Could be she has distinctive tatoos/piercings/birthmarks/identifying traits, and doesn't know how/want to photoshop them out. Or is just plain worried about being spotted and outed for whatever reason. If the photos have the face blurred but are a fair match for her body type, then it's lying, yes, but not really bait and switch or misrepresentation. If you seek total honesty on all counts, you really need to look outside the hobby.
Back in the MFP days there were a couple of well reviewed providers who made no bones about the fact the photos they used were not their own. But when the door opened, what you saw was very similar and just as good, and the service was excellent, so most guys didn't mind. Couple guys really had their hearts set on a Playboy Playmate at a bargain rate and felt cheated. I don't recall much sympathy.
Could be the photos are old and the reviewer doesn't see the resemblance. In that case it's not lying, or bait and switch, but possibly misrepresentation. Depends how old and how much has changed. People tend to cling to self-image, even when it's out of date. I still think I'm handsome, fer Chrissake, long as I stay away from mirrors.
If the door opens and it is just nothing like the pictures, then a guy as a decision to make. If he decides to go ahead, then writes a review that says "not the girl in the pictures" and gives a balanced description of the session, well, you know everything you need to know when you are considering whether or not to see her. If you think fake pictures are total bullshit, the decision is obvious.
But, if you are suggesting it is total bullshit that he went ahead, and you believe he had a duty to walk away so he couldn't write a review and couldn't disclose that the pictures were fake, then I don't agree. A review that links to her phone number and ad is an enduring warning for anyone who does his research. Personally, I am grateful for the information
