Comparison websites – friend or foe?
Three regulators (SRA, CLC and CILEX Regulation) recently announced that they were to pilot the use of comparison websites to see how both law firms and comparison website providers could engage more with them going forward; this follows shortly after a law firm was awarded damages of £25,000 after a client posted defamatory comments on Trust Pilot.
The aims behind legal comparison websites are very laudable and are normally seen as allowing consumers to:
- Identify leading firms.
- Compare prices.
- Compare quality levels.
- Assess regulatory and complaints data.
- Review what clients have experienced.
However, concerns have recently been raised around the use of fake reviews, including from the consumer group Which? that found sites openly offering review manipulation services to third-party sellers on a retail giant's online platform, while also soliciting positive reviews in exchange for free products or cash.
Law firm comparison sites are still in their infancy so there is not a great deal of data that can be used to assess if, or whether, review manipulation actually takes place, however, a recent document published by the American Bar Association found a number of areas where lawyers in the US had misused such sites, for example, manipulating reviews by monetarily incentivising positive reviews and punishing clients who wrote negative reviews by publicly exposing confidential information about them and responding to online reviews by former clients by revealing criminal charges made against them.
Regulators, under pressure from the Competition & Markets Authority, want those they regulate to be more transparent with consumers about their services and prices, and to engage with comparison websites with the aim of making legal services more competitive, however, this will only be achieved if law firms believe such initiatives are credible, fair and free of abuse.
The areas where comparison websites could fall into disrepute include:
- Consumers only giving positive reviews due to the risk of being sued for defamation.
- Competitors faking reviews with the aim of damaging other firms’ reputations.
- Comparison websites not being clear about how they have arrived at review scores.
An example of a lack of clarity around review scores can be seen on one major site where firms have been given scores of 3.5/5.0 when they are shown as not having any reviews!
The Solicitors Regulation Authority has published some useful guidance on engaging with comparison websites, including how to deal with negative reviews and comments that could considered as defamatory; firms looking to engage in this area should take a good look at this before they start their comparison journey.
Comparison websites, when used correctly, can be very useful to consumers and those who are the subject of reviews; they enable consumers to make informed decisions about which firm to use and can help firms to identify areas where service improvements may be required.
Social media has provided consumers with a very powerful tool for expressing their views, but as the recent libel case above has shown, this can be a very dangerous tool if used incorrectly.
To avoid negative reviews firms should ideally meet agreed standards and expectations, but mistakes can happen, so when they do it is important to deal with them in a professional and considered manner; social media should be a firm’s best friend with consumers only saying positive things about their experiences!
