I've blogged at length about PLCs using generic text in their consultation responses. I think I've scored a few hits, given the nature of some of my blog traffic, and judging from some responses since I started blogging about this. But you can't keep a sneaky tactic down.
The Competition Commission is currently on the receiving end of a full-on lobbying effort to try and prevent some of its proposals on shaking up the audit market being implememted. I've noticed in the latest responses more come from individual PLC directors rather than companies. No doubt concerned individuals want to speak out. But it is somewhat surprising that some do so using some identical sentences.
For example, open this submission and this one, then search for the word "deep", or "reside". Because by pure coincidence, both individuals believe "It takes time for an audit firm to gain the deep understanding of a group" and that "The new auditor would not immediately be able to judge where in a complex group the major audit issues reside".
Funnily enough, in that second submission above, the respondent is concerned that "the transition [to a new auditor] would inevitably adversely affect audit quality initially". The same point was made in this submission, where the author is concerned "that the transition to a new auditor will inevitably adversely impact audit quality in the first and possibly second year". Both respondents believe the Commission's proposal for mandatory tendering after five years would have "damaging consequences and should be dropped".
This is just what I found in half an hour of free time on paternity leave. Imagine what else is out there.