Flagging Review Terms

In some cases, our team will remove review content, such as when it does not follow our our strict Content guidelines. Reviews are never removed for their rating. Retailers can flag reviews for additional content violations that are automated systems or other processes may not pick up. Each of these flagged reviews are reviewed by an internal team member.

When a review is flagged for either Product Reviews or Seller Ratings review, it will go through a review process with our moderation and transparency team to make sure they fall within violations of the terms set below.

Terms

Non-compliance – Reviews may be removed if they demonstrably violate law, court order, or content policy (e.g., defamation, privacy breach)

🤬 Vulgar Content

Used when a review includes obscene, profane, discriminatory, or threatening language, or personal attacks that violate community standards.

Opinion, frustration, or negative tone alone do not qualify.

🏢 Not a Business Review –

Applies when the content is unrelated to the business being reviewed (e.g., reviewing a third-party site, unrelated event, or non-transactional experience).

Product-specific comments may still be valid if they reflect a transaction or service provided by the business.

🔒 Personally Identifiable Information (PII)

Triggered when a review includes information that can identify or locate an individual, such as full names, phone numbers, addresses, or account IDs.

First names are allowed if used respectfully and in context.

💼 Current or Former Employee

Applies when a review appears to be authored by a current or former employee, contractor, or affiliate, creating a conflict of interest under FTC endorsement disclosure rules.

Internal feedback should not appear in public consumer reviews.

Not a Customer

Used when there is no evidence of a genuine transaction or interaction with the business.

Applies only when objective verification (order ID, communication record, etc.) shows the reviewer was not a customer or shopper. Not to be mis-used if someone had a genuine interaction with the store purchase or not

Example - a reviewer claims a purchase, but the invoice does not match - thus putting into question the genuiness of the experience

✍️ Written Communication between parties

Applies when a review publishes private or confidential written correspondence (emails, chats, support tickets, or legal communications) that are not intended for public release.

Do not flag simply because the reviewer quotes staff messages or policy excerpts if no confidential data is exposed.

⚔️ Reference to Competitor

Used when a review mentions, compares, or promotes competitors in a way that distracts from its core purpose of evaluating the reviewed business.

General market comparisons (“better than other sites”) are acceptable if not misleading or promotional.

⏳ Older Than One Year

Applies when the experience occurred more than 12 months before posting and therefore may not reflect current business practices or policies.

Older reviews may remain visible if still accurate and relevant, but can be labeled or filtered rather than removed.

🚚 Shipping / Carrier Issue

Used when the review concerns a third-party carrier or logistics provider rather than the retailer’s own performance.

If the business selected the carrier, or if the issue reflects fulfillment management, it may still be relevant and should not be auto-removed.

⚖️ Misrepresentation of Terms and Experience

Designed to protect against materially false representations of a transaction, published business terms, or objectively verifiable events.

This flag applies only in limited situations where a review contains:

a demonstrably false factual assertion,
concerning a grossly material aspect of the transaction,
that can be objectively verified through published terms, transactional records, or clear documentary evidence,
and where the alleged falsehood substantially alters or misrepresents the overall nature of the transaction being described.

Examples may include:

fabricated pricing or charges,
false statements regarding published return/warranty periods,
provably nonexistent orders or transactions,
or materially misleading representations of events directly contradicted by verifiable records.

⸻

This Flag Does NOT Apply To

This flag must not be used for:

customers dissatisfaction with shipping speed or fulfillment timing,
customer disagreements regarding estimated delivery dates,
subjective interpretations of customer service quality,
frustration regarding communication responsiveness,
disputes over how policies were applied,
customer opinions about fairness or experience,
misunderstandings of policies or expectations,
isolated factual inaccuracies that do not materially change the overall substance of the review,
or situations where both parties present differing interpretations of the same transaction.

The existence of merchant terms, disclosures, estimates, or policies alone is not sufficient grounds for removal simply because a customer expresses dissatisfaction with the resulting experience.

Flagging Updates - Incoming November 2025

A few flags will be deprecating due to enhancements with technology.

⭐️ Star Rating Error

Used when the numerical star rating conflicts clearly with the written review’s sentiment (e.g., positive text with 1 star).

- New tech makes this hard to achieve

🔁 Multiple Reviews

Used when the same individual posts duplicate or near-duplicate reviews about a single experience, causing duplication in scoring or visibility.

One consolidated review should remain.

- reviewers can now leave multiple reviews within a period timeframe for multiple purchases

Removal of Tarrif Flag - we feel the economy has ebbed and flowed over this and luckily have not proven to be a core issue to the retailer experience. We are removing this flag too.

Notes on changes to Flagging (October 2022)

Read everything here - Oct 2022 - https://updates.resellerratings.com/announcements/major-flagging-and-terms-update

Product-centric reviews regarding a brand are now allowed. With the growth of direct-to-consumer marketing, products and brands are practically highly correlated. The separation of product and brand is a legacy of the reseller world itself.
Shipping and other issues may be a result of third-party dependencies. These will all be adjudicated by our transparency team if they are flagged on a case-by-case basis. The original clause of this flag was intended if carriers had mass disruptions that were of no fault to the brand. This would be a valid usage of the flag. However, a prolonged dependency on a carrier or misinforming customers of delivery dates on a long-term basis constitutes some real valid concerns from customers. Here are some concrete examples of what we would consider an invalid usage of this flag
The item was shipped, the item was not delivered at all, and the customer service team of the brand failed to respond to the customer and attempt to rectify or communicate the issue. This would be a valid review
- The brand has strong tenancies to mislabel shipping costs and shipping times on a consistent basis

Updates on Flagging - introducing a Tariff flag (April 2025)

Tariffs are here and it's going to have unprecedented effects on e-commerce business, squarely out of control of most mom and pop locations.

We’ve always believed that ratings and reviews reflect more than just product experiences—they reflect the integrity, transparency, and resilience of a company as a whole.

As new tariffs and trade shifts take effect, we’re entering an unprecedented moment for global e-commerce. Companies may face rising costs, supply chain delays, or necessary product adjustments—none of which stem from a lack of care or effort. And yet, these changes can still echo loudly in customer feedback. We want to be clear about where we stand:Just as force majeure events are considered outside of contractual control, we believe reviews impacted by macroeconomic or geopolitical forces deserve nuance and context.

That’s why we’re working closely with our clients and their customers to:

• Treat tariff-related sentiment contextually with the rest of the review content if it's valid
• Flag reviews where global context is key
• Help brands respond transparently and thoughtfully, reinforcing trust rather than eroding it

We look forward to feedback on the matter from business's and shoppers alike.

Updates on Flagging - Introduction of Misrepresentation of Terms Flag (April 2025)

The Terms Misrepresentation Flag is designed to protect the integrity of the review ecosystem. It allows a retailer (or our moderation team) to flag a review if it misrepresents clearly stated terms such as various return policies, etc.

Change and modification history

Oct 2022 - https://updates.resellerratings.com/announcements/major-flagging-and-terms-update

April 2025 - Tariff Flag

April 2025 - Shipping/Carrier Issue Flag

April 2025 - Misrepresentation of Terms

May 2026 - Expansion and Clarification of Misrepresentation of Terms Flag