Online platforms need to get tough on fake review factories

I agree. Check out the seller first. Someone earlier posted a complaint about lamps that were poor quality bought online. Had they looked at reviews they would have found 92% said don’t buy from them. We do need to exercise some discretion.

This is the story about the lamp: https://www.which.co.uk/news/2022/01/online-shop-litfad-sold-me-a-dangerous-faulty-lamp-and-it-wont-refund-me-what-can-i-do/

I looked at the company’s website at the time and it’s foreign and without contact details other than for the website operator.

I make a point of buying from companies based in the UK or with a UK office. If something goes wrong I stand a chance of sorting out the problem. I once made a mistake of buying a product from Pixmania, then part of the Dixons Retail Group, about a pricing issue. I had not appreciated that they were based in France or the Netherlands and after a couple of unhelpful email communications and an expensive overseas call I abandoned my attempts and lost my expected discount. I now routinely check contact details for companies and if there is no UK office shown on the website I go somewhere else.

@alfa – I mentioned below that I thought the photo with the wrong plugs had been Photoshopped. Looking closer I see that the top two plugs are identical. They are also aligned differently with the sockets they are supposed to be plugged in to, which would not be possible if they were real.

I had assumed that the top two sockets on the left hand side were for two-pin plugs making the tower effectively a converter and therefore quite a useful piece of apparatus [if it was electrically safe in all respects]. Somebody buying it on that basis and then finding it was only useful for standard UK three-pin plugs would would be disappointed and probably not able to get a satisfactory remedy from the supplier even under the ‘not as described’ provisions of the Consumer Rights Act.

If marketplaces are not in a position to test or check the products they bring to market they could at least scrutinise the advertising material; most of it for this type of product is extremely bad and potentially misleading or deceptive.

If you look at the middle socket, part of the rectangular recess for an Earth pin is clearly visible, matching others in the photo. The edge of a similar recess can just be seen next to the bottom plug. Creating images that don’t exist is extremely easy in Photoshop and other software and does not take much expertise. The person who created this photo was careless and did not put one of the plugs in the right place.

Amazon and eBay usually provide photos that show the plugs fitted to electrical goods these days, presumably because of the number of complaints about products supplied with the wrong plug.

We don’t want products that are wrongly described but it’s worse if they are dangerous. We need legislation.

They could be photoshopped, glued on or different pins pushed in the holes. All the power sockets are intended for standard UK plugs.

The point I was making was this was advertised as the safest product, but how can it be when it is not even advertised correctly?

I would like to see a ban on doctoring of images because it is misrepresentation. Recall the early attempts where right-hand drive models of cars were created by flipping images of LHD models and an inept computer user forgot about the badge or model name being reversed.

I’d like to see advice from Which? to avoid buying from online marketplaces rather than just adding to the list of dangerous goods they sell.

First, I would like to see it made much clearer when a product is supplied from a “market place” and that the host – Amazon et al – cannot guarantee the product’s authenticity and safety and take no responsibility for it.

I have bought a few things by this route successfully, but nothing that would pose potential harm. Discrimination and common sense is needed.

Which link wavechange? They are all working for me. You have to scroll down the page to ‘Recommended article’ to see the first image, I just added the red ring around ‘Safest Tower’.

I have just noticed I spelt Auopro as Aupro, but the link still works!

I can’t imagine any Chinese manufacturer would have a shortage of UK plugs.

Got it, Alfa. I was assuming I would find the photo in your link about a dodgy electrical product. I did find the photo under AUOPRO and it’s either the same as your second link.

Some of the tower extension sockets show photos with a spiral of cable with a mains plug at the top. That’s unlikely and probably a Photoshop creation.

I investigated tower extension leads some time ago. Very often you find the main images are different so they appear to be different products, but when you look at the additional photos you will find the same image is used on those different products.

Yes, I remember our discussions earlier. Selling the same or very similar products under different brand names has been going on for a very long time. I remember a technology writer Barry Fox explaining the practice in electronics magazines, around 1970. In these days it was done by well known companies and it encouraged some people to pay more for a better respected name. Nowadays its usually referred to as badge engineering and there are usually minor differences because if products were identical people would get to know via websites and social media.

Now, as you have pointed out, the same product can be sold under different names for financial reasons.

I remember coming across these socket towers a couple of years ago when trying to find a replacement multi-socket extension lead for my office. I wanted one with an ON indicator lamp for each socket but one that was not too bright [I bought a four gang strip with blue LED lamps which has been very good]. Just reading the fanciful and badly translated product descriptions for some of the multitude of socket towers was enough to convince me that these products were dodgy. I think having twelve outlets on one unit is asking for trouble. I daresay they sell well though.

Which? ran an article a couple of years ago on Shenzhen industries, I think it was, where a product developed passed through various other businesses before hitting the market in slightly different guises. Nov 2019 mag I think.

