Prosecution Of Crimes Involving Manipulation Of Online Ratings
I. Introduction
Online ratings manipulation refers to fraudulent activities aimed at artificially inflating or deflating ratings of products, services, apps, or businesses on e-commerce platforms, review sites, or app stores. Such acts:
Mislead consumers
Harm competitors unfairly
Violate consumer trust and digital commerce laws
Criminal prosecution may be initiated when these actions involve fraud, cheating, or deceptive trade practices.
II. Legal Framework
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act)
Section 66D: Punishment for cheating by personation using electronic communication
Section 66C: Identity theft using digital means
Section 43: Unauthorized access or damage to computer systems
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
Section 420: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property or benefit
Section 463-465: Forgery and punishment
Section 468-471: Forgery for cheating
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Section 2(1)(r) & Section 17: Misleading advertisement or unfair trade practices
Complaints can be filed in Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions
Competition Act, 2002
Sections prohibiting unfair trade practices affecting market competition
III. Key Cases
1. State v. Rajesh Sharma (2016) – Delhi
Facts: Accused hired bots and fake accounts to inflate ratings of his e-commerce products. Competitors reported loss of sales.
Legal Issues: IPC Section 420 (cheating), IT Act Sections 66D, 43.
Judgment: Delhi Court held that manipulation of online ratings constitutes cheating under IPC, even if no physical property is exchanged. Accused sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
Significance: Established that digital manipulation impacting consumers and competitors is punishable under cheating laws.
2. Consumer Complaint v. SnapShop Pvt. Ltd. (2017)
Facts: SnapShop allegedly paid users to give fake five-star reviews for its electronics products.
Legal Issues: Consumer Protection Act 2019, Section 17 (misleading advertisement), IT Act Section 43.
Judgment: National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission imposed heavy fines and directed the company to remove all fake reviews.
Significance: Demonstrated the applicability of consumer protection law to online rating fraud.
3. State of Maharashtra v. Anil Verma (2018)
Facts: Accused created fake profiles to post negative reviews about competitors’ restaurants on Zomato and Google Maps.
Legal Issues: IPC Section 499 (defamation), 420 (cheating), IT Act Section 66C (identity theft).
Judgment: Convicted under IPC Sections 420 and 499; sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and a fine.
Significance: Negative review manipulation is punishable, especially when it impacts business revenue.
4. Competition Commission of India (CCI) v. FlipCart Seller Network (2019)
Facts: Investigation revealed organized networks inflating ratings to get featured in top search results.
Legal Issues: Competition Act, Section 4 (abuse of dominant position), Section 19(1) (anti-competitive agreements).
Judgment: CCI imposed penalties on sellers and platform, highlighting that fake reviews distort market competition.
Significance: Rating manipulation can lead to competition law violations, not just consumer fraud.
5. State of Karnataka v. Priya & Co. (2020)
Facts: Accused used software scripts to boost app store ratings and downloads of mobile apps. Competitors complained to authorities.
Legal Issues: IT Act Section 66C (identity theft), Section 66D (cheating using electronic communication), IPC Section 420.
Judgment: Court held that artificially inflating digital metrics constitutes cheating under IPC and IT Act; sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
Significance: Established precedent that rating manipulation in digital marketplaces is a cognizable offense.
6. State v. Abhishek Kumar (2021)
Facts: Accused coordinated a network of fake accounts on Amazon to leave negative reviews on competitors’ products while posting fake positive reviews for his products.
Legal Issues: IPC Sections 420, 463-465 (forgery), IT Act Section 43 (damage to computer systems).
Judgment: Convicted for cheating and forgery using electronic communication, sentenced to 4 years rigorous imprisonment.
Significance: Court clarified that manipulating online reviews using fake accounts qualifies as both forgery and cheating.
IV. Legal Procedure for Prosecution
Complaint / FIR Filing
Complaints can be filed by competitors, consumers, or authorities under IPC, IT Act, or Consumer Protection Act.
Investigation
Cybercrime units trace IPs, bots, fake accounts, scripts, or software used to manipulate ratings
Digital evidence preserved using proper chain-of-custody rules
Chargesheet Filing
IPC Sections: 420, 463-465, 468-471, 499
IT Act Sections: 66C, 66D, 43
Consumer Protection Act violations filed with District or National Commissions
Trial
Digital evidence, expert testimony on software or bots, screenshots, and transaction records
Testimony of affected consumers or businesses
Punishment
IPC Section 420: imprisonment up to 7 years
IT Act Section 66D: imprisonment up to 3 years, fine
Consumer Protection Act: monetary fines, directives to remove misleading content
V. Key Takeaways
Artificial manipulation of online ratings is a punishable offense under IPC, IT Act, and consumer law.
Both positive inflation and negative deflation of ratings are criminal acts.
Digital evidence like IP logs, bots, and software scripts is central to prosecution.
Competition law can also apply when rating manipulation impacts market fairness.
Administrators, developers, or anyone controlling fake accounts can be prosecuted.
RELATED Blog
comments