新加坡迄今对虚假在线评论的最大规模打击行动，揭示了企业如何利用五星好评的吸引力来钻系统空子。专家警告称，生成式人工智能将使虚假评论更加泛滥，消费者需要更加审慎地甄别网络上的信息。
Singapore’s biggest crackdown so far on fake online reviews has exposed how businesses exploit the appeal of five-star ratings to game the system, with experts warning generative AI will make fake reviews more rampant and consumers need to be more discerning of what they read online.
新加坡竞争与消费者委员会（CCS）对45家公司采取了行动，其中包括一家殡仪馆、一家律师事务所和一家医美诊所。调查发现，这些公司从一家服务商处购买评论，该服务商的服务包括利用人工智能生成类似真实客户体验的推荐语。
The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCS) has taken action against 45 companies – including a funeral parlour, law firm and an aesthetics clinic – after finding they bought reviews from a provider whose services included artificial intelligence-generated testimonials resembling real customer experiences.
作为调查第一阶段的一部分，这些公司必须删除相关评论，并公开道歉六个月。此次调查共涉及约100家公司。
The companies had to remove the reviews and post a public apology for six months as part of the first phase of investigations. About 100 companies were involved.
南洋理工大学韦侨通讯与信息学院副教授蔡尔顿（Alton Chua）表示，在线评论生态系统正在不断演变。
Alton Chua, associate professor at Nanyang Technological University’s Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, said online review ecosystems were constantly evolving.
“总有一些公司会试图钻系统空子，而用户则在学习如何调整对所见内容的信任度。事实上，人工智能已经介入这一领域：公司利用人工智能生成欺诈性评论，而精明的购物者则利用人工智能来识别这些评论，”蔡尔顿说。
“Some companies will always try to game the system while users learn to adapt their trust in what they read. In fact, AI has already entered the landscape: companies are using AI to generate fraudulent reviews while smart shoppers are using it to spot them,” Chua said.
他补充道：“随着生成式人工智能的出现，我们可以预期虚假评论将变得更加猖獗。一方面，对于不道德的商家来说，创建逼真且拟人化、与真实客户反馈难以区分的文本，其成本几乎为零。”
“With the advent of GenAI, we can expect fake reviews to be more rampant. For one, it is virtually free for unscrupulous merchants to create realistic and human-like text that is indistinguishable from authentic customer feedback,” he added.
新加坡国立大学传播与新媒体副教授埃尔米·内克马特（Elmie Nekmat）表示，评论之所以具有强大影响力，是因为它们提供了“社会证明”。
Elmie Nekmat, associate professor of communications and new media at the National University of Singapore, said reviews were powerful because they provided “social proof”.
“例如，五星好评可以在消费者尚未有机会详细考察某家企业或其可选方案之前，就影响他们对该企业的关注，”他说。
“A five-star rating, for example, can influence consumers to pay attention to a particular company before they even get a chance to examine the business in detail or the choices that they have,” he said.
“在新加坡，根据消费者保护框架，通过伪造评论故意误导消费者也构成不公平贸易行为。”此次两阶段调查是新加坡竞争与消费者委员会（CCS）迄今规模最大的虚假评论调查，目前第二阶段正在进行中。
“In Singapore, under the consumer-protection framework, to deliberately mislead consumers through fabricated reviews also constitutes unfair trade practices.”The two-phase investigation was the CCS’ largest fake review inquiry to date, with its second stage currently under way.
在第一阶段，CCS调查了47家企业，其中两家拒绝按照委员会要求的条款作出承诺。CCS表示，将继续进行调查，并在必要时采取更严格的执法行动。
There were 47 businesses CCS investigated in the first phase and two declined to provide undertakings on the commission’s required terms. CCS said it would continue its investigations and take firmer enforcement action if necessary.
调查发现，朱燕凯（Julian Tung Yan Kai）向约100家企业提供了虚假评论服务。朱是Reputifly公司的唯一董事，拥有并运营BuyReviewSG和GetReviewSG网站，这些网站提供虚假评论服务。
Investigations found that Julian Tung Yan Kai provided fake review services to about 100 businesses. Tung was the sole director of Reputifly and owned and operated websites BuyReviewSG and GetReviewSG, which provided fake review services.
朱最终向约100家企业提供了此类服务，这些企业购买虚假评论套餐，定期发布，并可使用评分计算器计算需要多少条五星评论才能达到其期望的谷歌评分。
Tung eventually provided such services to some 100 businesses who would buy packages of fake reviews to be posted periodically and they could use a rating calculator to work out how many five-star reviews they needed to reach their desired Google rating.
