Fooled by Kevin: many of the top ratings come from the manufacturer itself

Michael Restin

16.2.2026

Translation: Natalie McKay

Mitipi’s Kevin.3 is designed to simulate presence and deter burglars. It turns out there was also simulation elsewhere: in the ratings and comments on Galaxus.

It’s rare for a product test to turn into a detective story. But that’s exactly what’s going on here. Following my review of the Kevin.3 burglar protection system from Freiburg-based company Mitipi, there are growing suspicions that not everything’s above board in the comments. These tip-offs reach me by e-mail and are posted publicly in the comments field.

It’s all quite harmless to begin with. First, there’s a little competition to see who can come up with the funniest quip. The focus is on the price of the Kevin.3 – the product’s harshly criticised. A counter-movement then forms to defend and praise the device. Ultimately, employees of the manufacturer are accused of being behind this, giving rise to claims of defamation. So much for a normal day in the comments field.

What makes this whole debacle so juicy is that the first accusation is justified, rendering the second one invalid. People at Mitipi are responsible not only for the suspicious comments, but also, as I will gradually realise, for many of the product reviews. I confront CEO Patrick Cotting with the facts, and ask him to provide a statement within a week.

It arrives on time – and shows his company won’t go down without a fight. He said he’d be pleased if we applied the same scrutiny to blatantly false and defamatory reviews. He claims American and Asian tech companies in particular use agencies and paid individuals to defame potential competitors like Mitipi. «What are you doing to address that?» asks Cotting.

When faced with this type of case, we don’t ignore our own role in this story. I want to get a complete picture. And we want you to be able to do the same. In order to know what the legal situation is and what I’m allowed to make public, I seek advice in advance.

This would include reviews that don’t disclose they come directly or indirectly from the company being rated, rather than from authorised third parties, or customers. His conclusion after I described the situation to him: «What you describe corresponds to this legal situation. I believe the same applies to comments.»

In addition, Steiger cites Art. 2 UCA, according to which «any conduct or business practice that is misleading or which otherwise violates the principle of good faith such that it influences the relationship between competitors or between suppliers and customers is unfair and unlawful». He assumes I’m allowed to write journalistically about the questionable reviews I’ve researched.

The lawyer raises another issue with me: «At the same time, the question arises as to how Digitec Galaxus will react if its own rules for reviews are breached.» Actually, that’s a good question.

In principle, everyone’s allowed to take part in discussions. Retailers, companies and manufacturers can be open on our platform, and respond objectively to questions or criticism under reviews and ratings. If the manufacturer or retailer identifies itself as such, it’s allowed to participate in the discussion. However, it must adhere to our Community guidelines, and have a normal user account.

Anyone who hasn’t been specifically briefed and wants to rate a product as a normal user will find a link to the Community terms and conditions under the input field. These help us because we can refer to them. They’re probably not read much. So it’s entirely possible for someone not to be aware of the ban and the legal situation.

Spam comments that use the same wording and are posted in quick succession are relatively easy to recognise. But this is more difficult with «handmade» fakes. If reviews aren’t reported, and we don’t come across them by chance, it’s practically impossible to expose all cases. This means we’re reliant on tips from the Community.

If a review’s reported because it’s suspected of being fake, our Community Team will check the linked user account. Colleagues research the person in question using publicly available sources and social listening tools like Brandwatch. «The main thing is we only remove ratings if we can be 100% certain that the rules have been breached,» I learn.

• The first comes from a member of Mitipi’s advisory board. This is clearly a violation, our Community Team has deleted it.
  

• The second comes from a person close to the company. We don’t know if they have any kind of stake in Mitipi. So we’ve left the review up.
  

Asking those around you for support is legitimate: «Companies are allowed to ask for reviews,» explains lawyer Martin Steiger. «It’s clear they mean positive ones.» If the resulting ratings were voluntary, and accurate in terms of content, he doesn’t consider this to be a problem. «Accuracy of content means that a person who’s asked to leave a review can actually assess the product.» Otherwise, you’d quickly find yourself on an unfair playing field.

A good 20 minutes after the review left by a person from the company’s circle of influence, Kevin.3 receives its next five-star rating. Again, directly from Mitipi. It was left by a newly created account, and deleted by the Community Team. Shortly afterwards, another review appears that isn’t 100% attributable. It remains online for the aforementioned reasons.

Only if «purchased this product» is written above a review do you know where you stand. Patrick Cotting criticises this practice. Other platforms would only allow reviews from customers who’ve actually bought the product. With us, the army of «influencers» and «raters» from other tech companies have an easy time of it.