Badge engineering has gone on for years. Cars in the 50s were a good example.

Quite so. BMC made four marques of the Mini — Austin, Morris, Riley, and Wolseley each with a different badge and minor detail variations in the radiator grilles and trim. They were also given different names [Seven, Minor, Elf, and Hornet respectively]. Further variants emerged over time, including an MG-badged model, all with the same basic body shape. “Badge engineering” was really a euphemism for status discrimination which was what it was all about.

Remember the Wolseley4/44, Riley Pathfinder and MG Magnette in the ‘50s under BMC? Common bodies and chassis.

It is easy to say the government should legislate against fake reviews but not so easy, I suspect, to stop them. Maybe Which? could support their demand with proposals?

Here is an example of a dangerous product that has been on the Amazon website for months. I have mentioned it before:

The sleeving on the Earth pin could prevent connection with the contact in the socket. Amazon reviews can be very useful in identifying a problem and one reviewer found that the lead failed a PAT test, which means that it could electrocute if a fault developed in the product it was used with:

You may have to zoom in to read that.

At the time of writing the product can be found at: https://www.amazon.co.uk/TRD-Kettle-Power-monitor-printers-Black/dp/B08BJB2Q7K/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=kettle%2Blead&qid=1634547059&qsid=262-1881021-1254061&sr=8-4&sres=B002CZQ3G6%2CB08BJB2Q7K%2CB002DWA8IW%2CB071P7HYT3%2CB00A4ARUYA%2CB09DXG79VQ%2CB0058GXEZ4%2CB08P2TFRBR%2CB01MV29JD1%2CB087LZYXMT%2CB01DDI3YEY%2CB07622B8V8%2CB07F2JVPQS%2CB00407YEE2%2CB08FJFCP38%2CB00OY6D1DE&srpt=POWER_CORD&th=1

The majority of the 496 reviewers gave this product a five star rating. Most of the obviously dangerous electrical products I have seen online have had a good rating. Sadly you can rarely see if a product is dangerous just by looking at photos but the one star reviews can sometimes be useful.

When I tried to report a similar product my local Trading Standards was not interested if I have not bought a product. Maybe Which? could investigate. Does anyone here support this suggestion?

The Vanden Plas was a de luxe version of the 1960’s Austin A60 Cambridge and Morris Oxford models with Pinifarina styling, and I think there were Riley, Wolseley and MG variants as well.

Ford pressed the early Anglia and Escort small saloons from the same moulds and the same bodyshell was largely used for the Esquire estate version.

Vauxhall also had a family of saloons in the 1950’s with similar bodies [with Americanised jelly-mould styling] named Cresta, Velox and Wyvern in ascending order of specification; the Wyvern was quite a superior and much-admired motor with superb suspension.

I had an A60 back in the distant past. There were Riley MG Magnet and Wolseley versions which, apart from the Riley were standard cars with better trim than the Austin and Morris versions. I believe the Riley had twin carburettors and a few extra BHP. Bigger Austins -A90 and later A110 were unique and didn’t have any supporting cast in other marques. These were six cylinder cars. I don’t remember the Vanden Plas name being introduced until smaller 1100 and 1300 cars replaced the old A60’s with their sideways engines. The old Farina 110s then became Vanden Plas and one had a Rolls Royce Engine, but only 4 litres.
Fords Popular, Anglia and Prefect had to compete and their six volt systems, vacuum wipers and two cross springs and side valve engines were replaced in the newer models. These continued with the three speed box, where one revved hard in second and struggled in to top gear. While the Ford Consul, (4 cylinder) Zephyr and Zodiac already had 12 volt batteries, they kept the three speed box -as did Vauxhall. The Consul also had vacuum wipers for a while. Eventually at the beginning of the 1960s the New Ford Anglia came out to compete with the Mini, the A40 and Vauxhall Viva. Ford had a four speed box for the first time. It was bigger than the Mini and sold in millions.

There is a difference between rebranded re-utilised products from well known established brands and the products that are produced brandless and will appear on marketplaces with a multitude of fake names – all with an unknown source.

Sage appliances are rebranded Breville (Australia), and as Em says, Bosch Neff and Siemens are basically the same.

I have noticed Chinese sellers are now using brand names and creating websites with fake goods that although made up, will sound familiar to us. Premierstuffuk is one I just made up but you get the drift.

I believe at least one company has now made themselves a household name by putting their brand name on these types of unbranded goods and possibly on older models where they might get sole distribution rights. They have at least created a business based in the UK so can take responsibility for these products, but how can electrical products be guaranteed as safe and where do you draw the line?

As long as the price is right and there are some positive reviews people will buy them.

Some will spend hundreds of pounds and then buy an unbranded or counterfeit charger with good reviews that could be fake. If it fails it could wreck their shiny new phone or cause a fire.

