[Column] Reviews as the 'Priming Water' for Purchase Decisions: How to Preserve Their Purpose

When buying items online, ordering food through delivery apps, or visiting a hair salon for a haircut, checking reviews to find information about products you have not experienced is one of the rational consumption methods. According to a survey conducted by the Korea Consumer Agency last April, 7 out of 10 consumers in South Korea obtain preliminary information through reviews before purchasing products. Some consumers monetize their experiences by adding detailed descriptions to the products they have used and posting creative content such as videos and posts. Reviews, which share personal experiences in various forms, have evolved from simple information provision to independent content alongside the normalization of online shopping. They have become a culture in their own right.

The problem lies in the fact that reviews are inherently subjective opinions and therefore not objective. Conflicts between consumers and businesses or self-employed individuals over reviews have become inevitable. From the perspective of self-employed individuals, fake reviews can damage their reputation and threaten their livelihood. Due to the significant influence of reviews, our laws have established certain restrictions to somewhat purify reviews. Platforms where consumers can post reviews, such as Naver and Baedal Minjok, take a uniform temporary suspension (making the post private) for 30 days on reported posts in accordance with Article 44-2 of the Information and Communications Network Act.

The "temporary suspension of posts" has become another source of dispute. Even if a reported post is reinstated after the platform acknowledges that there is no problem with the "objective facts" through a defense process, the post is blocked unconditionally for 30 days once reported. From the perspective of reviewers, despite undergoing a multi-faceted review through the defense procedure, they inevitably feel frustrated because they have to wait a month for their content to be reposted. Furthermore, even well-intentioned reviews are exposed to indiscriminate reporting aimed at blocking negative reviews from self-employed individuals or businesses, which affects the reliability of reviews.

Looking closely at Article 44-2 of the Information and Communications Network Act, the law specifies that the period for temporary measures should be "within 30 days." This means it is not necessary to enforce a full 30-day block unconditionally. Posts that have already undergone the defense procedure especially do not need to adhere strictly to the 30-day private period. Naver explains that when a defamation report is filed against posts such as reviews, their staff directly reviews and takes action. This creates an environment where they can quickly decide to reinstate posts after confirming whether the content is harmful upon receiving a report.

Reviews aim to help consumers make rational choices and improve services. Blocking consumer voices with a uniform 30-day private suspension just because self-employed individuals feel uncomfortable cannot be considered a fair response. For reviews to regain trust and fulfill their original purpose, platforms need to act more flexibly.