns. In the event of an alarm, the system "should not automatically delete the review", but suspend it pending a quick verification.

Squeeze on award-winning reviews: "Reviews whose content is the result of the incentive provided by the professional are always illegal." When the advantage does not influence the judgment, the indication is to inform the consumer anyway and to mark the review with "obviously perceptible graphic elements". Also to be avoided are the removal or concealment of criticisms, the preparation of pre-compiled models of positive opinions or the publication of average scores based on non-explained criteria.

Platforms that host third-party reviews are called upon to handle complaints in a timely manner: if the illicit aspect emerges "ictu oculi", they should remove the content without delay, and those who report are not required to prove the falsity of a review without documentation. As for the timing, the judgment is lawful if issued within thirty days of the end of the use of the service; late publication, however, does not in itself violate the Consumer Code. The Authority will review the guidelines within one year of publication.