It’s true that all you need on Galaxus is a user account. Nevertheless, if you consider the overall range, the overwhelming majority of stars and written reviews are given by buyers.

With this in mind, I look at all 21 reviews the Kevin.3 received between October 2024 and the beginning of February 2026. I include those that’ve since been deleted. Six of them are verified purchases, and one review was written by me («tested by the editorial team»). This results in the following picture.

Average rating from verified users/users who’ve tested the product: ⭐️⭐️⭐️
Two disappointed customers pull the average down, giving only one star each. Another user awards three stars, while the other four buyers give four stars each.

Average rating from unverified users: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Without exception, all 14 people who didn’t buy the device from us gave it top marks.

This ratio’s unusual. Just like the good start the product had with us.

When the Kevin.3 was added to our product range, it received its first three ratings all on 31 October 2024. The first from a person who feels «a completely new sense of security», and mentions no negative aspects. That’s alright. The second praises «a great leap in quality», and the development of Mitipi as a company. It comes from Mitipi itself.

It continues in the same vein. Either the reviews can be attributed to Mitipi. Or I notice that the same people rated the first product generation of the Kevin shortly after it went on sale. This can be viewed publicly by clicking on the corresponding profile under «Community». In any case, it’s off to a brilliant five-star start.

Then the first reviews from people who bought the device from Galaxus start to come in. From one to four stars, there’s both praise and criticism. It’s fair to say a realistic picture of customer satisfaction’s emerging here.

I can’t see any evidence supporting the accusation that competitors want to slander the product. Criticism comes only from verified buyers. Influence is only exerted in favour of Mitipi.

Patrick Cotting is right on this point: it’s very simple. As a user, I don’t have a quick overview of which reviews come from Galaxus customers. I’ve no way of filtering for them. The default sorting («most helpful») can be manipulated with a few upvotes. That’s all it takes for a company to put the reviews of its choosing at the top. So it’s worthlooking at the overview, and searching specifically for balanced reviews. The truth often lies somewhere in the middle.

Burglary protection + Alarm systems

Mitipi Kevin

51

The same pattern is evident in 2019. Things are off to a great start, and some of the reviews are directly attributable to employees. So I’m puzzled to read that the reviewer is «positively surprised».

What surprises me is that, on average, this little help to promote the product doesn’t have much of an impact. Over the years, 39 verified buyers have rated the product with 3.8 stars, while the remaining nine reviewers gave it 3.9 stars. A realistic ratio, a realistic result.

In this case, too, there’s nothing to suggest that negative influence was exerted in a targeted manner. Only three one- or two-star ratings aren’t from verified buyers. All three reviews criticise the product in line with the rules. All three users have often rated products. Some of these are better, others worse.

And the company once again tried to get its product off to a good start by giving it five stars just after the launch. This is consistent with what’s currently happening. On other sales portals, I also notice that ratings for the new device are posted within a few days or weeks. All of them are great, and some of the wording looks familiar to me.

In November 2025, someone again praises the «brilliant product» in a review on Galaxus – and thanks the CEO via LinkedIn for the great achievements in 2025. This isn’t absolute proof of an investment, so the rating remains unchanged. However, Mitipi is looking for investors (linked page in German) at this time, with success.

And it’s certain that after the campaign, 153 new investors will have an interest in ensuring that Mitipi’s in a good position. Are they allowed to leave reviews? I ask the lawyer for his opinion on this too.

«If an investor rates a company in which they have a stake positively online, this positive rating is likely to be motivated by self-interest,» explains Martin Steiger. At the same time, he explains that the investment isn’t disclosed, and the advertising character isn’t recognisable: «In my opinion, this is surreptitious advertising.»

Whether and for whom this is the case can’t be assessed from the outside. Neither for Mitipi nor for other companies.

Because what often happens, happens: the comments field splits. The first user looks for the sore point – in this case, the price – and picks at it deliberately. The next commenter rubs salt into the wound. The third person more or less claims there’s no need whatsoever for the product. The majority votes the most cleverly worded comments to the top.

Anyone who’s attacked in this way (and anonymously, of course) will naturally want to respond. In this case, too, anyone who feels defamed can report comments. And they’d have the opportunity to communicate openly on behalf of the company. Unfortunately, the anonymous route was chosen once again. First with substantive arguments. Then with a second, newly created account, which – as you can see at the beginning of the article – comments in the style of a satisfied customer.

Past reviews and comments show that this wasn’t a one-off incident. Years ago, the same review was sometimes shared anonymously, sometimes openly – in the second case, as it should actually be.

