On 22 July 2020, online jobs platform Service Seeking was fined $600,000 for allowing businesses to publish reviews about their own work which falsely represented that those reviews were written by customers. This amounted to a breach of sections 18, 29(1)(e) and 34 of the Australian Consumer Law.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Service Seeking Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1040
Service Seeking operates a website and mobile app (together, Platform) which connects potential customers who require certain services with businesses registered on the Platform offering those services. On the Platform, reviews and star ratings for businesses were visible so that customers could choose a business to use. From 12 July 2016 until 29 November 2018 (Relevant Period), Service Seeking had a ‘Fast Feedback’ review system, which allowed a business to generate a review and star rating to send to the customer. The customer could then indicate whether they agreed with the review or they could alternatively write their own review. If a customer failed to respond or dispute the review within 72 to 96 hours of receiving the email, then the review would automatically be published on the business’ profile on the Platform and be incorporated into its overall rating profile. During the Relevant Period, approximately 80% (being 17,531) of the reviews published through the Fast Feedback system were published by default i.e. because the customer had not responded to the email.
Consequently, the ACCC commenced proceedings, alleging that Service Seeking contravened the misleading and deceptive conduct provisions of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).
The representation
There was no dispute between the parties that the published Fast Feedback reviews were representations made by Service Seeking that purported to be testimonials by customers who utilised the business’ services (Customer Testimonial Representation). This representation continued until 13 May 2019, as the reviews remained on the Platform until this time. There were three different review formats used between different periods, which comprised the following statements:
- “[name of business] did a [description of services] job for me in [location] and the job was completed on time, on budget, to a professional standard and with good communication” (between 12 July 2016 and around March 2018);
- “[business name] completed this job and reported that [first name of customer] was satisfied because the job was completed on time, on budget, to a professional standard and with good communication” (between March 2018 and around August 2018); and
- “[business name] reported the job was completed on time, on budget, to a professional standard and with good communication” (between August 2018 and 13 May 2019).
