At Louwrens Koen Attorneys, we believe in advocating for fairness and protecting the rights of businesses navigating South Africa’s increasingly digital landscape. One platform that has come under scrutiny for its questionable practices is Hello Peter, a popular online review site that touts itself as a beacon of consumer empowerment.
While it offers a space for customers to voice their experiences, its business model raises serious legal and ethical red flags—particularly the unjust requirement that companies must pay to respond to reviews. This practice not only undermines fairness but also places an undue burden on businesses, many of whom find themselves trapped in a system that feels more like extortion than transparency.
The Paywall Problem: No Reply Without a Subscription.
Imagine this: a small business owner wakes up to find a scathing review on Hello Peter, accusing their company of poor service or worse. The allegations might be exaggerated, misleading, or outright false—perhaps posted by a competitor or a disgruntled individual with an axe to grind. Naturally, the business wants to respond, set the record straight, and protect its hard-earned reputation.
But here’s the catch: Hello Peter doesn’t allow companies to reply unless they subscribe to a paid plan, starting at R599 per month after a brief 14-day trial. This subscription paywall is more than an inconvenience—it’s a fundamental injustice. Businesses, especially small and medium enterprises that form the backbone of South Africa’s economy, are effectively silenced unless they fork over cash. They didn’t ask to be listed on Hello Peter, yet they’re forced to pay to defend themselves against potentially unverified claims.
This “pay-to-play” dynamic creates an uneven playing field, where only those with the resources to subscribe can engage, while others are left vulnerable to reputational harm with no recourse.
Legal Concerns: A Clash with PoPIA
Beyond the unfairness, Hello Peter’s practices raise serious questions under South Africa’s Protection of Personal Information Act (PoPIA). Effective since July 2021, PoPIA safeguards personal data and imposes strict rules on how it’s collected, processed, and shared. When consumers post reviews—often naming individuals, sharing transaction details, or making personal allegations—Hello Peter becomes a custodian of that sensitive information. Yet, there’s little evidence the platform rigorously ensures compliance with PoPIA’s requirements, such as obtaining consent or verifying the accuracy of claims before they’re published.
For businesses, this is a double blow. Not only are they denied a free right to reply, but they may also face privacy violations if personal details about owners or staff are exposed without consent. PoPIA grants individuals the right to correct or delete inaccurate data, but Hello Peter’s model—where businesses must pay to even engage—suggests a reluctance to prioritize these rights. Instead, the platform appears to profit from keeping reviews live, nudging companies and small businesses toward subscriptions as their only defense.
This tension could invite scrutiny from the Information Regulator, and businesses affected may have grounds to challenge Hello Peter’s practices legally.
Ethical Dilemmas: Profiting from Vulnerability
Ethically, Hello Peter’s approach is equally troubling. The platform markets itself as a champion of “honest online conversations,” but its hands-off stance on moderating content undermines that claim. Reviews can be posted with minimal vetting, leaving the door open to malicious or fabricated complaints. Businesses then bear the burden of disproving these claims—but only if they pay up. This creates a perverse incentive: the more damaging the review, the more likely a company is to subscribe, effectively turning reputational distress into a revenue stream for Hello Peter.
This model doesn’t just harm businesses; it risks misleading consumers too. Without robust checks on accuracy, the platform may amplify untruths, eroding the trust it claims to build. For small companies, the stakes are even higher—negative reviews can devastate livelihoods, yet Hello Peter offers no free avenue to respond or seek redress. It’s a system that punishes rather than balances, exploiting vulnerability instead of fostering fairness.
A Call for Accountability - Unfair Listing Removal Service
At louwrens Koen Attorneys, we see Hello Peter’s practices as a stark example of how digital platforms can overstep, placing undue pressure on South African businesses while skirting legal and ethical boundaries. The inability to reply without subscribing isn’t just inconvenient—it’s an affront to natural justice. Companies deserve the right to defend themselves without being coerced into a paid service they never signed up for.
If your business has been unfairly targeted by Hello Peter reviews or forced into a subscription to respond, you’re not alone. Legal options may exist, from challenging defamatory content to exploring PoPIA violations. Our team is here to help you navigate these complexities, protect your reputation, and hold platforms accountable for unfair practices. Contact us today to discuss how we can stand up for your rights in an increasingly unequal online world.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For personalized guidance, please consult with one of our attorneys.
