What is the FTC fake review rule?
The FTC fake review rule is a trade regulation rule, 16 CFR Part 465, that bans fake reviews, bought reviews, undisclosed insider reviews, review suppression, and fake social media signals. It took effect on 21 October 2024, and knowing violations can bring penalties of up to $53,088 per violation, according to the Federal Trade Commission.
That number is why this rule matters to creators, not only to brands. Most creator advice about disclosure still reads like etiquette. Since October 2024 it has been a rule with a price tag, and in July 2026 the FTC finalised its first order involving the rule, requiring TruHeight to pay $750,000. If you take brand deals, this is the one rule to read before your next contract, not after.
How much is the fine, and why did it stay at $53,088 in 2026?
The maximum is $53,088 per violation, the figure in 16 CFR 1.98, the FTC table of inflation adjusted civil penalty amounts. The FTC set that figure on 17 January 2025, raising it from $51,744. It should have risen again in 2026, and it did not. The Office of Management and Budget cancelled the 2026 inflation adjustment in memo M-26-11 on 17 April 2026, after a government shutdown stopped the Bureau of Labor Statistics from publishing the October 2025 consumer price index the formula needs, and the FTC confirmed in a Federal Register notice on 15 September 2026 that it will keep applying the 2025 levels. The 2026 edition of the penalty table still lists $53,088. That figure is a maximum, not an automatic charge. A penalty needs the FTC to bring an enforcement case and a court to impose it, and it applies to knowing violations.
What exactly does the rule ban?
The rule lists six banned practices. Three of them touch creators directly, and one of them is the reason buying fake followers is now a federal rule violation, not just a platform policy breach. The FTC lists all six in its December 2025 warning letter announcement.
| Ban | What it looks like for a creator |
|---|---|
| Fake or false reviews and testimonials | Posting a review you wrote yourself while posing as a customer, or publishing an AI generated review from a person who does not exist |
| Paying for reviews tied to a sentiment | Paying for 5 star reviews for your own product, or paying for 1 star reviews to hurt a rival |
| Undisclosed insider reviews | An employee, officer, agent, or immediate relative posts praise without clearly disclosing the relationship |
| Company controlled review sites posing as independent | A brand runs a review site that looks independent while it controls the scores |
| Review suppression | Groundless legal threats, physical threats, or intimidation to stop a review, or showing selected reviews as if they were all of them |
| Fake social media indicators | Buying fake followers, views, or likes you know are fake, to misrepresent influence for a commercial purpose |
Number six is the one creators miss. Buying fake followers used to be a terms of service problem. Under this rule, buying indicators you know or should know are fake, to misrepresent influence for a commercial purpose, is a listed violation. Real followers who choose to follow you are not what the rule bans.
Paying for a review is not banned on its own. The ban covers payment tied to a positive or negative sentiment, and an undisclosed incentive can separately break the FTC Act. Insider reviews are allowed when the relationship is clearly disclosed. The ban covers undisclosed ones. The rule does not ban ordinary moderation. A policy that treats positive and negative reviews equally is allowed, and so is organising reviews by helpfulness.
Has anyone been ordered to pay under this rule?
Yes, once, and the case reads like a checklist of the rule. Vanilla Chip LLC, which sells TruHeight supplements for children and teenagers, faced an FTC complaint in April 2026. The complaint alleged the company website carried several thousand purported 5 star reviews, and that numerous reviews that looked genuine were written by employees rather than customers, with free and discounted products given in exchange for 5 star reviews, and fake social media profiles run by bots posting software generated comments on Facebook and Instagram. The FTC finalised the order on 14 July 2026: a $4 million judgment as monetary relief, with $750,000 to be paid in three instalments, $300,000 within 8 days, $225,000 within 4 months, and $225,000 within 8 months, according to the FTC final order. The company neither admitted nor denied the allegations. The order also covered unsubstantiated height growth claims, so the $750,000 is monetary relief, not a calculation of per violation civil penalties. The Commission voted 2 to 0.
What should creators check before the next brand deal?
One distinction first. The fake review rule does not cover when and how influencers disclose a brand relationship. That comes from a separate set of FTC guidance, the Endorsement Guides, and the FTC creator guide Disclosures 101. The review rule covers reviews and testimonials. A missing disclosure can still break the FTC Act, but it is not itself a violation of the review rule.
Three checks, about a minute each. They come from the FTC creator guide Disclosures 101, not from guesswork.
- Say the connection in plain words, at the start. Use ad, sponsored, or Thanks to [brand] for the free product, before the pitch, not after it. The FTC lists those exact words as disclosures that work.
- Disclose free product too, even when nobody asked for a post. A gifted product counts as a material connection, whether or not the brand asked you to mention it.
- Put the disclosure in the video itself, not only in the description. Viewers who never open the description never see a caption disclosure, so the FTC expects the disclosure where the endorsement happens.
Turn on the platform paid partnership label too, but do not rely on it alone. The FTC says not to assume a platform disclosure tool is good enough, and to use it in addition to your own disclosure.
What could 10 fake reviews cost?
This is our own math, not an FTC quote. The FTC has published no formula that turns one post into one violation, so treat the table as the ceiling, not a bill.
| Violations | Maximum penalty |
|---|---|
| 1 | $53,088 |
| 10 | $530,880 |
| 100 | $5,308,800 |
Now compare the ceiling with what the FTC has actually ordered. In the two years since the rule took effect, the public record shows 10 warning letters from FTC staff about possible violations, and one final order requiring payment: $750,000 from TruHeight, to be paid in three instalments. The letters are warnings, not findings that the companies broke the rule. And the $750,000 is monetary relief under a consent order, not a per violation penalty calculation. The gap is the honest story. The rule has teeth, the FTC has used it once in a final order, and that order mixed fake review allegations with unproven health claims about children. Disclosure is one part of compliance, and it is the part you control before you hit post.
Frequently asked questions
Does a missing #ad cost $53,088?
Not automatically. The Endorsement Guides are guidance, not a rule, so a missing disclosure carries no automatic fine. The $53,088 maximum applies to knowing violations of trade regulation rules such as the Consumer Review Rule. It is a maximum, not an automatic charge, and a penalty needs an FTC enforcement case and a court order. A missing disclosure can still draw FTC action under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which bans deceptive advertising. The safe move is the same either way: disclose.
Do I have to disclose a free product if the brand did not ask me to post?
Yes. The FTC creator guide says a free or discounted product counts as a material connection even when the brand did not ask you to mention it. If you got something of value and you mention the product, say so.
Is buying followers illegal now?
Buying fake followers is what the rule bans: selling or buying fake indicators of social media influence, where you knew or should have known they were fake, to misrepresent influence for a commercial purpose. Real followers who choose to follow you are not covered. Buying followers was always against platform rules. Since October 2024, buying fake ones is also a listed federal rule violation.
Has anyone actually paid a fine under this rule?
Not as a per violation fine. TruHeight was ordered to pay $750,000 as monetary relief under a July 2026 final order, in three instalments. The order also covered unsubstantiated height growth claims, so the payment is relief, not a $53,088 per violation calculation.
The rule turned two on 21 October 2026. It is no longer new, and the FTC has shown it will use it. Disclosure takes seconds. A missing one can take much longer to explain.
This article shares general information for creators. For advice about your own contracts or campaigns, talk to a lawyer.
