Fiverr Community Forum

I'm pretty sure that's not allowed

OK so maybe it’s time to start a new segment now that I am buying more and more services on here.

The title of this series will be: “I can’t believe they are getting away with this.”

So here are two recent examples of things the sellers are trying to force the buyer to do, both things look harmless but I am pretty sure they are both violating ToS.

Exhibit A:

In this example the seller is trying to force me, the buyer, to NOT use the “request a modification” button but to instead message her about it so that I don’t mess with “her availability to get new orders”.

Exhibit B:

Our next guest had this wonderful little bit right on the requirements page, trying to force the buyer to have the delivered work appear on the seller’s live portfolio. This isn’t as serious as the first example, but still it didn’t sit right with me.

As a delivery message, and if phrased differently, maybe. But right on the requirements page?



Exhibit A: the first one Is manipulation for sure, because it can push and trick the buyer not to respond and have the order marked completed after three days. So CS would surely punish that seller.

Exhibit B: this one is more crafty, since it is a smooth reminder to leave a review without implying good or bad and then, a demand to leave the sample for live portfolio. There is nothing against that in ToS if I am not mistaking. This seller may get away with it in my opinion.


Well yes, I agree. Seller A is definitely going to get what’s coming to them.

But I completely disagree with what seller B is trying to do, mainly with when.

It may not be breaking any ToS specifically, but it’s still pretty manipulative, regarding something they have no right to ask the buyer about.


Exhibit A: shady, but not breaking any terms of service. You are allowed to ask for it. I think it’s bad form, it definitely doesn’t look good as a buyer and I would never do it, but I don’t want Fiverr to turn any more gestapo than it already is. Let people deal however they want, the ones who deal like that will get the results you can expect from it. If the “trick” is to have orders autocomplete, they are opening themselves to getting bad reviews. If they do the modifications quickly and the clients are happy with that method and leave 5 star reviews, absolutely nothing is lost, neither for them nor for the platform. If they are actively tricking people, they will get what’s coming sooner or later.

Exhibit B: This one seems absolutely fine for me. It even says optional.

I also disagree with your wording of “forcing the buyer to do X”. Neither of the examples force anyone to do anything, they just request it, which is very different.

1 Like

So you don’t see a seller who is attempting to game the system, by making it seem they are not busy when they clearly are, foul play?

Because she very clearly states why she is requesting it.

Also, yes. Let’s say they aren’t forcing me to do any of the above. But they are both introducing me, a buyer who may not have any previous experience on the platform, to concepts I shouldn’t know or care about.

It’s an attempt to manipulate in both cases. Is that a more fair assessment?

All sales are manipulation to an extent. There is a difference between lawful manipulation and unlawful manipulation, and that has to be explicit in terms of service, otherwise it’s fair game. Personally I don’t see a problem, and I think the first seller is actually working against himself. I think, if it’s manipulation, it’s very bad manipulation and bound to backfire. So yeah, no harm done. Once he gets a couple of bad reviews due to it, it will stop by itself, no need to take any action.

1 Like

Would you do it?

Because if not, then it’s not as simple as you present it to be.

Should I do something about it?

Exhibit A is definitely against TOS. How do I know? Was doing a delivery ping pong back and forth with a really difficult buyer and at one point asked them not to keep using the revision button, particularly since they didn’t want a revision. Got a warning for it.

Exhibit B - they mentioned the R word. That’s a TOS violation.


I wouldn’t do it because I think it would work against me. I think he’s being stupid, to put it plainly. Is being stupid against the rules as written? I don’t think so. In any case, I’m a free market kind of person. Let people do what they like (within certain rules, naturally), and let the market decide where the chips fall. If you “manipulate” the market in a way that makes you money, the buyer is happy, and Fiverr is making commission, it’s a win-win-win. That’s what business is.

In the second case, maybe remove the word review, and I think it’s a fairly understandable business move. In the first case, I think it’s a bad business move, so the market should take care of it sooner or later.

In any case, my golden rule is simple - if it works for both the seller and the buyer and Fiverr is making commission on the deal, they shouldn’t care about what’s going on (unless is something illegal).


I think first one A is abusing fiverr system by asking buyer not to use revision buttons and this must be against Tos…!

I think B is fine by removing word ‘Review’ from it because he said its optional…

Fiverr already offers sending a file with order to have it in your portfolio and its up to buyer to decide it they allow that or not, so this way its already optional !

Exhibit A - Definite warning or ban coming for that.
Exhibit B - Technically allowed or not against the rules but risky as CS tend to frown on any mention of reviews. I think explaining that portfolios are important is fair enough but again, I wouldn’t risk this type of thing given how trigger-happy some CS people can be.


A: Not okay, because it could be used to trick buyers into letting the order complete even though more revisions are needed.

B: Also not okay, because it’s asking for a review. And what’s the whole thing doing in the gig requirements, anyway? That’s not information they need to do the voice over.

I’m not sure I’d report either seller for those, but I definitely wouldn’t order from them again unless the work they produce is exceptional (and if they feel the need to use such tricks, I doubt that they’re exceptional at what they do).


If no one reports it, how will that happen?
Doubt CS checks gigs again after initial submission.

I am on the fence about reporting, however I do feel like I should say something.

Just like I say something to all sellers who message me 3 times a day to submit a review.

1 Like

Can anyone enlighten me why using the word review is against the ToS? If it is in a neutral way, you don’t break the ToS. ToS don’t want you to imply to use good or avoid bad review, other than that, it should be ok? Now yes, it is always risk, but not necesseraly against the Tos. Its a different thing.

Actually, this guy/girl is doing a good job in staying neutral about the word “review”, in my opinion.

Fiverr is very inconsistent with the rules. You say the word “review”, you are opening yourself to the decision of some third party that doesn’t care about you. It might be fine… You may get banned. Not worth the risk.

I don’t think either of these are actually against the TOS. They may be against TOS “in spirit”, specially the first one, but that isn’t enough for me. Of course Fiverr may differ in their opinion.

1 Like

I agree with that. But it is not necesserally against the ToS.

edit: oh OK you updated your post. So we do agree on that.

A lot of things are not technically against TOS and you’ll still get screwed. Fiverr goes against their own TOS again and again. All in all, TOS are just rough guidelines, in practice it’s way stricter most of the time, and way more lenient if you are lucky.

What do you tell them?


Because they are hurting the marketplace.

If even one of them drives a buyer away, I lose too.

That’s just how I see it.

I feel a responsibility as a TRS to educate those who don’t know they are hurting the marketplace, and report those who are gaming the system.

My experience: CS were doing a full investigation of that particular order. Noticed that way. Considering the whole situation and the fact they gave compensation (eventually) … it seemed a bit harsh. However, lesson learned.