Alfa, we did divert from the current rebranding discussion when someone raised badge engineering. Those who remembered the real Riley, Wolseley, MG and Vanden Plas might well have been enticed into thinking they were buying those qualities whereas, in fact, they were just buying BMC or BL.

The manufacture of anonymous products rebadged with house names, like tvs, white goods, is commonplace, as is the perpetuation of brand names that have been sold, retaining their identity but not their credentials. Shenzhen industry is just a version of that.

The question asked is how can electrical products be guaranteed as safe. All electrical products put up for sale in the UK are covered by safety regulations for them to be legally sold. This does not guarantee those actually sold are safe because the seller may have evaded the checks necessary to demonstrate compliance. If the seller is outside our jurisdiction then we are rather stuck, but if the seller is UK based then they can, and should, be prosecuted and penalised for breaking the law.

Policing the market and taking action when necessary should be our safeguards. That requires investment in people and resources and if we are not prepared to do that then we will continue to be exposed to harm.

I agree. We have to be very wary of product mimicry.

Again, as with fake reviews, it is a corruption of fair trading: good manufacturers spend years and fortunes developing a brand identity and then some backstreet outfit in outer wuhu comes along with a lousy product and piggybacks on their reputation. Legal action for ‘passing off’ is impossible or prohibitively complex and, anyway, the counterfeiter just folds up and re-emerges under another guise.

At present I feel reasonably safe buying known brands from retailers with UK shops or at least a UK office.

Reputable brand names have been sold off in the past and no longer necessarily live up to their memories. Companies change hands, or people change the existing culture, that can affect the way a brand performs. We have to be very wary of what we buy and where from so proper reviews, from reputable organisations like Which?, are very important to keep us informed of what is, and is not, worth buying. I don’t think Which? exploit this appeal sufficiently in marketing themselves.

Many years ago one son holidayed in Tenerife (I think it was) and, a generous lad, brought his sister and I a portable CD player each, battery operated with in-ear phones, back as presents. They were marked Panasoanic. They played remarkably well and proved durable. I was never sure whether he knew they were fake but I know they were a bargain price, as that was, and still is, in his nature. He is very savvy now.

Even “reputable” UK retailers have been found selling unsafe products. They have a duty to follow due diligence as they are legally responsible for what they sell. Clearly there is insufficient concern to ensure they all put in that effort, probably because enforcement is so lacking.

The key, in my view, to ensure we buy safe products is for those who transgress to be heavily penalised, and know that being found out is likely. That means a properly resourced Trading Standards organisation and publicised transgressions.

I have given an example of a dangerous product above the comments about vintage cars, Malcolm. This has been on sale for months and I tried to report a similar dangerous product several years ago.

I don’t believe we are anywhere near dealing with the problem of dangerous goods. Even if we had an effective Trading Standards action could only be taken after a product had been sold and the problem identified by which time the product could be in hundreds or thousands of homes. We need a new approach that is fit for the purpose now that so much is bought online and there are a huge number of dangerous and counterfeit products on sale and in homes.

Ask yourself which organisations are responsible for allowing/assisting/profiting from the most dangerous goods that enter the UK market and a solution to much of the problem might become apparent.

If the problems of unsafe goods sold online and fake reviews are to be tackled effectively it will take international cooperation between governments.

Ideally, yes, but not necessarily. Europe and the USA do not seem to be making progress. Now we are free of EU legislation I see no reason why we cannot construct UK legislation that makes those who in the UK operate market places, from which they benefit financially other than through simple advertising, responsible for the products they put onto the market via ”fulfilment” or what other term they choose. Other UK distributors and retailers are accountable.

I have yet to see evidence of the UK taking much action though have recently seen the new UKCA logo on a product. If the UK can force the large online marketplaces to take responsibility for the products that they host on behalf on marketplace traders, why are we not being informed? I had assumed that legislation would be needed.

For the time being I will continue to believe that we will have more influence on the operators of online marketplaces if our government works with other European governments.

It is about legislation, not influence.

Until we have legislation in place, applying pressure seems the best option. Amazon is good at removing dangerous and counterfeit when Which? and other organisations report problems and there are some clear rules for marketplace traders but they are obviously not policing what is offered for sale.

I don’t have a problem with fake reviews because I have so little trust in marketing. I wish that legitimate companies were pushing more for action against fake advertising since they will be losing sales.

There is no sign that Amazon, et al, respond to pressure. When Which? and others report dangerous products Amazon have little choice but to remove them from sale (until they assist another source to sell the same product). And by then it is too late; as I think you said above, thousands may be already out with unsuspecting customers.

So Amazon seems no good at preventing dangerous products passing through their hands until someone else has to tell them. They need to do their own checks before they sell them, not just react when found out. That would show responsibility. Legislation seems necessary to make them face up to that responsibility.

