Well, there are lots of things you would have to control for (product category, total # of reviews, % of paid reviews, item price, who sold the item, etc.) and I doubt the data would be that conclusive.
I suspect that the net effect of these paid reviews is, for many products, the same as participating in Amazon’s Vine program, which is also used to ensure that a product gets a number of reviews shortly after it is introduced. In both cases, later, organically created reviews are probably of higher quality and more accurate, but the early reviews help the product find a foothold.
While that will certainly influence the verdict, I find it hard to believe it would negate standing. Sure, the defense attorney should argue that. But constructing datasets like that are what all data scientists do (and amazon has some of the best).
I find fake reviews are pretty easy to spot. A lot of hairdressing places try to rig Google Maps ratings in their favor and it’s so easy to tell when the review is overly enthusiastic.
I take every review I read with a grain of salt. Sometimes they are really helpful; other times people post negative reviews for what is obviously user error.
Amazon provides the service, which is fantastic - raise your hand if you have turned to Amazon just for the review and purchased elsewhere - but it’s a given people will try to play the system in their favor.
Hey all, thanks for posting the complaint.
So, I actually am a lawyer, but I’m not licensed to practice law in the state of Washington (just CA); and so I don’t pretend to know anything about that state’s laws.
That being said, the primary causes of action are all federal, to wit:
Trademark infringement (Lanham Act claim 1);
Unfair Competition (Lanham Act claim 2);
Dilution of a Famous Mark
Cybersquatting
And then there are some state law and common law causes of action
Consumer Protection Act (most/all states have some version of these)
Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations
Unjust Enrichment
Accounting
Fraud is not alleged (and I can’t say whether I think it would fly under the facts alleged by the Plaintiff, because I don’t know what the fraud standard is in Washington state). Also, to touch on an earlier post, my opinion is that there is absolutely no standing problem here, particularly since the primary causes of action are all based in trademark and consumer protection. Standing is the doctrine that requires that there be a live case or controversy for the court to adjudicate, and that the plaintiff be a real party in interest (huge simplification here, but check out the Wikipedia page if you are interested in this). Since Amazon is the company whose systems are being abused, and whose trademark is being “diluted”; if this were a law school exam I would state equivocally that standing existed.
In any event, it is an interesting set of facts, and I’ll be interested in seeing how it shakes out.
Well, standing isn’t a problem on trademark claims (not that those claims seem very good), but I do think it would be more of an issue in any fraud claims (as well as the unjust enrichment claim and tortious interference claim). Without reading the complaint these claims don’t seem super strong.
Ah well, who can tell how these things will shake out in the courtroom? I was able to read the complaint (its actually posted up above); I think the the tortious interference allegation is pretty solid. Party A (amazon) and Party B (the consumer) make an agreement to sell/purchase a widget. If a third party gets in between this exchange via some kind of tortious conduct, I for one would also feel just fine about alleging it in a complaint (at least in California).
Anywho, a lot of fun to think about. Thank you for your thoughts.
