limited. This is particularly notable given the frequency with which such reviews appear on major online platforms. However, several authorities have issued significant decisions in this area. They signal a growing awareness and willingness to act. The need to contain this writing does not allow for appropriate evidence to this topic. V. FAKE REVIEWS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION Before illustrating this issue, a few preliminary observations are necessary. First, various actors operate on the Internet, and the rights at stake may vary accordingly. As a result, the publication of fake reviews may involve different tortfeasors and give rise to various types of damages. The fake review (whether laudatory for the professional or disparaging for a competitor) carried out directly by an entrepreneur will undoubtedly constitute an act of unfair competition. More frequently, however, it will be an agency on behalf of an entrepreneur that issues the fake review (in practice, cases of service agencies, which sell packages of reviews, sometimes using artfully created fake accounts to carry out the campaign, are frequent). Well, in the same way as misleading and disparaging advertising, fake reviews should also be considered an act of unfair competition23. A recent case in Italy has drawn considerable attention. The American e-commerce giant filed a lawsuit against a company that, through its website ‘Realreviews’ offered businesses a service consisting of “orchestrated” reviews for products sold on the Amazon marketplace. The dispute focused on the fact that, as part of the service purchased by the reviewed business, ‘Realreviews’ offered to reimburse the cost of the product to users who posted a positive review on the platform. The Court of Milan fully upheld the plaintiff’s claims, ruling that Realreviews’ conduct amounted to unfair competition. The reasoning behind the decision is twofold. First, fake reviews distort the product market by seriously undermining fair competition. Honest competitors are unfairly disadvantaged when their authentic reviews are compared to fabricated ones. Second, the market for online review services is also compromised: consumers are misled by false information, 23 The Italian Supreme Court has had occasion to clarify that for the commission of the injurious act by the third party to constitute an act of unfair competition, it is necessary to prove the existence of a relationship of interest between the perpetrator of the act and the advantaged entrepreneur: Cass. civ., 23.3.2017, n. 747, in Giurispr. italiana, 2017, 1881, with comment of I. Uberti, La concorrenza sleale per interposta persona. 563 FAKE AND PAID-FOR ONLINE REVIEWS AND PROTECTION
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==