Interestingly, that’s not quite accurate. Some time ago I had cause to contact Amazon about a product that was absurdly over-priced and in breach of selling regs. They removed the item immediately from display and didn’t reinstate it. They do listen and take action sometimes.

Sometimes, and after the event when many have been exposed to potential harm, is the problem.

If they were responsible they would check items before they are exposed to public sale, just as other retailers should (although there are still failures). The pressure I was suggesting was to do just this but they appear not to have responded to long-standing pressure.

Thanks for the link wavechange.

Interesting that big brand names have removed themselves from Amazon because they get unfairly treated with fake reviews.

A few months ago I needed new cushions and covers. Feather cushions on one sofa were making me sneeze so they had to go and covers on the other were just worn out. A friend was happy to have all the feather cushions.

Normally I would go to the stores, take a colour swatch and examine them first. Plain colours show every mark and colours on a PC screen are unlikely to look the same as the real thing. But as I had to buy online, to be on the safe side, I decided on grey cord and didn’t want to spend too much as they might not be what I really wanted.

Google ‘grey cord cushion covers’ and it is a mine-field. They were too expensive or out of stock in most of the reputable stores and millions of them at the cheap end. I looked at the cheap ones mostly on marketplaces, but although they had glowing reviews, you could see puckered seams and badly finished items.

In the end I bought a selection of grey shades from Homebase and George at Asda and was pleased with all of them.

And this is the problem with everything now. It doesn’t matter what you want to buy, there’s a good chance the market is flooded and it is now very difficult to find products that are not mass-produced in China riddled with glowing fake reviews.

In the video, small businesses are struggling to compete when they have spent years building a business and gaining honest reviews. Along comes a fake brand and within months have higher fake glowing reviews, prices are undercut until the competition has been quashed and we have less real choice.

I can relate to that, Alfa. As a teenager I developed a feather allergy and switched to using synthetic pillows. Fortunately hotels use synthetic pillows these days and my cushions are synthetic too. Of course synthetics materials are an environmental problem but when I got new cushion covers I kept the padding and opted for covers that would wash.

I’m very reluctant to buy online unless I am familiar with the product. I have seen too many examples of poor quality products that others have bought online.

I agree with you about small businesses and even the larger ones don’t deserve competition from sellers of poor quality and possibly unsafe tat. Although I don’t pay attention to five star reviews I realise that many do, which is why I strongly support tackling fake reviews and misleading marketing.

If you spot any products that are obviously dangerous from reviewers’ comments or photos I would be interested. Perhaps we could work together to persuade Which? to investigate.

I’ll take allergies to the Lobby when I have more time but I had to wash the covers before they are used because of any chemicals that might still be on them. When I bought them I didn’t notice some were dry-clean only but they hand-washed and tumble-dryed OK.

According to one of the 1*reviews for the ‘safest tower’ above, this tower was recalled November 2021. It is still for sale though.

These types of products always have considerably more 5* reviews than 1* and many will be fake, so you never know how bad problems with a product really are. I only looked at that one as I was looking for a dodgy product. Having noticed them before it didn’t take long but I will keep a lookout for any more. Like Em, we look for better quality extension leads and will remember her recommendation for next time.

I’ve just seen the review you have mentioned. It seems mighty strange that Amazon should recall a product and leave it on sale and I wonder if the buyer was commenting on the wrong product. I’ve seen many examples of this where it is obvious that the comments don’t relate to the product. Where reviewers have mentioned that a product is dangerous, don’t you think that Amazon should investigate? Yes there are fake reviews but I doubt that most people would know if a small electrical product was dangerous our counterfeit. I’ve seen plenty of unbranded iPhone chargers that are very convincing replicas and I doubt that they comply with safety standards.

I looked at my Amazon account today and included in their recommendations were one of these tower sockets and an extension lead with non-compliant sockets. 🙁

I was interested in the feather cushion discussion. We have recently replaced the polyester inner pads in four cushions with duck feather and down-filled ones. The synthetic pads made the cushions too plump and unyielding so were not particularly comfortable. The cushions are now thinner, more flexible and without that over-stuffed appearance. I suppose half the cushions in use are for decorative purposes rather than for comfort. We now have four 50×50 cm 100% polyester cushion pads available if anyone wants them and has covers to fit; if there is no demand they will go to a charity shop.

Feather pads certainly make better inners but after 3.5 years, both our John Lewis and House of Fraser ones were shedding small feathers everywhere as the pad covers were not thick enough to retain them. We received a free feather cushion when we bought a rug from one of the furniture sheds – I think it was Furniture Village and it had a much thicker cover.

It’s time synthetic cushion pads and pillows were redesigned with much better quality so they last longer. They soon go flat or lumpy and millions of them must get chucked out every year as nowhere seems to recycle them.

I think you might find charity shops don’t want cushions John.