The FTC Has Confirmed That Sunday Riley Faked Product Reviews

[itscarin]

Theres an article on Jezebel about the FTC findings for the Sunday Riley fake review scandal. It’s amazing to see all the speculation confirmed. 

“According to the FTC, the company’s managers and even company founder Sunday Riley herself posted fake reviews of the skincare line’s products on Sephora’s website using “fake accounts created to hide their identity.” And while the FTC press release doesn’t quite say it so baldly, managers also forced, or “requested,” employees to write fake reviews as well.”

The FTC report includes the following gem:

“This settlement sends the wrong message to the marketplace. Dishonest firms may come to conclude that posting fake reviews is a viable strategy, given the proposed outcome here. Honest firms, who are the biggest victims of this fraud, may be wondering if they are losing out by following the law. Consumers may come to lack confidence that reviews are truthful.”

The crazy part is that Sunday Riley does make some really good products. I’d be lost without the SR CEO moisturizer right now. Good Genes is also a standout product. Reading about the level of dishonesty that took place is unsettling. 

Did anyone else see this article?!

Update 10/24: The original thread on BIC where the SR email was posted (concerning instructions on how to post fake reviews) - https://community.sephora.com/t5/Skincare-Aware/Sunday-Riley-Fake-Reviews/td-p/4245507

[pocketvenus]

@itscarinThanks for posting - I read about this on Hypebae. By FTC not coming down hard on companies that cheat, it is punishing the brands that are being honest! 😞 So I hope they get more than a slap on the wrist. Haven't tried SR products, will never bother to now.

[WinglessOne]

@itscarin  A few things: 

1. Folks should read the FTC’s full statements and the actual order. Just google “FTC Sunday Riley” and scroll through results until you see the FTC’s site. Read that one. It contains links to the full dissent statement, the actual settlement order, and a place where you can comment on the order. 

2. This is a proposed settlement order by the FTC. It’ll be open for public comment for 30 days, after which the FTC will decide whether or not to make it final. You can comment right now by emailing the FTC, or wait til October 25 when you can comment at regulations(dot)gov. 

3. As a Sephora and beauty consumer, I plan to tell the FTC they’re being too lenient with SR. I can’t believe they dodged a fine, especially considering disclosure violation orders against other companies. And this little wrist slap won’t deter other beauty brands. 

4. As I mentioned in the Beauty News thread, I’m glad the FTC stepped in and did their job. After watching them misunderstand and mishandle things in the digital shopping realm for years (they don’t seem to understand how online shopping differs from physical store shopping, or how online consumer behavior differs from that of in-store shoppers), it’s nice to see them approach this SR issue better. I just wish they’d handed down a stronger consent order. 

5. It is very easy to get the FTC involved in things like this. All it takes is screenshots and explanation of the alleged violation/problem, submitted to the FTC as a consumer complaint. 

6. That’s why it’s important to follow disclosure law, especially if you frequently review products on IG/YouTube you got as gratis/PR or you’re brand-sponsored—but also anytime you review products anywhere. There are legal reasons why Sephora asks us to clearly identify any gratis they send us when we review those items on BIC. It covers our butts and Sephora’s. 

[angelKiss24]

Thank you for posting this @WinglessOne .  As a consumer, it is important to voice our opinions and help protect our fellow consumers.  I have submitted my comment on the matter to the FTC and hope that many others will also submit theirs.  We need to hold companies to a higher standard to protect ourselves from deceptive practices.

[missjr]

Thanks for sharing this. I saw this story about SR on Microsoft News this morning. It may also explain why there are only 20 reviews for SR on Sephora's site as of this morning.  

I totally agree with the dissent that SR got off rather lightly, which will not serve as a deterrent to other companies. However, I have learned to pay particular attention to the number of positive reviews that are admittedly made by influencers versus those who are verified purchasers. Amazon has had this same issue in recent years, including "reviews" from people who didn't buy a book or product and clearly state they have no intention of doing so because they hate the person or company who sold the book. 

[WinglessOne]

@missjr  Amazon fascinates me because they seem to magically avoid lots of FTC violations. Since Amazon’s basically an online shopping mall, I assume they try to deflect most compliance responsibility onto sellers/merchants who set up shop in their online mall. I don’t understand how they’ve gotten away with disclosure issues I’ve seen on various product pages over the years. Then again, for all I know they’re under investigation and the FTC just hasn’t made it public knowledge yet. 

About Amazon fake reviews: that’s a long-running problem they keep trying to fix. (In some cases it’s tied to hijacked listings, another big Amazon problem.) Once upon a time, while reviewing resumes for some job openings in my org, I found an applicant who listed “freelance reviews” in her work history. I looked her up online and sure enough, she offered to write positive reviews of products and negative reviews of competitors’ products at Amazon and a few other places. I almost set up an interview just so I could grill her about that for 30 minutes. 😡 Instead, I reported her to Amazon. 

Folks like that would perhaps be less willing to pull that crap if companies like Sunday Riley were hit harder for doing nearly the same thing—and other companies would think twice about hiring those folks. 

