Collaboration and independent-opinion charter

This charter sets the proposed editorial framework for future content associated with Loocas. It becomes a contractual commitment when expressly incorporated into an accepted collaboration or distribution agreement. Its presence on a page certifies neither the truth of all content nor previously verified independence of every participant. The brand funds creative work or supplies the product; the creator retains the right to express their actual experience.

A fee pays for agreed deliverables and uses, never a favourable conclusion. The product is supplied free under both options and does not create a duty to be satisfied. Payment terms do not depend on a rating, positive opinion or removal of a reservation. An honest but negative publication is not, by itself, grounds to refuse payment or demand return of the product. Duties concerning delivery, safety and compliance with the lawful brief still apply.

Creators state what they actually tested, for how long where relevant, and within what limits. They distinguish an observation, a personal impression and information supplied by the brand. They must not simulate a verified purchase, expertise, certification or measured result they do not have. Generated, retouched or edited content must not mislead the public; any required specific disclosures continue to apply. A test limitation or unknown fact must not be hidden to make the content more persuasive.

Positive, nuanced and negative opinions are permitted. The brand may ask for clarification or provide contrary evidence; it may not demand removal simply because a comment is unwelcome. Creators must still respect people, rights and the accuracy of factual claims. Freedom of opinion authorises neither fabrication, harassment nor unlawful content. Moderation based on those criteria must remain separate from commercial pressure to artificially improve the product’s image.

A correction request identifies the relevant passage, reason and verifiable evidence. The parties review the response and retain version history. An established error is corrected proportionately; a material change to already published content should be understandable to the public. Disagreement with a personal impression is not a factual error. Serious risk or infringement may require temporary removal, with reasons and an opportunity for review, without automatically erasing other lawful criticism.

Payment or a product received in return for content must be disclosed. The no-fee option cannot be labelled “not sponsored” to conceal that exchange. Advertising or commercial-collaboration disclosures are clear, visible and suited to the audience; “Gifted product” specifies the consideration. They also accompany authorised excerpts and reuses, together with the brand’s identity. A small isolated note at the end of a description is insufficient if it fails to make the publication’s nature clear when viewed.

A creator’s video or article remains attributed to its author and linked to the correct product. It is not converted into a buyer review and does not alter average customer ratings. Ingredients and technical, nutritional or environmental scores retain their source and methodology. An AI summary identifies the corpus it summarises and invents neither experience nor consensus. Reuse must not remove a reservation in a way that reverses the meaning of the original content.

A brand, creator or user may report an issue through the contact or reporting channel actually provided, identifying the content and relevant facts. Decisions should consider available evidence, proportionality and the opportunity to respond; they may lead to clarification, correction, suspension or justified removal. No automatic compliance badge is promised. Mandatory rules, author rights and each participant’s statutory responsibilities continue to apply. Contract disputes follow the relevant agreements, without making legal action conditional on prior Loocas approval.

Initial reporting and internal appeals connected with exercising rights are free; effective human involvement remains available where required. A genuinely separate optional expert service, offered under the commercial terms, neither replaces nor conditions a legally protected appeal. It cannot buy the removal of criticism, and an unpaid fee blocks no correction that is due. Where free handling is uncertain, the request remains free; expert-service fees are refunded if a Loocas error is acknowledged in the case.