FTC Takes on AI Fake Reviews
The Rytr Case and What it Means for Legal AI
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a complaint against Rytr, LLC, an AI writing tool provider, alleging that the company facilitated the creation of fake online reviews. This case highlighted the FTC's growing focus on the use of AI for deceptive purposes and its potential impact on consumer trust.
What Is It Alleged That Rytr Did?
Rytr offered an AI-powered writing service that generated written content for various use cases, including testimonials and reviews. The FTC alleged Rytr's service enabled users to quickly generate detailed and genuine-sounding reviews with minimal effort, even including specific details that had no relation to the user's input.
The complaint stated that Rytr's service had generated a vast number of reviews, with some subscribers generating tens of thousands of reviews in a short time. The FTC argued that this practice polluted the marketplace with fake reviews, giving consumers a false impression of a product or service's quality.
The FTC's Case
The FTC's complaint alleges that Rytr's practices violate Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce. The FTC argues that Rytr's service has no legitimate use and causes substantial harm to consumers by facilitating the creation of fake reviews.
The FTC alleged the following regarding Rytr’s AI writing tool:
Generated reviews with specific details unrelated to user input: The FTC claimed that Rytr's AI generated reviews with details that had no basis in the user's input, making them likely false.
Example 1: Gucci Bag Review: A user input "Gucci GG Canvas Messenger Bag Replica Red 449172" and Rytr generated a detailed review describing the bag's features (carrying capacity, lightweight, hard shell exterior), even though the user provided no such information.
Example 2: Dog Shampoo Review: With the input "this product" and "dog shampoo," Rytr generated a review claiming the product reduced shedding and improved the dog's coat and smell, despite the user not providing any details on its effects.
Example 3: Roofing Contractor Review: From the input "this roofing contractor" and "roof damage repair," Rytr generated a review praising the contractor's price, installation, insurance handling, and property survey, all details not provided by the user.
Example 4: Roofing Company Review: With "this roofing company near me" and "called them for roof inspection" as input, Rytr generated a review from the perspective of a roofer who had been using the company for over two years, despite the user not indicating they were a roofer or had prior experience with the company.
Generated a vast number of reviews: The FTC noted that Rytr's service allowed users to generate unlimited reviews, and some subscribers had generated tens of thousands of reviews, potentially flooding the market with fake reviews.
The Court Ordered Resolution
Rytr and the BCP reached an agreement containing a Consent Order. The Consent Order includes specific provisions and requirements for Rytr to comply with.
Key Provisions of the Consent Order
Ban on Review or Testimonial Generation Services: Rytr is prohibited from advertising, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, or selling any service dedicated to generating consumer reviews or testimonials.
Compliance Requirements: Rytr must submit acknowledgments of receipt of the order from key personnel and any related business entities.
Compliance Reports: Rytr is required to submit compliance reports to the FTC, including details of their business activities, goods and services offered, and how they are complying with the order.
Compliance Notices: Rytr must notify the FTC of any changes in their business structure or designated contact points that may affect their compliance obligations.
Recordkeeping: Rytr is required to maintain specific records for five years, including financial records, personnel records, and any records related to consumer complaints or compliance with the order.
Compliance Monitoring: Rytr must cooperate with the FTC's monitoring efforts, including providing additional reports, producing records for inspection, and permitting interviews with their personnel.
Implications for Legal AI
The Rytr case signals that the FTC is willing to take action against companies that use AI for deceptive purposes. This could have a chilling effect on the development of AI tools that can generate content that could be used to mislead consumers.
Key Takeaways
Transparency is key: AI companies need to be transparent about how their technology works and the potential risks involved.
Don't mislead consumers: AI should not be used to generate content that is intended to deceive consumers.
Ethical considerations are paramount: AI companies need to consider the ethical implications of their technology and ensure that it is used responsibly.