[MissPuff]

@WinglessOne  Amazon avoiding harsh scrutiny from the FTC might have to do with the massive amount of money they spend on lobbying year after year. $14.2 million in 2018 and 2019 is on track to surpass that absurd number.

Also, it's pretty obvious by now that the government in general has ZERO idea how technology actually works, they're obviously and painfully playing catch up now when it comes to overseeing and regulating Google, Amazon, Facebook, Uber, etc. The people in charge simply lack the most basic understanding of these companies, systems, and products so how can we expect them to effectively protect the end users? 

[WinglessOne]

@MissPuff  Very true about Amazon. They seem to have magically dodged a lot of trouble in general. Funny how “magically” and “monetarily” both start with M. 😄 

Also true that the US government lags in the digital space. But the FTC in particular is frustratingly stuck in brick & mortar, print, and TV/radio broadcast mode. Anyone who’s familiar with building or designing online buyflows for large companies (or even small companies) can read the FTC’s “dotcom disclosures guidelines” pdf and roll their eyes at all the ways the FTC insists in-store shopping is identical to online shopping. Never mind that they claim their “guidelines” aren’t meant to dictate design, which is why they’re kinda vague about some things therein—yet there is actual case law behind those guidelines which can be used to charge companies with violations and impose big fines. Kinda like “we don’t wanna explicitly tell you to do X, Y, and Z because we want you to have the freedom to innovate, so we’ll stay a little vague there. But if you don’t do X, Y, and Z, we’re gonna come after you.” 🙄 Being more concrete about disclosure rules backed by law would make it easier for companies to comply—but also harder for the FTC to charge for violations, so... yeah. 

I think the FTC is in waaaay over their head with anything having to do with online commerce. Even the FCC seems to have a better understanding of it. (Well, maybe not the FCC as we currently know them, thanks to the current fed administration—but that’s a whole other political rant I don’t wanna step into.) They should hand all that governance off to another fed agency, or finally hire folks who know about this stuff. 

[MissPuff]

@WinglessOne Haha, as behind as the feds were BEFORE the current admin, it feels like they are actively running in reverse now 🙂 The insanity going on at the Dept of Commerce alone is MIND BOGGLING.

I feel like federal guidelines for most everything is so vague as to be totally useless. I deal mostly with the FDA and it feels similar, strongly advised to comply with standards X, Y, and Z, but no suggestions or best practices with how and/or if corrections are needed, till they fine you of course 🙂 I feel like federal inefficiency has less to do with encouraging innovation, and more to do with the fact that the agencies in general are just not broadly knowledgeable and so incredibly slow to adopt change or attract individuals that actually know what's going on RIGHT NOW. Combine that with aggressive lobbying by companies that DO know what's up, and it's no surprise consumers and citizens are not protected or looked after.

[GG84]

@WinglessOne 

They definitely aren’t the only ones in violation, they are just the only ones who got caught. 
I can name 2 brands I suspect of doing this very thing but without proof 🤷🏻‍♀️ 

[WinglessOne]

@GG84  Thanks to the FTC’s operating pace and “don’t make it public knowledge til we’re ready to really show out” policy, there’s no telling which other beauty brands (if any) they’re targeting right now. Then again, sometimes the FTC sees violations of the same law(s) by multiple companies in the same industry, and they’ll pick one company to go after and make an example of. I suspect that’s what they’re doing with Sunday Riley. Eh, I could be wrong. 

But yeah, SR’s not the only guilty brand/company. We might not be able to easily prove violations we suspect, but maybe other folks can. For instance, the suspected Olaplex shill accounts: we can’t really prove that as BIC end users, but maybe Sephora can track IPs (assuming IPs aren’t being masked) and gather other data to provide the FTC as proof in their own complaint. What we can do in that case is make Sephora aware of our suspicions. 🙂 Same goes for any other forum or social media platform where we see something fishy. 

[pocketvenus]

@WinglessOneThank you for this super helpful post!! If you are Canadian can you still contribute?

[WinglessOne]

@pocketvenus  Hmm, that’s a good question! Comments would be about US law and/or enforcement (haha, “enforcement”... don’t post fake reviews, beauty brands, or else we’ll... we’ll... slap your wrist! You’ll regret it for a whole millisecond! Don’t test us!), but I’ve never seen statements about folks outside the US being unable to comment. Now I wonder how many Canadian comments are submitted to regulations(dot)gov each year. Anyway, maybe in your comment you can mention you’re Canadian and feel you’re impacted by this SR situation. 

Surprisingly, I’ve never looked up Canada’s laws about disclosures. That’ll be a fun research topic for a rainy afternoon/evening. 🙂 

[pocketvenus]

Thanks, @WinglessOne !!! It's hard to say, even if comments are accepted, how much responsibility the FTC has in considering comments from non-Americans.

