Can brands or creators buy reviews or followers?

An audience is the asset that brand deals are priced on, which is why growth services keep offering shortcuts. Our page on personal brand, NIL and endorsement deals explains how that audience turns into licensing income. This page covers what the federal rule now forbids, who it applies to, and what honest review and growth programs can still do, based on the rule text, the FTC's published questions and answers, and the Endorsement Guides.

How the rule is enforced, step by step

1. The rule exists. The FTC issued the Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials under its rulemaking authority in 15 U.S.C. 57a. It was published at 89 FR 68077 on August 22, 2024, and went into effect on October 21, 2024.
2. The rule defines the banned conduct. Sections 465.2 through 465.8 list six practices: fake reviews and testimonials, buying reviews of a set sentiment, undisclosed insider reviews, fake "independent" review sites, review suppression, and fake social media indicators.
3. The FTC investigates. The rule gives no private right of action, according to the FTC's Q&A, so a competitor or consumer cannot sue under it; enforcement belongs to the FTC.
4. The FTC can go to federal court for penalties. Under 15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1)(A), the FTC may sue in a U.S. district court for civil penalties against anyone who violates a rule like this one "with actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances" that the act is unfair or deceptive and prohibited.
5. The amount is adjusted for inflation. The statute says $10,000 per violation, but the inflation-adjusted maximum in 16 CFR 1.98(d) is $53,088 for penalties assessed after January 17, 2025. On September 15, 2026, the FTC announced that no adjustment will be made in 2026 and it will keep applying the 2025 levels, so $53,088 is the figure as of October 4, 2026.
6. Penalties can multiply. Each day of a continuing failure to comply is a separate violation, and the court weighs culpability, prior conduct, ability to pay and effect on the business (15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1)(C)).
7. Section 5 still covers the rest. Practices the rule does not list can still be deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act, and the Endorsement Guides (16 CFR Part 255) explain how the FTC reads Section 5.

What exactly does the rule ban?

Each section has its own trigger. Several apply only to a "business," which the rule defines as anyone who sells products or services, including an individual (465.1(a)). Two sections, review suppression threats and fake social media indicators, apply to "anyone."

Can a creator buy followers, views or likes?

Not fake ones. The rule defines "indicators of social media influence" broadly: "followers, friends, connections, subscribers, views, plays, likes, saves, shares, reposts, and comments" (465.1(j)). They are fake when generated by bots, by accounts not tied to a real person, by accounts made with someone's personal information without consent, or by hijacked accounts, or when they otherwise do not reflect real activity (465.1(h)).

Section 465.8 makes it a violation for anyone to sell or distribute such indicators, or to buy or procure them, when they knew or should have known they were fake and the numbers misrepresent influence "for a commercial purpose." A creator who quotes inflated numbers to land brand deals is the core case. The Endorsement Guides describe the same conduct, a speaker who buys fake followers "to impress potential clients," as a deceptive practice (255.0(g), Example 13).

The FTC's Q&A draws useful lines. A business that hires a growth company which secretly delivers fake followers is not liable unless red flags should have tipped it off. Paying influencers to encourage their audiences to follow you is fine, because those followers are real people. And a brand is not liable under the rule just because an influencer it hires happens to have fake followers. That last point is one reason brands now put audience representations in their deals, a clause our influencer contract tips discuss.

What review practices are still allowed?

The rule targets deception, not asking for reviews. Plenty of ordinary programs remain lawful under Part 465, though some still raise Section 5 questions, as the FTC's answers point out.

On threats, the line is legitimacy. The Q&A says you can threaten legal action over a review that defames you if you have a legitimate basis, but not an "unfounded or groundless legal threat" (465.1(p), 465.7(a)). Our post on cease and desist letters explains how to send a demand that stands on real claims.

