Online reviews obviously have an impact not only on products such as hotels but also on a country's wider reputation amongst travellers.
But, should a tourism board go to the extent of taking legal action against those who allegedly misrepresent or provide false information to the extent that they have the power to hand down a three-month jail sentence?
According to the South Pacific islands of Samoa's Tourism Development Act, Samoa Tourism Authority (STA) can legally handle users who publish any false information that intends to harm the reputation of Samoa as a tourism destination.
If found guilty, a person can be fined not less than 50 penalty units, or an imprisonment term not exceeding three months, or both.
The Act further states that no civil or criminal liability shall apply to the Authority in relation to any exercise of a power in accordance with the clause.
Would users sharing their (actual) bad experiences related to Samoa in review sites like TripAdvisor would also fall under this Act?
Sonja Hunter, CEO of Samoa Tourism Authority (STA), says:
"Samoa Tourism Authority has no intention to prosecute those who share their bad experiences, whether it be on TripAdvisor or some other social media. However, STA may consider civil action or prosecution if the statement is both false AND intended or may tend to harm Samoa’s reputation as a tourism destination."
If the recent episode of Accor hotel employee posting 100+ anonymous reviews in TripAdvisor happened in Samoa, would section 38 be applicable?
Hunter responds saying:
"STA would never take action against those who express their views or opinions, whether bad or good about Samoa. STA would only take action if the view expressed is both false AND intended or may tend to harm Samoa’s tourist industry."
Samoa has limited natural resources when compared to other countries which have, for example, minerals, gold and oil. It also has one of the smallest Exclusive Economic Zones in the South Pacific ocean. The economy therefore relies heavily on tourism.
Samoa Tourism Authority says it has no intention to suppress freedom of expression or the media. People can share their experiences about Samoa if they want, whether bad or good.
But, STA’s intention in relation to section 38 of the Tourism Development Act is to ensure that Samoa’s tourist sector is not adversely affected by published statements that are false AND intended or may tend to harm Samoa’s reputation as a tourism destination.
We asked Hunter some additional questions:
Isn't a punishment of not less than 50 penalty units, or not more than three months imprisonment, or both a bit too strong?
The punishment is appropriate considering the importance of tourism to our country and our people’s wellbeing.
What was the prompt or need for a strong act like this?
This provision was drafted to ensure the protection of Samoa’s tourism sector. Defamation law is cumbersome and may not apply when someone defames Samoa’s reputation.
Clause 38 under Samoa Tourism Development Act 2012 is below (as it is),
38. Preservation of the reputation of the destination-
(1) The Authority may take such action as is necessary to preserve the reputation of Samoa as a tourism destination by:
(a) exercising lawful controls over the publication of false or out of date information by any means, or such information which is prejudicial to a public perception of Samoa;
(b) otherwise publishing information to correct any fact, matter or detail which the Authority considers to be false or misleading; or
(c) doing any other act or thing which may preserve the reputation of Samoa as a tourism destination when necessary.
(2) No civil or criminal liability shall apply to the Authority in relation to any exercise of a power in accordance with this section.
(3) Any person who:
(a) publishes or causes to be published, by any means, any information or claim that is false and which is intended or may have the tendency to cause harm to the reputation of Samoa as a tourism destination; or
(b) refuses to retract such false information or to publish a correction concerning the information when required to do so by the Authority; or
(c) fails to retract the information or to publish a correction in the manner required by the Authority,commits an offence and shall be liable upon conviction to a fine not less than 50 penalty units, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three (3) months, or both.
In the online world, people (competitors or paid-posters) posting false information or negative review about a hotel or a destination is quite common.
The travel industry has started to address this key issue. Large players such as Expedia and Priceline only allow guests that have booked a hotel to review the property.
But is Samoa's Tourism Development Act too strict on travellers? Or, from STA's point of view, are laws like these needed to guard the reputation of the destination?
What do you think?