---
title: "FTC Fake Reviews Rule & Dealership Review Requests"
description: "The FTC's rule against fake and gated reviews took effect in 2024 and is being actively enforced against dealership review requests."
canonical: "https://carbidedigital.io/insights/ftc-fake-reviews-rule-dealership-review-gating"
published: "2026-09-13"
updated: "2026-09-13"
category: "COMPLIANCE"
author: "Carbide Digital"
type: "article"
---

# The FTC's rule against fake and gated reviews is in force, not proposed.

The FTC's rule specifically targeting fake, incentivized and gated reviews took effect in October 2024 and has seen escalating enforcement since. Several common dealership review-request habits sit closer to the rule's language than most stores realize.

## In brief

The FTC's Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials took effect in October 2024 and remains in force, with active enforcement continuing into 2026, including warning letters sent to companies in late 2025 and a finalized multimillion-dollar judgment in mid-2026 against a company found to have violated it. The rule prohibits several specific practices: fabricated reviews, reviews from people with no actual experience of the product or service, suppressing or selectively soliciting only positive reviews (review gating), and offering an incentive for a review without disclosing that a review was compensated. Civil penalties can run into the tens of thousands of dollars per violation. The rule does not prohibit asking customers for reviews; it prohibits asking in a way that filters out negative experiences or fails to disclose an incentive attached to leaving one.

## Key takeaways

- The FTC's Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials took effect October 2024 and is actively enforced, with a finalized multimillion-dollar judgment in mid-2026 against a company found to have violated it.
- Review gating, asking only likely-satisfied customers for a review while routing unhappy ones elsewhere, is specifically prohibited, not just discouraged.
- An incentive for leaving a review (a discount, a gift, an entry into a drawing) is not prohibited by itself, but failing to disclose that a review was incentivized is.
- Civil penalties can run into the tens of thousands of dollars per violation, which is a materially different exposure than a platform simply removing a review.

## What the FTC's fake reviews rule prohibits

Four practices sit at the center of the rule: reviews for products or experiences the reviewer never had, reviews written or purchased to appear independent when they are not, suppressing negative reviews while soliciting or amplifying only positive ones, and offering a reviewer compensation without disclosing that the review was incentivized.

Review gating is the practice most relevant to a dealership's existing habits: a process that asks a customer how their visit went before deciding whether to invite them to leave a public review, sending only the satisfied ones to Google or a review platform and routing the unhappy ones to a private feedback form instead. That selective routing is the specific practice the rule targets, independent of whether any individual review is itself fake.

## Where dealership reviews sit close to the FTC's fake reviews rule

A checkout or delivery process that includes an internal satisfaction question before deciding whether to send a public review invitation is the clearest fact pattern the rule addresses. If the answer to that internal question determines whether the customer sees a review request at all, that is review gating regardless of how the internal question is framed.

A staff incentive tied to review volume or review star rating can also create pressure that shades into the prohibited practices indirectly, even where no individual review is fabricated, because it creates an incentive to gate or to solicit selectively. Training matters here as much as legal review does.

An incentive alone is not the violation, and by itself a discount or drawing entry offered for a review is not prohibited. What the rule requires is that the review disclose the incentive. A programme that offers the incentive without building in that disclosure is the version that carries exposure.

**Table: Where a review-request programme commonly sits, and where it does not**

This is a description of the rule's stated targets, not a compliance audit of any specific programme.

| Practice | The rule's position |
| --- | --- |
| Asking every customer for a review, the same way, regardless of how the visit went | Not gating; consistent with the rule |
| Asking about satisfaction first, then deciding whether to send a review request | Review gating, specifically prohibited |
| Offering a discount for a review, with the incentive disclosed in the review | Permitted with disclosure |
| Offering a discount for a review, with no disclosure requirement built in | The undisclosed-incentive practice the rule prohibits |
| A staff bonus tied to overall review volume, with no selective routing | Not directly addressed, but worth reviewing for indirect pressure |

Compiled 2026-09-13 from the FTC's published rule and enforcement commentary; not legal advice for a specific programme.


The broader review process this rule intersects with is covered on the [dealership reviews](/insights) hub, including how to structure a request process that asks everyone the same way.

## Direct answers

### Can we still ask customers for reviews?

Yes. Ask away. The rule does not prohibit asking for reviews. It prohibits filtering who gets asked based on how satisfied they seem (review gating) and prohibits an undisclosed incentive attached to leaving one.

### Is asking about satisfaction before requesting a review always gating?

Not always. If the answer determines whether the customer receives a public review invitation at all, that is the specific practice the rule addresses. Asking everyone the same way, regardless of the answer, is a different, lower-risk pattern.

### Can we offer a discount for leaving a review?

Sometimes, if it's disclosed clearly. The rule's stated position is that an incentive is not prohibited by itself, but the review needs to disclose that it was incentivized. Whether a specific incentive programme satisfies that is a legal question for your attorney.

### What are the actual penalties?

Real money, and real enforcement. Civil penalties can run into the tens of thousands of dollars per violation, and the FTC has both issued warning letters and pursued a finalized multimillion-dollar judgment against a company found to have violated the rule, as of mid-2026.

### Does this apply to responding to reviews, not just requesting them?

No, and that's narrower. The rule is centered on the request, solicitation and disclosure side, not on how a business responds to reviews already posted. Response practices are covered separately on the dealership reviews hub.

### Who enforces this?

Mainly the FTC. The FTC enforces the rule at the federal level. State attorneys general have also brought related actions in coordination with the FTC in at least one reported 2026 case.

### Is our review management software itself the problem?

No, the software is not the problem. A tool that routes feedback or sends review requests is not itself prohibited. How a store configures it, specifically whether it sorts customers by predicted sentiment before deciding who gets a public review invitation, is what the rule addresses.

### Can a salesperson's pay be tied to review volume?

It can create the exact pressure the rule targets, even without a single fabricated review. An incentive tied to review count or star rating can push a person toward selective solicitation or discouraging an unhappy customer from posting, which is the practice, not the pay structure itself, that carries exposure.

### What if a negative review is genuinely false, not just unflattering?

That is a different problem with different remedies, typically a platform dispute or, in a serious case, a defamation question for your attorney. This rule is about a business's own solicitation and disclosure practices, not about a third party's false statement.

## Primary sources

- [16 CFR Part 465 — Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-465)

## Related services

- [Dealership Reviews](https://carbidedigital.io/dealership-reviews)
- [Car Dealer Marketing](https://carbidedigital.io/car-dealer-marketing)
- [Marketing Consulting](https://carbidedigital.io/marketing-consulting)


---

Source: [https://carbidedigital.io/insights/ftc-fake-reviews-rule-dealership-review-gating](https://carbidedigital.io/insights/ftc-fake-reviews-rule-dealership-review-gating)  
Publisher: Carbide Digital: team@carbidedigital.io  
Editorial standards: https://carbidedigital.io/editorial-standards  
Research methodology: https://carbidedigital.io/research-methodology