Since October 2024 there is an actual rule, with civil penalties per violation. It permits more than people think, and forbids one thing almost everybody does.
Since 21 October 2024 the United States has an actual rule on customer reviews, not just guidance, and it carries civil penalties of up to $53,088 per violation. That changes the conversation. Guidance invites argument about interpretation. A trade regulation rule invites a penalty calculation.
What is striking about it is how much it permits. You may ask every customer for a review. You may offer an incentive. You may ask employees and relatives to review your business. You may respond publicly to a bad review, and you may threaten legal action if you have a real basis for one.
What it forbids is narrower and more specific than the folklore suggests, and one prohibition catches a practice that a great many companies run as standard.
Two things are worth stating before the detail, because most published commentary gets them wrong.
Two corrections before anything else
If you read about this rule when it was proposed, two of the things you learned are not accurate about the rule that was adopted.
The review reuse provision was never adopted. The proposal covered reusing a review written for one product so that it appears to relate to a substantially different product. The FTC dropped it: the notice “stated that the Commission had decided not to proceed with proposed Sec. 465.3”. In the current regulation that section reads “[Reserved]”.
Which does not make the practice safe. It means the practice is not a violation of this rule, so it does not attract this rule’s civil penalties. It could still be attacked as a deceptive act under the FTC Act. Those are different legal exposures and the difference is the whole point of the correction.
And there are two different definitions of “clear and conspicuous” in play. The Endorsement Guides say a disclosure “should” be unavoidable. The Rule says it “must” be, and adds a categorical line: “A disclosure is not clear and conspicuous if a consumer must take any action, such as clicking on a hyperlink or hovering over an icon, to see it.”
That distinction has teeth. The Guides are “administrative interpretations” whose breach may lead to action under Section 5. The Rule is a regulation whose breach can be priced per violation. A disclosure behind a “more” link may be arguable under one and disqualified under the other.
One more thing to note about who is exposed. Penalties are aimed at knowing violators, and staff guidance confirms there is no private right of action. This is an enforcement risk, not a litigation-from-customers risk.
What is actually prohibited
Six operative prohibitions, each of which describes a practice rather than a principle.
Fake reviewers and fake experiences. It is a violation to write, create or sell a review or testimonial that materially misrepresents that the reviewer exists, that they used or had experience with the product, or the nature of that experience. Buying such reviews, and disseminating testimonials you “knew or should have known” were false, are covered too.
Buying a sentiment rather than a review. The prohibition is on providing “compensation or other incentives in exchange for, or conditioned expressly or by implication on, the writing or creation of consumer reviews expressing a particular sentiment, whether positive or negative.”
Which makes the wording of your request the compliance question. The FTC’s example of an implied condition is a request phrased as “Tell us how much you loved your visit to John’s Steakhouse and get a $5 coupon.” Same coupon, different sentence, different legal status.
Undisclosed insider reviews. Reviews by officers, managers, employees, agents, or their immediate relatives, without a clear and conspicuous disclosure of the relationship. The definitions are specific: an immediate relative is “a spouse, parent, child, or sibling”; officers “include owners, executives, and managing members of a business.”
Controlled review sites presented as independent. Misrepresenting that a website you control “provides independent reviews or opinions” about a category that includes your own products.
Suppression, in two forms. Using “an unfounded or groundless legal threat, a physical threat, intimidation, or a public false accusation” to prevent or remove a review. And separately, misrepresenting that the reviews on your site represent most or all reviews submitted when negative ones are being withheld.
And fake indicators of social media influence. Selling or buying followers, views or engagement “generated by bots, purported individual accounts not associated with a real individual, accounts created with a real individual’s personal information without their consent, or hijacked accounts.”
Each prohibition describes a practice. The reserved section is the one most commentary still reports as being in force. Source : 16 CFR Part 465, effective 21 October 2024 (2024)
The one line that catches ordinary companies
Almost every prohibition above describes something a reasonable company would not do. One does not, and it is the practice sold as a review generation best practice.
