The public register

Verified reviews policy

This page describes the invitations sent on behalf of FRIZERIA.

Every review published here is tied to an appointment that actually took place, and every statement on this page can be checked by a stranger: the rule the invitations follow, the reviews that were removed and the grounds those removals are counted under, and the daily fingerprint of the whole network, whose Bitcoin timestamp is published in whatever state it is actually in. The rules are the same for every salon on Primer. Only the legal basis differs from country to country, and this page names the one in force here.

Declared, or checkable

Every review platform declares that its reviews are genuine. A declared policy asks you to trust the company that wrote it, and there is nothing underneath it to inspect. Everything on this page is tied to something you can fetch: the rule the invitations follow, the entries that were removed and the grounds those removals are counted under, the register itself, and the daily fingerprint of the whole network, whose Bitcoin timestamp is published in whatever state it is actually in. You do not have to take any of it on trust — run the command.

Who receives the invitation

Every customer who completes an appointment AND has agreed to receive messages from the salon receives, once for that visit, the invitation to leave a review. Within that group nobody chooses who is asked. The qualification is published rather than omitted: that agreement is a field on the customer's record which the salon itself can switch off, so under this basis a salon can remove somebody from the group. That removal is counted, together with the salon's other three levers — its block list, an objection its staff relay at the counter, and recording a finished visit as an absence, which ends an invitation already sent, is refused once a review has been written and cannot be undone — on the salon's own register screen. Those counts are not part of the public figures on this page, which publish the pipeline and not a roll of the individuals who asked this salon to stop. A visit counts as finished when it was closed at the till, with the finish button, or automatically at least 2 hours after its end time, and was not cancelled.

The legal basis in force here

Consent — art. 6(1)(a) GDPR, together with the prior-consent rule for electronic messages (art. 13(1) of Directive 2002/58, as transposed in the country where the salon operates): the invitation only goes to customers who agreed to receive messages from the salon. This is the narrower basis; it asks fewer people than the salon serves, and saying so is the point. The basis is decided by Primer, per country, and is identical for every salon in that country. A salon cannot choose it, widen it or narrow it — that is what makes this published policy checkable.

Every check an invitation has to pass

These are the gates, in the order the code that sends the invitation evaluates them. The first one that refuses is the reason recorded against that visit. The last column is the honest half: it says which gates the salon can move, and in which direction — a gate a salon can only ever CLOSE cannot be used to nominate somebody for an invitation.

Every check an invitation has to pass
What is checked	Who it excludes	Can the salon move it?
The visit is finished, not deleted, and was not cancelled — closed at the till, closed with the finish button, or closed automatically at least 2 hours after its end time.	Visits that were cancelled or recorded as an absence; and finished visits the salon deleted afterwards.	Only to remove, and it is counted. The salon has 2 hours from the end time to cancel a visit that did not happen or to record it as an absence; after that the visit closes by itself and is asked about. The clock runs day and night: for a visit that ends after closing time those 2 hours fall outside opening hours, so the salon’s answer comes afterwards — it records the absence, the invitation stops working, and the correction is counted on the salon’s own register screen, whether or not an invitation had already gone out. At this check, a visit that did happen can only be kept out of the invitation by recording something untrue — a cancellation, an absence, or a deletion after it finished; the truthful levers the salon does have are the checks further down this table, and each one says there what it can do. Every untrue record leaves a mark: deletions after finishing and absences recorded after the visit had closed are shown as numbers on the salon’s own register screen, and a salon whose cancellations are abnormally rare raises a public signal on its own reviews page.
The salon is collecting reviews at all.	Everybody, for as long as collection is paused.	Yes — and pausing is a public event, recorded permanently in the register, which nobody can remove afterwards.
No invitation has already gone out for this visit.	Visits that were already invited on.	No.
There is no review for this visit yet.	Visits that have already been reviewed.	No.
There is a phone number to send the invitation to.	Customers with no number on their record.	No.
The person has not objected — by replying STOP, by using the one-click link carried in the message, by saying so at the counter and having the salon relay it, or by having their published review taken down at their own request or under the right to erasure.	Everyone who has objected. Permanently, and without any balancing test.	Only to remove. A salon can relay an objection somebody states at its counter; it can never withdraw one.
The person is not on the salon's own block list.	Blocked customers.	Only to remove. A block takes somebody out and can never put somebody in, and every block is counted on the salon's own register screen.
Consent: The person has agreed to receive messages from the salon.	Everyone who has not agreed.	Yes, in both directions — this is the one gate that is not one-way. The agreement is a field on the customer record which the salon can switch on or off, and every switch-off is counted on the salon's own register screen.
The person does not already have a published review at this salon.	Everyone whose review is still published at this salon, however many times they come back. One person, one review. A review that was later removed no longer closes this door — but if it was taken down at the author's own request or under the right to erasure, the objection check above closes it instead, permanently.	No. The renewal invitation is a platform switch, not a salon setting: today it is off, so a customer whose review is still published here is never asked again. A salon can neither turn it on nor delete the review that closes the door — only the person who wrote it can have it taken down, and taking it down does not put them back in the pool: we record the same objection a STOP records, so no further invitation is sent to them here.
Inside the limits: at most one invitation every 30 days per person, and at most 3 unanswered invitations ever.	People invited too recently, and people who have not answered 3 times.	No — these limits are platform-wide and identical for every salon.

Check it: The rule every invitation is judged by is published inside this register’s own signed document, as invitationRule and disclosure.invitationPolicy. It is deliberately not copied here: a page that repeated the law could drift from the law the register actually runs, and this one cannot. the signed register document

A rating on its own does not enter the register: a review needs a few real words — at least 2 words and 10 characters — and one that says less is refused at the door, in the reader's own language. The rule binds only what is written from now on: reviews already signed stay in the register exactly as they were signed, whatever they carry, because rewriting one would break the proof it was anchored with.

