In the age of online reviews, Trustpilot stands out as a seemingly democratic platform where users can share their experiences, providing businesses with an opportunity to build trust with potential customers. However, beneath the surface, Trustpilot’s claims of being “free and open” are called into question by businesses who find themselves at the mercy of a system that may not be as transparent and fair as it appears.
The journey of one such business, Shoprocket, reveals a troubling reality about Trustpilot. The company’s profile was added without their consent when a user left a 5-star review in 2019. Suddenly, Shoprocket found itself thrust into a platform where anyone could leave a public review, and the business had no control over this information. This lack of control becomes even more problematic when Trustpilot’s policies and practices come into play.
Trustpilot allows anyone to add a “business profile,” and once added, it cannot be removed. While businesses can claim their profile, they are unable to erase their company or information from the platform. This policy is ostensibly in place to maintain the authenticity of reviews, but what happens when reviews are less than genuine? The lack of a thorough verification process raises concerns about the credibility of the platform.
The catch-22 situation becomes apparent when businesses, like Shoprocket, find themselves entangled with Trustpilot. Trustpilot’s terms dictate that using their platform requires agreement with their terms. However, businesses argue that they never consented to being listed on Trustpilot in the first place. Their right to control their online presence is compromised when a third party adds them without permission.
To add insult to injury, Trustpilot’s system allows for potentially harmful situations. The ability for anyone to post reviews without stringent checks or verification opens the door to fake reviews and even malicious attacks. The platform’s structure enables individuals to make unfounded claims against businesses, tarnishing their reputation without accountability.
Responding to a review on Trustpilot necessitates registration and acceptance of the platform’s terms. This further entangles businesses in a web where they must comply with rules they never agreed to in the first place. Whether using Trustpilot’s services for free or as a paying customer, acceptance of terms is mandatory, giving the platform significant control over businesses’ online presence.
To underscore the platform’s flaws, an experiment was conducted by posting a review for a fictitious company. The review was accepted without question, emphasizing the potential for abuse on Trustpilot. If this can happen with a fabricated entity, it raises serious doubts about the reliability of the reviews on the platform.
The scenario becomes even more troubling when considering the impact on local businesses. Unscrupulous individuals could post damaging fake reviews without consequences. While Trustpilot allows businesses to claim their profiles and request investigations into the legitimacy of reviews, the process is not foolproof. The burden of proof falls on the business, creating an asymmetry that could lead to reputational damage.
In conclusion, Trustpilot’s claims of being a “free and open” platform are put under scrutiny by the experiences of businesses like Shoprocket. The lack of consent for listing, coupled with an inability to remove profiles, creates a power dynamic that favors Trustpilot. The potential for abuse in the form of fake reviews further erodes the platform’s credibility. Trustpilot’s practices raise important questions about the need for reform and a more equitable system that genuinely serves the interests of both businesses and users.
Leave a Reply