Canadian legislation really lags behind it seems. In Jan 2019, CBC News reported that Advertising Standards Canada currently provides guidelines and there are no fines for social media advertising that don't follow the disclosure recommendations.​ Canadians are advised to stick with FTC standards. If a Canadian sees guidelines are being consistently flouted, they can complain to the Competition Bureau which is tasked with determining whether a case runs afoul the Competition Act, which "prohibits the making of, as well as permitting the making of, materially false or misleading representations." Fines run up to  $750,000 for individuals and $10 million for corporations. But I wonder how many Canadian influencers incorporate? It's common for freelancers.

[WinglessOne]

@pocketvenus  Thanks for the info! That’s very interesting; I didn’t know Canadians are told to follow the FTC’s disclosure guidelines. Comments from Canadians on the proposed SR settlements might not carry as much weight as American comments, but I doubt the FTC would flat-out ignore them. Especially if commenters remind the FTC that they’re told to follow American disclosure guidelines—plus brands like SR sell in Canada as well, so stronger American action against them might make them think twice about pulling the same crap on a Canadian online space like Sephora.ca. 

[MlleCC]

Thank you for sharing, @itscarin .

I agree with the dissenting FTC commissioner's statement that the settlement with Sunday Riley does very little to deter other companies engaging in the same dishonest behavior. There were no material consequences for Sunday Riley as a firm; they were simply asked to desist from the same dishonest activities in the future and to comply with some regulatory tasks and bookkeeping -- in other words, the bare-minimum that they should have been doing in the first place.

This entire affair is a shame and should have been avoidable for a brand that produced solidly-performing products -- Luna and Good Genes were staples in my skincare rotation.

[yuline]

Very disturbing that Sunday Riley lacks ethics and forced its employees to engage in unethical behavior. Luna and Good Genes are such good products but I won’t be buying anymore Sunday Riley after I’ve used up Luna. I can’t ever believe anything the brand says from now on especially after they only got a slap on the wrist. Not enough for them to really learn their lesson unless assuming they are not self deluded they are significantly impacted by the bad press. If they’re capable of this level of deceit starting with the founder, how can you trust they haven’t taken unethical shortcuts in manufacturing or quality? I’m sure they’re not the only brand engaging in such tactics and were just unlucky enough to get caught. If Sunday Riley could somehow prove sincerely they’ve changed after this, then I’d consider rebuying but it’s a tall order to rebuild reputations once lost. In the meanwhile, I’ll be sticking to Farmacy,The Ordinary, Ilia, Briogeo, Josie Maran, Tarte, Tata Harper etc until I hear differently. As far as I know these seem like upstanding brands.

[tinazhang718]

I feel other skincare brands are doing this too. Some of the glow recipe's glowing reviews seem all so contrive. 

[itscarin]

@tinazhang718 One of the points that was raised in the FTC report is that if fake reviews are not punished harshly, it sends the message to other brands that fake reviews are ok, and part of the marketing landscape.  It normalizes/legitimizes these tactics to the point where, even if your brand is amazing, you feel compelled to write fake reviews for your products because everyone else is doing it.  It's kind of like grade inflation, but product review inflation.  Everyone normalizes 5 star reviews to the point where, if you don't have 5 star reviews, there's something terribly wrong with your product.  

If we're being honest, not every single product can be a 4 star + product.  When you sort products by reviews on Sephora, almost everything is 3 stars +.  I just looked at the eyeshadows, and the lowest rated eyeshadow was 2.7+, almost 3.    

[missjr]

I wholeheartedly agree with this assessment.  I can't begin to calculate how many coins I've spent and wasted based on reviews for products that are filtered as "bestsellers" or "top rated." I learned the hard way that just because Lotty, Dotty and everybody gives a product 5 stars does not necessarily mean that it will work for me. This includes foundations that are marketed for my oily skin but only end up being epic fails for me because they did the exact opposite of what they were supposed to do.  I often wondered, "How could that be?  Were all those people wrong?"  This includes, but are not limited to, skincare products that were highly rated but contained fragrances, certain alcohols, essential oils, or other products known to damage the skin. Again, I wondered, "How could all of those reviewers have been wrong?"

As consumers, it's vital that we do our own homework and buy products based on what actually works for us as individuals.  I pay close attention to products reviewed by verified purchasers and those who admittedly are writing reviews as influencers.  I also pay attention to those low ratings. Sometimes a product is given 3 or 4 stars because it is otherwise excellent, but the amount of product doesn't justify the price point. Other times, products may receive lower ratings because the company in its infinite wisdom chose to follow some trend and change a formula, i.e. fixing something that was never broken. 

[bunnymasseuse]

Saw it, would like to see all reviews purged for all SR products here and let people submit new reviews. Legitimate reviews of customers who didn’t praise the product were downvoted by employees and customers alike, but how can we or Sephora tell the difference? Some of these reviews were removed under this false behavior. Just because other companies may behave this way does not justify doing it because you have yet to get caught. If another brand I may like or favor was to be exposed for operating this way I would cease support of the company going forward and reconsider over time if the response and public message leveraged a transparent improvement plan. “Because everyone else does it and doesn’t get caught” does not legitimize the act or avoid repercussions.

[Suneila]

Thankyou for sharing..I did not hear about this. I have used their products and have couple of favorites but would never buy from a company with this level of dishonesty.