该服务商使用生成式人工智能（GenAI）创建旨在模仿真实客户体验的评论，通过改变写作风格和句子结构，融入新加坡本地背景等细节，并引入自然的不完美之处。客户在发布前可以编辑生成的评论。
The provider used GenAI to create reviews designed to resemble genuine customer experiences by varying writing styles and sentence structures, incorporating details such as Singapore context and introducing natural imperfections. Clients were able to edit the generated reviews before publication.
CCS告诉《亚洲本周》（This Week in Asia），朱承诺停止提供虚假评论服务，并自愿承诺将所得款项捐赠给慈善机构，且不就捐赠申请任何税收减免。
CCS told This Week in Asia that Tung promised to stop providing fake review services and voluntarily committed to donating proceeds to charity, without claiming any tax deduction from the donation.
CCS曾表示，发布或获取虚假评论可能被视为2003年《消费者保护（公平交易）法》（CPFTA）下的不公平行为，因为这可能会误导消费者，使其认为某家企业比实际情况更受欢迎或质量更高。
CCS has said posting or procuring fake reviews can be considered an unfair practice under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act 2003 (CPFTA) because it could mislead consumers into believing a business is more popular or of higher quality than it really is.
Quahe Woo & Palmer律师事务所的刑事律师郭慧仪（Joyce Khoo）表示：“与某些刑事法规不同，《消费者保护（公平交易）法》通常不会将发布虚假评论的行为单独定为刑事犯罪。”
“Unlike some criminal statutes, the CPFTA does not ordinarily make the act of posting fake reviews a stand-alone criminal offence,” said Joyce Khoo, a criminal lawyer from Quahe Woo & Palmer.
她补充说，委员会可能会对相关企业展开调查，寻求法院禁令以制止其行为，要求删除虚假评论，并强制执行公开道歉等补救措施。
Instead, the commission might investigate the business, seek court injunctions to stop the conduct, require the removal of fake reviews, and mandate corrective measures such as public apologies, she added.
邱女士表示，刑事责任通常出现在企业阻碍调查或不遵守法院命令的情况下，届时公司及相关责任人可能会面临藐视法庭的诉讼。
According to Khoo, criminal exposure generally arises where the business obstructs the investigation or disobeys a court order, and the company and potentially responsible individuals may face contempt of court proceedings.
竞争与消费者委员会（CCS）同样指出，根据《消费者保护（公平交易）法》（CPFTA），从事不公平交易行为并不属于刑事犯罪，也不会招致罚款或经济处罚。然而，如果企业未能遵守法院禁令，委员会可能会启动藐视法庭程序，这可能导致罚款或监禁。
CCS similarly noted that under CPFTA, engaging in an unfair practice was not a criminal offence and did not attract fines or financial penalties. However, if the business failed to comply with a court injunction, CCS might commence contempt of court proceedings, which could result in a fine or imprisonment.
该委员会列举了一个案例：Nail Palace Entities 的一名董事总经理去年因持续不遵守源自《消费者保护（公平交易）法》的法院命令，被判入狱三个月。
It listed a case involving a managing director of Nail Palace Entities who was jailed for three months last year for persistently failing to comply with a court order stemming from CPFTA.
关于受雇评价服务的网红和关键意见领袖（KOL）是否也属于虚假评论的一种形式，埃尔米表示：“付费请 KOL 或网红推广产品，如果当事人明确披露了商业关系并真实传达了他们的体验，这本身并不具有欺骗性。”他指出，相反，虚假评论会让人误以为是一名独立的消费者分享了真实体验，而实际上该人可能并未进行过体验，甚至可能根本不存在。
On whether influencers and key opinion leaders paid to rate services were also a form of fake reviews, Elmie said: “Paying a KOL or influencer to promote a product is not inherently deceptive if the person clearly discloses the commercial relationship and genuinely communicates their experiences.”He noted that, conversely, a fake review created the impression that an independent consumer had a genuine experience when that person either did not or might not actually exist.
蔡先生表示，虚假评论往往与机器人程序、匿名用户或身份不明的用户有关，而使用网红通常涉及对所评测产品或服务的免费使用。
Chua said fake reviews tended to be associated with bots, anonymous users or those whose identities were obscure, while the use of influencers usually involved the complimentary use of products or services under review.
“由于这些代言人知名度较高，他们撰写的评论往往被认为具有更高的可信度，”蔡先生说。
“Because these endorsers are well known, the reviews they write command greater perceived credibility,” Chua said. By Jean Iau