FTC’s 2026 enforcement approach to fake reviews takes shape: Takeaways for companies

Several recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) actions may indicate the agency’s enforcement approach for the Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials, which took effect in late 2024.

First, the agency alleged violations of Rule provisions against two companies in matters that centered on other deceptive conduct.

Second, the agency quietly posted copies on its website of the Rule-related warning letters that it had sent to companies in December 2025, disclosing for the first time which companies received the letters and why.

In this alert, we provide key takeaways from these developments for sellers and advertising agencies utilizing online reviews.

Recent enforcement actions

Premium Home Service

In May 2026, the FTC and the Illinois Attorney General announced a lawsuit against Premium Home Service (PHS) and its owner, alleging they created thousands of fake online business listings for home repair companies to mislead consumers into believing they were hiring reputable local companies.

Filed by the United States Department of Justice on the FTC’s behalf, the complaint also alleges that PHS directed employees, relatives, and search engine optimization companies to post fake five-star reviews of the purportedly local companies in order to dilute the impact of real one-star reviews. PHS also allegedly posted fake reviews on Apple’s App Store, in connection with the company’s app.

According to the complaint, this conduct violated the Rule’s prohibitions on creating fake reviews, buying fake reviews, and procuring fake reviews from company insiders.

In a concurring statement released with the case announcement, FTC Commissioner Mark Meador focused on an under-appreciated aspect of fake reviews, which is harm to honest competitors:

“A particularly troubling aspect of this case is how the fraud as alleged defeated the efforts of diligent consumers who went to extra lengths to try to hire reputable, local providers with good reviews. Indeed, Premium Home Service allegedly diverted these very consumers away from reliable local providers with genuine reviews, harming both the consumers and those providers.”

The case is pending in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On July 17, 2026, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that the complaint’s specific examples of allegedly fake reviews cannot be Rule violations because they occurred in early 2024, before the Rule was in effect.

TruHeight

In April 2026, the FTC announced a new administrative complaint and settlement with the supplement company TruHeight and two of its principals for allegedly deceptive claims that its vitamins were clinically proven to make children grow taller.

The complaint also alleged that the company violated the Rule by posting on its website numerous reviews that were written by 1) its own employees posing as real users and 2) consumers who were offered a free product or discount in return for a five-star review.

The final order, issued on July 15, 2026, includes an injunction and a $4 million judgment, partially suspended upon payment of $750,000, based on the respondents’ inability to pay the full amount.

Implications

The two cases suggest that Rule violations will often appear as adjuncts to FTC cases primarily focused on other forms of deceptive conduct, such as misleading health claims or deceptive marketing of local services.

As demonstrated in these enforcement actions, the FTC will likely be on the lookout for review-related misconduct across investigations, because knowing violations of the Rule may subject companies to civil penalties and possible consumer restitution.

For example, in TruHeight, the only legal basis for the monetary award was the Rule, even though the Rule violations were not the primary focus of the case. Similarly, in PHS, the Rule provides the only legal basis for possible monetary recovery.

Warning letters

The FTC has not brought an enforcement action focused primarily on reviews since a November 2024 case against Sitejabber. That case did not involve Rule violations, as the regulation had just gone into effect.

As discussed in an earlier client alert, however, the agency announced in December 2025 that it had issued warning letters to ten companies for possible Rule violations. The FTC did not identify the recipients’ names or provide copies of the letters, instead releasing only a template letter. This protocol is not unusual; the agency did the same thing in December 2025 when announcing warning letters to property management software providers about rental pricing information.

The FTC has disclosed recipients and released letters on some occasions, as it did in its July 2026 announcement of warnings it sent to companies that “appear to have misrepresented” their products as being “Made in the USA.” Read more about that action here.

When the FTC does not identify warning letter recipients upfront, its rationale often reflects a recognition that it may be unfair to name companies as potential lawbreakers before an investigation has concluded.

However, the FTC will often release recipient information in response to Freedom of Information Act requests, as it did with the recent set of ten Rule-related letters.

The letters, which were discreetly posted on the FTC website in April and then listed at some point thereafter on the website’s “Warning Letter Requests” page, reveal the agency’s first, targeted enforcement focus under the Rule. Six of the letters went to property management companies; three went to personal injury law firms; and the other one went to an accounting firm.

The purported misconduct for all ten recipients was effectively the same, with some variation: providing money or other incentives (e.g., lease discounts or gift cards) to tenants, customers, or employees, in exchange for posting, or directing family and friends to post, positive reviews.

The FTC did not provide its reasoning for choosing these types of companies and firms for its first warning letters under the Rule, but one throughline is that the services at issue are all consequential to people – where they live, how their legal rights are defended, and how their finances are handled. This factor may explain why the FTC focused on these recipients and not less essential businesses, such as restaurants or sellers of inexpensive consumer products.

The FTC also did not indicate why it focused on paid reviews rather than other Rule violations, but it may well have been easier for the staff to find such allegations – whether via consumer complaints or other sources – than to address other Rule provisions for which violations are more hidden from public view.

Like other FTC warning letters, this set serves as a general deterrent, a signal that the FTC is willing to enforce the Rule as a primary or secondary focus of an investigation into deceptive or unfair conduct. The likelihood of any sustained and focused Rule enforcement is unknown, however, and perhaps dependent on resource constraints and other priorities.

Takeaways

In light of the FTC’s recent activity to enforce the Rule, sellers and advertising agencies are encouraged to assess their review campaigns as well as how they design and moderate review content on websites or other platforms.

The more consequential the service a business provides, the more interested the FTC may be in its review practices. Further, the PHS case is a reminder that attorneys general also have an enforcement role under state consumer protection laws.

In short, this is no time to be complacent about compliance when it comes to consumer reviews. For more information, please contact the authors.