TripAdvisor's 'bad reviews' (part 1)

TripAdvisor, an online review platform, has dominated the travel e-commerce arena and now claims to be the largest travel site in the world, with more than 60 million members and over 170 million reviews.¹ Readers are encouraged to post their own reviews of hotels, restaurants, attractions and destinations worldwide, online, and free of charge.

Unsubstantiated

Recently TripAdvisor has been criticised by various government watchdogs for allowing unsubstantiated and anonymous reviews to be posted about businesses online. Interestingly, some authorities have instituted measures to restrict the availability of, and access to, misleading information provided on this site.

In this 3 part series (updated daily) some of the reactions from authorities are canvassed. In this blog, part 1 stays downunder, part 2 flies to Italy for an assessment on its intriguing position, before a whirlwind tour of the UK in part 3.

Australia – room for improvement

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has recognised the potential dangers associated with TripAdvisor and called for changes to bring the industry’s behaviour in line with ACCC expectations’.²

Rather than relying on the general provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA), the ACCC has now developed the ‘Suppliers Guide: Online reviews – a guide for business and review platforms’ that deals specifically with online misconduct. It states that review sites must:

be transparent about commercial relationships;
not post or publish misleading reviews; and
note that the omission or editing of reviews may be misleading.

Businesses that fail to remove fictitious reviews may now be subject to penalties and may be in breach of the CCA.

Could do better

Notwithstanding these positive steps, specific industry associations, such as Restaurant and Catering Australia, believe that more can be done. These guidelines provide no real enforcement powers to investigate and address false reviews which have prompted some officials to suggest that there be a code of practice…rather than a straight regulatory response’.³