Community guidelines

Version 2.0 · Last updated: 2026-06-05

These guidelines explain what is welcome on OutletPicks, what is not, how moderation decisions are made, and how you can challenge them. They apply to every deal, comment, stack, profile field, and direct message on the Service. They are written to comply with the EU Digital Services Act (Regulation 2022/2065), the German Network Enforcement Act, the UK Online Safety Act 2023, and equivalent rules in the markets we serve.

Table of contents

1. Scope
2. Posting deals
3. Comments and discussion
4. Prohibited content
5. Health misinformation policy
6. Brand impersonation and astroturfing
7. How to report
8. Enforcement levels (L1–L4)
9. Moderator decision tree
10. Statement of reasons (DSA Art. 17)
11. Appeals (DSA Art. 20 internal complaint handling)
12. Trusted flaggers (DSA Art. 22)
13. Brand owners and rights holders
14. Concrete examples (do / don’t)
15. Changes

1. Scope

These guidelines apply to all content and conduct on OutletPicks. Where they conflict with the terms of service, the terms control on the legal question; the guidelines control on day-to-day moderation.

2. Posting deals

• Live and available. The deal must be currently active and accessible to the audience of the listed Merchant. No expired listings, no “pre-order” teasers, no “coming soon” placeholders.
• Accurate facts. Provide pack size, unit count/volume/weight, and price exactly as on the merchant page. Cost per unit is calculated from these fields and propagates to every comparison page.
• Self-promotion disclosure. If you have any commercial relationship with the brand or Merchant (employee, founder, contractor, paid promoter, affiliate), disclose it in the deal description. Undisclosed self-promotion is grounds for a permanent ban (see L4 below).
• One per product per store. Duplicate submissions are merged into the earliest active listing; the original poster retains attribution.
• No gated deals. Members-only, sample-only, or invitation-only deals must be clearly marked as such in the title.
• No coupon-stuffing. Do not append referral query strings to deal URLs. Affiliate attribution is applied centrally via the /go redirect.
• Brand listed correctly. Pick the canonical brand entry from the suggestion list; if missing, request creation via the “Suggest brand” flow.
• Category and unit correct. Pick the right category so the deal is normalised to the unit that matters (per litre, ml, page, diaper, kg, cartridge).

3. Comments and discussion

• Cite sources for any factual claim. Preferred sources: PubMed, Cochrane, EFSA, NIH ODS, ConsumerLab, USP, NSF, Examine.com.
• Personal anecdotes are welcome — explicitly flag them as anecdotal, not evidence.
• No medical claims. Do not say a supplement “cures”, “treats”, or “prevents” any disease. Frame around “supports”, “maintains”, or “contributes to” in line with EFSA Annex Regulation 432/2012 and FDA structure/function guidance.
• Disagree civilly. Attack ideas, not people. No slurs, harassment, doxxing, threats, or sexually explicit content.
• No off-topic spam. Off-topic links, crypto pumps, generic “follow me” calls — all removed.
• Quoting and rebutting another user’s factual claim is encouraged when backed by a source.

4. Prohibited content

• Illegal, fraudulent, or sanctions-violating products.
• Prescription-only pharmaceuticals (no Rx, no “research chemicals”, no SARMs sold as supplements, no nootropics with pharmaceutical names like modafinil or phenibut).
• WADA-banned substances offered without a stated context (e.g. ostarine, BPC-157).
• Counterfeits or grey-market goods of any brand.
• Content targeted at minors that implies minors should use a supplement for cosmetic, athletic, or behavioural reasons.
• Hate speech, harassment, doxxing, sexual content involving minors (zero tolerance; reported to NCMEC and equivalents), incitement to violence, terrorism, glorification of self-harm, eating-disorder promotion.
• Malware, phishing payloads, account-takeover techniques, exploit-marketplace content.
• Content infringing third-party copyright, trademark, right of publicity, or trade secrets.
• Personally identifiable information of third parties without their consent.
• Coordinated inauthentic behaviour (multi-account upvoting/downvoting, vote-trading rings, sock-puppet brand defence).

