Review collection and sharing charter

The current version of Loocas is not open for collecting or publishing real reviews. Products, profiles, ratings and comments in the demonstrations are fictional. They do not establish a sale, a purchase check or a shop’s membership of the network.

This charter describes the selected rules for the future service, including the deadlines and retention periods stated at the end. They must be implemented before launch. The charter does not certify the compliance or authenticity of the demonstrations.

Authors must describe an experience they have actually had, using their own observations and opinions. A product review concerns use, strengths and limitations; a seller review concerns matters such as ordering, delivery and service. Their ratings and averages will remain separate.

A consumer experience does not always require a purchase. Loocas must state the eligibility conditions for each route: post-purchase invitation, declared experience or another permitted category. A creator’s test or expert opinion will retain its own presentation and will not contribute to the average buyer-review rating.

Planned post-purchase invitations must follow documented, neutral rules. A shop may not invite only satisfied customers, require a minimum rating or make support, a refund or a reward conditional on a positive review.

Fake profiles, reviews written on a customer’s behalf without reflecting their actual experience, misleading coordinated publication and changes intended to promote a product are prohibited. Any incentive must be disclosed regardless of the content’s tone. A paid or gifted-product assignment will remain identified as a commercial collaboration.

The interface must state near the reviews whether they are checked. The method must explain what was actually verified: contact address, correspondence with an order, supporting evidence or another element. Technical confirmation of an address will not be presented as proof of purchase.

Planned checks concern consistency between the reference and experience, duplicates and signs of manipulation. An automated alert alone is not proof of fraud. Evidence requests must remain proportionate; supporting documents will not be published or shared with other shops in the network. No process will be described as infallible.

A product review may be shared only where a sufficiently reliable reference match has been established: identifier, brand, model and relevant variant, including size, composition, colour or pack size where applicable. If the match is ambiguous, shared publication will be suspended pending resolution. Commercial similarity alone is insufficient.

The shop that collected the experience will remain identified. A receiving shop may not imply that the author purchased there or reuse another shop’s seller rating. Rights to publish the text and media, the network scope and the lawful basis for processing must be documented before sharing. Public accessibility on the Internet does not automatically authorise copying a review.

Each review must show its publication date, the date of the experience and relevant updates. The planned default order is chronological, newest first. Other sorting or filtering must be explicit; an editorial selection must not silently replace the complete review set.

The planned main rating is the arithmetic mean of eligible, distinct product ratings, showing the scale, review count, local or network scope and rounding. A review displayed by several shops will be counted only once in the network average. Seller ratings, nutritional data and campaign content will not be included. No rating will be invented where there are no eligible reviews.

An unfavourable, strongly worded or nuanced comment will not be rejected solely for that reason. A paid subscription, partnership or refund will not purchase its removal. Rules and timeframes must be applied comparably to positive and negative content.

Rejection, suspension or a correction request may concern manifestly unlawful content, excessive personal data, spam, a demonstrated duplicate, falsified evidence or content unrelated to the relevant experience. The measure must be proportionate and explained. Authors must be able to learn the reason and request a review; their text will not be silently rewritten to change their opinion.

The planned complaint process includes an initial AI assessment that may retain a review, remove it or request clarification where permissible. Legally ambiguous cases or those potentially producing effects covered by Article 22 GDPR will be referred to a human before adverse action. Decisions will be reasoned and traceable under the ‘Complaints, AI moderation and human review’ framework.

A seller or brand may respond under a clearly displayed identity, within its rights regarding the relevant experience. A response does not erase the rating or turn a receiving shop into the seller of the original order.

The party responsible for a product or service must be able to submit a reasoned concern about a review’s authenticity free of charge. Authors and other affected people will have the reporting and challenge routes described in the relevant procedure. A report is not automatically proof that a review is false.

Initial examination is intended to be free. Remedies and human intervention that must be free will remain so, for businesses and authors according to their rights. An optional, in-depth commercial review may be offered only outside that scope and on an accepted quotation; payment will never purchase removal. Where classification is uncertain, the free process will apply.

Authors must be able to request correction or removal under the published rules without contacting every receiving shop. Permitted changes, removals and revocations must be reflected in affected displays and summaries based on those reviews. Constraints affecting printed materials must be explained; immediate deletion of paper copies will not be promised.

Personal-data requests follow the privacy policy. The right to data portability, where applicable, does not itself grant a general licence to republish reviews or media elsewhere. Professional exports must respect authors’ rights, third-party data and publication permissions.

The selected launch rule is publication or a reasoned rejection within a maximum of seven working days after receipt of a complete review. If essential information is missing, a reasoned request for it must be sent within the same period, with the pending status explained. This mechanism must not be used to selectively delay unfavourable reviews.

The planned display period is five years from initial publication, without automatic extension whenever a review is changed. At expiry, the review will be unpublished, excluded from new aggregates and removed from affected summaries. Evidence may be retained separately only for as long as necessary to meet an applicable obligation or defend legal rights, with restricted access and without continued public display.

These are launch rules to implement and technically verify before collecting real reviews. Working rejection and appeal channels, free reasoned reporting, announced checks and sharing rights still need to be established. Material changes will be dated and explained. Actual operations must comply, in particular, with Article L111-7-2 and Articles D111-9 to D111-12 of the French Consumer Code.