The permitted version, stated by the FTC. A marketer contacts recent purchasers for feedback. If it “had simply invited all recent purchasers to provide feedback on third-party websites, the solicitation would not have been unfair or deceptive, even if it had expressed its hope for positive reviews.”
The prohibited version, same example. The marketer asks for feedback first, then invites only those who gave “very positive feedback” to post publicly, while less pleased purchasers “are simply thanked for their feedback.” The verdict: this “may be an unfair or deceptive practice if it results in the posted reviews being substantially more positive than if the marketer had not engaged in the practice.”
That is the review gating funnel, described exactly. Survey first, route the happy ones to the public platform, absorb the unhappy ones privately. It is a standard feature of review management tools and it is the practice the guides single out.
The fix costs nothing. Send the same invitation to everyone. You may still say you hope for a good review. What you may not do is decide who gets asked based on what they already told you.
And the rule protects you when you do it that way. There is an express exception for reviews “that resulted from a business making generalized solicitations to purchasers.” Staff guidance confirms it holds even if an employee answers the general invitation, and “regardless of whether you’ve offered an incentive to all recipients who post reviews.”
One related trap on incentives. Even with disclosures on each incentivized review, the practice “could still be deceptive if the solicited reviews contain star ratings that are included in an average star rating” and their inclusion “materially increases that average”. If it does, the average itself needs a disclosure.
The FTC published a staff Q&A that answers the anxious questions directly, and the answers are more permissive than most companies assume.
Ask employees and relatives, with disclosure. “I own a small business. Can I ask my family members to write consumer reviews of my business? Yes, but ask them to clearly and conspicuously disclose their relationship to your business.”
And the disclosure can be very short. “An adequate disclosure could be the testimonialist’s description of a product as ‘my company’s’ or ‘my wife’s company’s’.”
Respond publicly to a bad review. “Yes, you can respond publicly to the review, and yes, you should watch what you say.” What you may not do is make an accusation you know to be false, or use threats to get the review changed.
Contact unhappy customers to fix the problem. The rule “does not prohibit my company from contacting customers who post negative reviews to resolve the reported issues”, nor does it prohibit “simply asking satisfied customers to update their reviews.”
Threaten legal action when you actually have a case. “No. You can threaten a legal action if you have a legitimate basis for doing so.” The prohibited version is a threat “based on legal contentions unwarranted by existing law or based on factual contentions that have no evidentiary support.”
Refuse to publish reviews under neutral rules. A business may decline reviews about the wrong company, and may have a policy of not posting reviews mentioning other products, “as long as your policy treats all such reviews equally, whether they are positive or negative.”
Use your best reviews in marketing. “Does this rule provision prohibit the selective use of particularly positive consumer reviews in marketing materials? No.” The Section 5 caveat about non-representative claims still applies, but the rule does not forbid it.
And organizing is not suppressing. “Organizing reviews is not suppressing reviews under the rule”, including a default sort by rating.
Removal is permitted under criteria applied equally regardless of sentiment. The rule lists what those criteria can cover. Source : 16 CFR 465.7(b) (2024)
What enforcement has actually looked like
Three data points, and one of them predates the rule but set the benchmark.
The suppression benchmark, before the rule existed. In January 2022 an online retailer paid $4.2 million to settle allegations that it “misrepresented that the product reviews on its website reflected the views of all purchasers who submitted reviews, when in fact it suppressed reviews with ratings lower than four stars out of five.” From late 2015 to November 2019 it “never approved or posted the hundreds of thousands of lower-starred, more negative reviews.” That case was brought under the FTC Act, not the rule.
A 2026 action combining several prohibitions. A supplement seller was alleged to have relied on “reviews that were written by their own employees and vendors, or by consumers who were offered a free product or discount in return for writing a 5-star review”, along with “fake social media profiles” run by bots. The final order imposed “a $4 million judgment … which will be partially suspended after they pay $750,000 based on their inability to pay the full amount.”
A second 2026 action, with a detail worth noting. A training company paid $1.5 million where the complaint alleged undisclosed reviews from employees and relatives, incentivised testimonials, and that the company “even conditioned refunds on consumers providing positive testimonials.”