What changes the answer

• What you knew or should have known. Several sections turn on knowledge. The Q&A lists red flags for purchased reviews: reviews appearing too soon after purchase to reflect real use, an unusually large number in a short period, or reviews describing the wrong product.
• Whether you are a business or a consumer. Ordinary consumers cannot be liable for what they say in reviews, and a consumer who accepts money for a 5-star review does not violate 465.4. Influencers in the business of posting testimonials can be liable under 465.2(a) if they lie about using a product.
• Experience versus opinion. Section 465.2 covers misstatements about a reviewer's experience, not opinion alone, per the Q&A. Misstating opinions in paid endorsements is still a problem under 255.1(a) of the Endorsement Guides.
• Disclosure does not cure everything. A disclosure fixes insider reviews under 465.5, but it does not save an incentive conditioned on positive sentiment under 465.4. Influencer disclosure itself is governed by the Guides, covered on our page about what influencers must disclose in sponsored posts.
• Avatars and likeness. The rule does not ban virtual influencers, but the Q&A says using a celebrity avatar without permission to praise a product would violate it if people would think the celebrity gave the testimonial. That overlaps with the issues on our page about AI copies of your voice or face. Putting a real person's name or face on a testimonial they never gave also raises right of publicity questions, covered on our page about Georgia name and likeness protection.
• Competitor harm. The rule gives competitors no lawsuit, but the Lanham Act separately allows a civil action over commercial advertising that misrepresents goods or services (15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(B)).

A worked example

Common mistakes

• "Disclosed" paid 5-star reviews. The Q&A is explicit that a disclosure does not fix an incentive tied to a positive rating.
• Featuring hosted reviews in ads. Once you feature a customer review in your marketing, the Q&A treats it as a testimonial, and the hosting exemption no longer protects you.
• Employee reviews without disclosure. Managers who ask staff or relatives for reviews must instruct them to disclose the relationship (465.5(c)).
• A ranking site you secretly own. A review or ranking site you control cannot claim independence; a disclosure may not cure an express claim (465.6).
• Threatening every critic. Unfounded legal threats and intimidation to remove reviews violate 465.7(a).
• Inflated numbers in a media kit. Selling a brand on an audience you bought is the conduct 465.8 targets, and it can also breach the representations in your deal.

What to do this week

1. List every review, growth or reputation vendor you pay and what each one actually delivers.
2. Cancel any service that supplies followers, views, likes or reviews from accounts you cannot verify as real people.
3. Rewrite review requests so they go to all purchasers and ask for honest feedback, with any incentive disclosed.
4. Give employees and managers a written policy requiring them to disclose their relationship in any review.
5. Check your media kit and brand deal paperwork for audience claims you can back up; our guide to IP licensing for creators and brands covers what those deals grant.
6. If an account is posting fake reviews or content under your name, preserve evidence and read our page on what law applies to online impersonation.

Frequently asked questions

Is a hired influencer's post a "review" under the rule?

No. The FTC's Q&A says a hired influencer's post touting a product is a celebrity testimonial, not a consumer review. A brand can be liable under 465.2(b) if it knew or should have known the influencer misrepresented using the product.

Do I have to screen every review on my own website?

No. The rule imposes no duty to investigate hosted reviews, and merely hosting them is exempt. You become responsible for reviews you wrote, bought knowing they were false, or featured in your advertising as testimonials.

Can I ask an unhappy customer to update a review?

You can contact customers to fix the problem, and the Q&A says the rule does not stop you from asking satisfied customers to update reviews. Paying someone to remove a truthful negative review is not covered by the rule but may violate the FTC Act.

How do I report a competitor who buys fake reviews?

The FTC takes reports of bad business practices at ReportFraud.ftc.gov. Keep dated screenshots and links so your report points to specific reviews and accounts.

Can I pay influencers to send real followers my way?

The rule defines fake indicators by their source: bots, fake or hijacked accounts, or activity that does not reflect real people. The Q&A says that when influencers you hire encourage their audiences to follow you, those followers are real people who chose to follow, so they are not fake. Any material connection in the influencers' posts still needs a disclosure.

Can a court award damages to me under this rule?

Not directly, because the rule has no private right of action. A business harmed by a rival's false advertising may have a federal claim under the Lanham Act; our page on what happens in an Atlanta federal IP lawsuit describes how those cases run.

Does a fake account using my brand to sell knockoffs fall under this rule?

That is usually a trademark and platform enforcement problem rather than a review problem. Our guide to trademark protection for creators explains why a registration helps.

Zala IP Law advises creators and brands on endorsement agreements, licensing and protecting the names and audiences they build, and Shreepal J. Zala practices federal intellectual property and entertainment law nationally. If a vendor or brand partner is pushing growth tactics you are unsure about, request a consultation or call 404-313-1701 before you agree.