General information, not legal advice. This chapter summarises published regulator guidance in plain language. For a decision that matters, read the cited documents and talk to a qualified adviser.
Why disclosure is not enough
Disclosure tells readers that a publisher has a financial interest. It does not make the content true. A review that is clearly labelled as affiliate content but invents a test, overstates a product's benefits or hides its weaknesses still misleads readers. Both US and UK rules treat honesty and disclosure as separate requirements, and both have to be met.
This chapter covers the honesty side: what the rules say about the opinions in a review, the review practices that are banned outright, and what search engine documentation says about useful reviews.
Honest opinion and real use
The FTC's Endorsement Guides set out several principles that apply directly to affiliate reviews. Paraphrased:
- An endorsement must reflect the honest opinions, findings, beliefs or experience of the endorser.
- It must not convey a claim that the advertiser itself could not back up. An enthusiastic reviewer cannot make a health or performance claim that the manufacturer would need evidence for.
- If the endorser says or implies that they used the product, they must actually have used it.
- An advertiser may go on using an endorsement only while it has good reason to believe the endorser still holds that view.
The CMA's guidance for content creators makes the equivalent UK point: do not give a misleading impression of your experience of a product, for example by implying that you bought it yourself when it was given to you, or that you have used it when you have not.
Example (invented)
A publisher writes a round-up of ten electric toothbrushes. They have used three. An honest version says which three were tested and how, and describes the other seven as researched from published specifications. A misleading version uses phrases such as "after weeks of testing" across all ten.
The US rule on consumer reviews
Alongside the Guides, the FTC has a rule specifically about reviews: the Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials, published as 16 CFR Part 465. Unlike the Guides, it is a trade regulation rule, and the FTC's questions-and-answers document on it explains that breaking it can lead to civil penalties. In outline, the rule prohibits:
- Fake or false reviews and testimonials, such as reviews by people who do not exist, who did not use the product, or that misrepresent the reviewer's experience, and buying or selling such reviews.
- Buying reviews that must say something particular. Offering money or other incentives for reviews on the condition, stated or implied, that they express a particular sentiment, positive or negative.
- Undisclosed insider reviews, such as reviews written by a company's own officers or managers without a clear disclosure of the connection.
- Company-controlled review sites presented as independent, when the site is in fact owned or controlled by a business that sells the products it reviews.
- Review suppression, including using unjustified legal threats or intimidation to remove or prevent negative reviews, and presenting displayed reviews as representative when negative ones have been held back.
- Fake social media indicators, such as buying or selling fake followers or views to misrepresent influence.
Two of these are especially relevant to affiliate publishing. A "review site" that is secretly run by a merchant is the company-controlled site the rule describes. And a programme that rewards publishers only for positive reviews comes close to buying a particular sentiment.
The Endorsement Guides make a related point: advertisers should not procure, suppress, boost, organise, edit or present consumer reviews of their products in ways that distort what consumers actually think.
Fake reviews under UK law
In the UK, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 includes, in its schedule of commercial practices that are always unfair, practices involving fake consumer reviews and the misleading presentation of reviews. This handbook does not analyse the statute in detail. The practical point is the same as in the US: writing, commissioning or publishing fake reviews, or presenting reviews in a misleading way, is not a grey area.
What makes a review useful
Google's documentation "Write high quality reviews" describes what it looks for in reviews, and its advice also reads as a good description of a review that treats readers fairly. Paraphrased, it suggests that reviews:
- Are written from the reader's point of view and show real knowledge of the product.
- Provide evidence of first-hand experience, such as original photos, audio, measurements or links to the reviewer's own records of use.
- Explain what makes the product different from alternatives, and compare it with comparable products.
- Discuss benefits and drawbacks, not only strengths.
- Identify the factors that matter most for the decision and explain how the product performs on them.
The same page suggests that offering links to more than one seller can be helpful to readers, letting them buy from the shop they prefer. Combined with the spam policies' warning about thin affiliate pages (chapter 05), the message is consistent: affiliate reviews are acceptable when they add genuine information that readers could not get from the merchant's own page.
Rankings, awards and "best" lists
Ranked lists are common on affiliate sites and need particular care, because the order itself is a claim. Some practical questions follow from the rules above:
- Is the order based on an assessment readers would recognise, such as testing against stated criteria, or on commission rates or paid placement? If payment affects the order, readers should be told plainly.
- Are the criteria explained? A short note on how products were chosen and compared helps readers judge the list.
- Do labels such as "best overall" or "top pick" reflect a real judgement? A label that is effectively for sale is advertising and should be identifiable as such.
- Is the list kept up to date? A ranking based on prices or versions that have changed can mislead even if it was accurate when written.
For merchants: reviews on your own site
Merchants who display customer reviews, or who run review incentives through affiliates or creators, should read the FTC's rule and its questions and answers directly. In outline, the rule points towards some simple habits: show negative reviews as well as positive ones, ask for reviews without making any reward depend on what the review says, disclose when staff or their relatives post reviews, and never use threats to get a genuine review taken down.
The next and final chapter brings together the points from this and the earlier chapters into a checklist to use before publishing.