5. Health misinformation policy

Health information has consequences. We hold a higher bar than typical UGC platforms:

• We remove or label content that contradicts the consensus of authoritative public health bodies (EFSA, NIH ODS, FDA, EMA, WHO) on matters of immediate harm (e.g. vaccine refusal, “COVID cure”, megadose toxicity).
• We label rather than remove content presenting an evidence-based minority position with citations, marking it as “contested”.
• Comparisons of evidence quality (RCT vs observational, in-vitro vs in-vivo) are encouraged and not subject to removal.
• Repeated posting of misinformation moves the account up the enforcement ladder regardless of single-post severity.

6. Brand impersonation and astroturfing

Posing as a brand without that brand’s authorisation, posing as a satisfied customer while being compensated, or running coordinated vote brigades on behalf of a brand are permanent-ban offences (L4). We use pattern analysis (timing correlations, shared IP ranges, behavioural similarity) to detect coordinated inauthentic behaviour. Brand owners who wish to engage with the platform should use the “Claim this brand” flow on the brand page.

7. How to report

• Every deal and comment has a Report button. Reports are queued for moderator review.
• Standard reports are reviewed within 1 business day. Reports flagged “urgent” (CSAM, immediate-harm misinformation, doxxing) are reviewed within hours.
• EU DSA Art. 16 illegal-content notices can additionally be sent to [email protected]— include the URL, the type of illegality, and the reasoning. We send a confirmation, a decision, and a statement of reasons.
• Public moderation statistics are published live on /transparency.

8. Enforcement levels (L1–L4)

We use a graduated four-level system. Severity depends on impact and intent. Decisions are recorded in our audit log with a reason code.

9. Moderator decision tree

Every moderator follows the same explicit decision tree, recorded against the action in the audit log:

1. Is the content illegal under EU or member-state law? → remove + DSA notice procedure + law-enforcement referral where applicable.
2. Is the content a clear violation of these guidelines? → apply the lowest enforcement level consistent with prior record and severity.
3. Is the content a borderline or contested case? → escalate to a second moderator before any L2+ action.
4. Is the reporter abusing the report system? → warn the reporter; repeated abuse triggers L2 against the reporter.
5. Document the action, the reason, the policy clause applied, and the rights given to the user (appeal link, deadline).

10. Statement of reasons (DSA Art. 17)

For every content moderation decision affecting EU users, we provide a statement of reasons containing:

• Whether the decision affects visibility, access, monetisation, account status, or all four.
• Whether the content was illegal or incompatible with these guidelines (with the specific clause).
• The factual basis — what content, when, where, under what URL.
• Whether automated means were used in detection and/or decision (we currently do not use automated decision for L2+).
• How to appeal: link to internal complaint handling, deadline, out-of-court dispute settlement option, judicial remedies.

Statements of reasons are also published in the EU DSA Transparency Database.

11. Appeals (DSA Art. 20 internal complaint handling)

If you believe a moderation action against your account was wrong:

1. Reply to the statement-of-reasons email within 30 days, or write to [email protected] with subject “Appeal: [action id]”.
2. Include: the affected URL, what you believe was wrong, any context, and what outcome you seek.
3. We respond within 7 working days. Reviews are conducted by a moderator who did not make the original decision.
4. If we uphold the decision, the response explains why with reference to the specific clause.
5. If we reverse the decision, we reinstate the content immediately and remove the strike from your account record.
6. If you are an EU user and remain unsatisfied, you may pursue out-of-court dispute settlement with any DSA-certified body, or seek a judicial remedy in your member state of residence. Communications with our DSA legal representative may be addressed to [email protected].

12. Trusted flaggers (DSA Art. 22)

We give priority handling to notices submitted by entities awarded “trusted flagger” status by an EU Digital Services Coordinator under DSA Art. 22, within the scope of expertise for which the status was granted. Notices from trusted flaggers are reviewed within 1 working day. Misuse of trusted-flagger status (frequently unfounded notices) triggers the suspension procedure in DSA Art. 22(3); we publish suspension decisions on /transparency.

13. Brand owners and rights holders

• To claim your brand page: use the “Claim this brand” button on the brand page. We verify by email at a domain you control.
• To dispute a factual claim on your brand page: email [email protected] with the URL, the specific sentence, and the source supporting your correction.
• To send a copyright or trademark notice: use the formal procedure on the DMCA page.
• We publish a written brand response on the brand page in addition to (not instead of) the disputed content, where the response is constructive and concise.

14. Concrete examples

15. Changes

We may update these guidelines. Material changes are announced at least 14 days in advance through the site and the changelog.