It’s true that «revenge reviews» from dissatisfied customers are a real problem for suppliers. Patrick Cotting writes that he’d once again responded to negative comments criticising the app. «We’d just released the update to the app.» Since information in Mitipi’s name’s always deleted, and negative comments are always left up, he wrote his post as a user.

Deleted comments remain in our system. I can find no evidence for this accusation, no deleted post in Mitipi’s name.

One thing’s certain: the disappointed customer had indeed bought the product at the time. They praise the idea and the materials, but otherwise makes their frustration clear. However, manufacturers aren’t entitled to have existing reviews amended or removed after the product has been improved by an update. A product rating is always a snapshot of a single point in time, but at Galaxus this is clearly recognisable thanks to the date.

As a general rule, the more factual the description of products and issues, the better it is for everyone involved.

Reviews written out of frustration and malicious comments don’t change the fact that, in this case, the manufacturer systematically acted in a deceptive manner and broke the rules.

This is a tough accusation for us to hear. For our test reports, we select products that are new, or that we find exciting for other reasons. We often find innovations from local companies particularly interesting. In similar cases, we’ve always promoted the Swiss product first. If it receives positive reviews, this is certainly not a disadvantage.

However, if there are more and more indications from the Community that something isn’t quite right, we have to investigate them. Otherwise we’d no longer be able to claim to be different in this respect, and to operate independently. What kind of editorial team would we be if we let justified accusations fall by the wayside?

We’ve regularly received these kinds of tip-offs about local companies:

• In 2022, beauty brand Serinita was criticised for fake reviews and other scams.

• In 2023, technology label Andi be free was at the centre of similar allegations.

• In 2024, the Community criticised Thurgau-based shampoo manufacturer Rausch (linked page in German) for leaving reviews of its own product when it was deal of the day.

If Tim Cook were to review iPhones and MacBooks on our website, and if we could prove this, we’d also write about it. I don’t know whether we’d receive a statement on this, nor do I know whether we’re relevant enough for companies of that size to influence the ratings through «agencies and paid individuals». My guess is no.

Perhaps this is more likely to happen on a smaller scale, when free products are evaluated via «clubs» (linked page in German), or when influence is exerted in a more subtle way than is the case here. We certainly can’t pick up on everything. And legal consequences are rare.

I imagine that having such practices exposed is a bit like being convicted of doping in cycling in the 1990s. You stand there, have suffered the consequences, and think to yourself: I’m just doing what many people do to be competitive. I give the public what they want so I get noticed.

We all aim for top ratings, even though we know they’re are not always achieved by honest means. Criminals use fake reviews as a means of blackmail (linked page in German). And it’s still temptingly easy to give yourself a little boost.

• We can filter out obvious spam.
• In the case of less obvious fake reviews, we rely on reports from the Community.
• If the Community Team can prove an infringement beyond doubt, the associated rating will be deleted. In the event of a repeat offence, users will be blocked.
• Retailers know our guidelines and can brief the manufacturers accordingly. They’re notified of any violations.
• As in this case, we make more serious violations public if they concern products we’ve reviewed.
• Product Development staff look at technical changes – always with the aim of having as many helpful reviews as possible on Galaxus.

We’re an open community, and there are no signs this approach is being exploited on a large scale. The proportion of unverified reviews is negligible, in the low single-digit percentage range. On average, these give fewer stars, and are more critical than reviews written by buyers.

So we really have to be more careful that no one is systematically disadvantaged – which, as we’ve seen, was not the case with Mitipi. Patrick Cotting criticises our rating system. I haven’t heard a single word of self-criticism from him.

When I ask Category Management about a test device in November, I find out that the Kevin.3 is offered by many distributors and dealers, but there’s no direct contact with the manufacturer. So I write to Mitipi. The CEO replies to me the very same day. He says the product will be dispatched in the next few days, and he’ll be available to answer any questions personally.

I take him up on this offer after the test phase, and always receive a helpful response very quickly. There’s no attempt to influence me, and the interest in the device comes from me. I end up rating the Kevin.3 as «good», and I stand by this.

Michael Restin

Senior Editor

Michael.Restin@digitecgalaxus.ch

Simple writer and dad of two who likes to be on the move, wading through everyday family life. Juggling several balls, I'll occasionally drop one. It could be a ball, or a remark. Or both.

---

Background information

Interesting facts about products, behind-the-scenes looks at manufacturers and deep-dives on interesting people.

Show all

These articles might also interest you