And an enforcement signal rather than a case. In December 2025 the FTC sent warning letters to ten companies about potential violations, stating that the rule “has the full force and effect of federal law”, while noting the letters “are not formal determinations that the recipients have violated” it.
One thing to note about the pattern. Every case above bundles review conduct with other claims. Reviews are rarely the whole complaint, which is precisely why a review programme built on the permitted version costs nothing and removes a count from any future one. A review programme also runs across three desks, since sales asks for it, the site displays it and the ads reuse it as proof, and keeping those three saying the same thing is the everyday work of one team holding brand, website and acquisition together.
Review conduct is rarely the whole complaint. It is a count added to one, which is why removing it is cheap. Source : FTC press releases, 2022, 2025 and 2026 (2026)
Client references, and the contract clause that is void
Displaying a client’s name is a different legal question from displaying a review, and one contract term is worth checking today.
A name or logo can itself be an endorsement. The Guides state that “depictions of the name, signature, likeness or other identifying personal characteristics of an individual, and the name or seal of an organization can be endorsements.”
But a client logo wall sits outside the reviews rule. Staff guidance is explicit that the terms consumer testimonial and celebrity testimonial “do not include endorsements by business or other entities”, and that only the controlled-website section applies to entity endorsements. It remains squarely inside the Guides and Section 5 if it implies approval that was never given.
The trademark exposure is private, not regulatory. Using a mark in a way “likely to cause confusion … as to the affiliation, connection, or association” or “as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval” creates a civil action by the mark owner. Courts recognise a nominative fair use defence, and one formulation requires that use be necessary to describe the parties’ products, be no more of the mark than necessary, and “reflect the true and accurate relationship” between them. It is a defence, applied case by case, not a permission slip.
And there is no federal right of publicity. Using an individual’s name or likeness commercially is governed by state statutes and state common law, and it varies by state. A permission that is adequate in one state may not be in another.
Which makes the practical instruction short. Get written permission naming the specific uses, keep it, and re-check it when the relationship ends.
Finally, the clause to delete from your own terms. A form contract provision that restricts a customer’s ability to review you, penalises them for doing so, or requires them to transfer intellectual property rights in review content, is “void from the inception of such contract”, and offering such a contract is itself unlawful.
With two boundaries worth knowing. The law reaches form contracts “imposed on an individual without a meaningful opportunity … to negotiate”, and expressly excludes employment and independent contractor contracts. And it preserves “any civil cause of action for defamation, libel, or slander”. Losing the gag clause does not lose you the defamation claim.
Open your review request today and read the sentence. If it asks for satisfaction first and routes only the pleased customers to a public platform, change it to a single invitation sent to everyone. That one edit moves you from the example the guides single out to the example they bless.
Then check three things: that any incentive is offered without reference to sentiment, that every insider review carries a visible relationship disclosure rather than one behind a link, and that your removal policy names criteria that could remove a five-star review as easily as a one-star one.
Read your own standard terms for a non-disparagement clause or an assignment of review content. Both are void, and offering them is a separate violation.
And keep written permission for every client name and logo you display, because the exposure there is a private claim from the client rather than an agency action, which makes it both likelier and quieter.
Yes, provided it is not conditioned on sentiment. The rule prohibits compensation conditioned expressly or by implication on reviews expressing a particular sentiment. The FTC's example of an implied condition: 'Tell us how much you loved your visit and get a $5 coupon.'
Can I ask my employees or family to review my business?
Yes, if they disclose the relationship clearly and conspicuously. The FTC states that an adequate disclosure could be as short as describing the product as 'my company's' or 'my wife's company's'.
Can I remove a negative review from my own website?
Only under criteria applied equally to all reviews regardless of sentiment. Removing reviews because they are negative, while implying the displayed set is representative, is what the rule prohibits.
Does the rule ban reusing reviews from one product on another?
No. That provision was proposed and then deliberately not adopted, and its section stands reserved. Much published commentary still describes it as part of the rule.