How this group grows

Among the people this salon can still ask, the ones it may write to are those who have agreed to receive messages from the salon. What share of them that is stays unpublished: the two numbers such a share is made of are counts of people, this policy publishes neither, and a figure nobody outside the salon could recompute has no place on a page whose every other statement can be checked.

How to verify

You can check this yourself, with no account and no key. The tool reads public documents only: it re-derives the hash chain from the first entry, checks the signature against the key set published beside the register, and holds the head of the chain against the daily anchor. Run:

npx primer-verify https://www.frizeria.com --corroborate

What this policy covers, right now

2 registers are published under this policy across the network. That count is ours to state — and you do not have to take it on trust: the signed network document names the registers themselves, each with its own address, and discloses how many of them it names. the signed network directory
Across all of them, 0 reviews have been removed, each recorded with the ground it was removed on. the grounds, counted in the signed network document
The daily fingerprint of the whole network for 2026-09-01 has been handed to a timestamping calendar and is waiting for its Bitcoin confirmation. Waiting is the honest state to publish; it usually takes a few hours. The daily fingerprints and the state of their Bitcoin timestamp
The platform’s signed network document names the registers themselves, each with its own address, and discloses how many of them it names — so where its list stops is published, not hidden. Walk from here to any register it names and check it yourself. the signed network directory

How often, and for how long

One invitation per visit at most; at most one invitation every 30 days per person; at most 3 unanswered invitations in total, after which nobody is asked again; and never again after a STOP. These limits are platform-wide and no salon can change them.

What the message contains

A greeting, the fact that your visit is finished, a single link to the review form, and the way to object. No offer, no discount, no coupon, no invitation to book again, no second link — and never the name of the service you had, so the message cannot suggest anything about your health.

What data is used

Only the contact details you already gave for the appointment, and the fact that the visit took place. No profiling, no data added, nothing sold, and nothing passed to a third party for their own purposes.

Who is responsible

The salon is the controller for its relationship with you, and it is the trader whose service the review is about. Primer decides the invitation rule — uniformly, for every salon, which is exactly why a salon cannot select who is asked — and operates the public register; for both of those Primer is a controller in its own right.

What happens to the review

It is published under your visit, in an append-only register: neither the salon nor Primer can edit it or make it quietly disappear. The salon can reply in public. You can correct your own review: a correction publishes a new version without removing the old one. You can also withdraw it, and it can be removed on a legal ground — an erasure request, a takedown or a court order; every removal is written into the register with its ground. If you withdraw it, or have it erased, we also stop asking you for reviews at that salon — your booking confirmations and reminders are unaffected. To withdraw it, or to ask for it to be erased, write to the salon or to Primer at [email protected]; the answer is due within one month. One more thing about this register and money: it records whether your visit was settled through Primer’s own till, and from this change onward it records only the yes. Where there was no such payment nothing is published — an empty field means undeclared, never unpaid: the salon may have taken the money at its counter, on paper, or on a device this platform never sees, and the register cannot tell those apart. What we stopped doing is stating the no: on every review published from now on, this register does not declare that a visit stayed outside the till, and it does not publish how you paid — for those reviews, cash or card cannot be recovered from this register either, by counting or by any other route. Reviews published before this change keep exactly what they committed to, and still show it: some of them do state the no, and some do name cash or card. A published entry is rebuilt from its own record, and rewriting it would break every proof already anchored — so a register in which older entries name a method and newer ones do not is correct and expected, not a fault. The empty fields can still be counted — under the new rule an absence is simply the missing yes, except on reviews left without a name, where both fields are blank whatever the visit was — and such a count shows one thing only: how many of the visits reviewed here were not settled through Primer’s till. That is not a statement about anybody’s taxes, and it must not be published as one. One more thing this register now records: the language the review was written in. It is taken from the language the page you wrote on was showing you — nothing reads or analyses your text to work it out — and it is published beside the review so that a person, or a machine, can tell which language the words are in. Where it was not recorded, nothing is published: every review left before this change carries no language at all, and an empty field means NOT RECORDED, never “this review is in the salon’s language”. Until this change the opposite was true, and that is why it moved: our public pages stated a language for every review, taken from the address the page happened to be opened at and from the salon’s own setting, so one review could be presented as being in several languages at the same time. Your own words are never translated, here or anywhere else on this platform — a translated review is somebody else’s paraphrase with your name on it.

Check it: No review has been removed from this register yet. When one is, the removal is written into the chain as an entry of its own — a removal ADDS to the register, it never takes anything out of it. read the entries in the public export

Check it: This register’s chain stood at entry 10 when this page last read it; the signed document names the head it commits to. the signed register document

Fake reviews, and the rules against them

The FTC’s Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials (16 CFR Part 465, in force since 21 October 2024) prohibits fake or misrepresented reviews, incentives tied to a particular sentiment, and the suppression of negative ones; in the European Union the same conduct is an unfair commercial practice under Directive 2005/29, as amended by Directive 2019/2161. What this policy adds is not a bigger promise but a checkable one: nobody — not the salon, not Primer — chooses who is invited, no review can be edited or quietly removed, every removal is itself an entry in the register and the grounds they are counted under are public, and the negative reviews are counted in public beside the rest.

Your right to object (art. 21 GDPR)

Reply STOP to any message, or open the one-click link it carries. One step, free of charge, and it takes effect before the next batch of invitations goes out.
The objection is honoured without any balancing test and ends the review invitations permanently. It does not cancel your booking confirmations or reminders — those are a different purpose.
The salon cannot lift your objection. Only you can, and only by asking us. You can also write to the salon or to Primer directly; the answer is due within one month.

Last updated: 2026-09-01