The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has taken some steps recently to tackle the problem of companies that hijack their own customer product reviews when selling products on online platforms like Amazon. Review hijacking is one of many deceptive methods of manipulating consumer reviews to increase the chances of selling a new product. Essentially, review hijacking is where an online seller takes an existing product page with many positive consumer reviews and “updates” the product details (like photos, descriptions, etc.) so that a different product is now listed. The result is a page listing a new product that seems to have sold well and that has received good consumer reviews.

One would think that this type of unethical marketing practice would only be used if the products are similar. This is because customers will often name the product (at least generally) when writing a review such as writing: “This herbal supplement is great.” That sort of review will cause a noticeable problem if the product details have been “updated” to sell chainsaws. However, there are examples of sellers hijacking and repurposing their listings and using them to sell completely unrelated products (like a phone charger listing for a neck brace listing).

As part of its efforts to regulate this type of false advertising/marketing, in 2023, the FTC issued a Notice of Proposed Rule wherein review hijacking, reuse, and repurposing would be declared to be unfair and deceptive business practices. See here, starting page 49373. The proposed Rule has not yet been finalized. The proposed Rule would ban review hijacking involving “substantially different products,” which is defined as being different “in one or more material attributes other than color, size, count, or flavor.”

In an earlier action, the FTC brought an enforcement action against an online retailer called The Bountiful Company, which sells vitamins and other supplements. Bountiful was accused of hijacking its own consumer reviews on Amazon, not merely for the consumer reviews but also to repurpose Amazon “badges” saying “#1 Best Seller” and “Amazon’s Choice.” According to the FTC, Bountiful used a nuanced method of hijacking its own reviews by using an Amazon feature that allows sellers to create a “variation relationship” between different products. To be allowed, the “variation” had to be limited and narrow, based on such things as color, size, quantity, etc. If a “variation relationship” is created and allowed, then the products are listed together on the same product detail page on Amazon. This detail page is where the consumer reviews and badges are located. Bountiful was accused of manipulating this Amazon feature to create a “variation relationship” for products that were substantially different.

The enforcement action was settled in 2023, and Bountiful agreed to pay $600,000 in civil fines and agreed to various injunctive relief. In March 2024, the FTC began sending out refunds to customers who were affected by Bountiful’s deceptive marketing practices. The refunds exceed $527,000.

Contact The FTC Defense Attorneys at Revision Legal

The FTC’s Finalized Consumer Reviews and Testimonials Rule

Following the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking described in the original article, the FTC finalized its Trade Regulation Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials on August 14, 2024 (effective October 21, 2024). The final Rule, codified at 16 C.F.R. Part 465, represents the most comprehensive federal rulemaking on fake reviews and review manipulation to date. The Rule explicitly prohibits the following practices:

• Buying and selling fake reviews — creating or disseminating consumer reviews by people who do not have actual experience with the product or service, and compensating people to write positive or negative reviews
• Insider reviews without disclosure — requiring or incentivizing employees or company insiders to post reviews without clearly disclosing their relationship to the company
• Disseminating controlled reviews — using a company-controlled or affiliated website or platform to solicit or display reviews in a way that suppresses negative reviews while highlighting positive ones
• Review hijacking — using a mechanism to attribute reviews of one product to a materially different product
• Buying positive social media indicators — purchasing fake social media metrics like followers, likes, views, and shares from fake accounts
• Suppressing negative reviews — taking any action — legal threats, DMCA notices, or selective solicitation — with the intent of suppressing legitimate negative reviews

Violations of the Rule are enforceable as unfair or deceptive acts or practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act, with civil penalties of up to $51,744 per violation. The Rule applies to any business that markets products or services to U.S. consumers — including businesses based outside the United States.

Platform Enforcement Against Review Hijacking

Amazon has taken significant independent action to combat review hijacking and review manipulation, operating what it calls its Review Abuse Detection program. Amazon uses machine learning to identify patterns of review hijacking, including the creation of variation relationships between disparate products, sudden spikes in positive reviews, and review velocity anomalies. When Amazon’s algorithms flag a potential violation, the affected listings may be taken down immediately — often without advance notice to the seller.

Amazon sellers whose listings are suspended for review policy violations face a significant operational and reputational challenge. Amazon’s appeals process requires the seller to submit a Plan of Corrective Action (POCA) acknowledging the violation, explaining the root cause, and describing the steps taken to prevent recurrence. Sellers who are found to have engaged in deliberate review manipulation face permanent account deactivation — a business-ending event for sellers who depend on Amazon as their primary sales channel.

Other platforms have adopted similar policies. Yelp’s Consumer Alerts program flags businesses that have been caught offering incentives for reviews or that have experienced unusual review activity. Google Maps has removed millions of fake reviews and suspended the accounts of businesses that solicited fraudulent reviews. For any business that relies on online reviews as a key component of its marketing strategy, maintaining a clean review record is not only an ethical obligation but a practical business necessity.

Legal Exposure Beyond the FTC: State Law Claims and Class Actions

The FTC’s enforcement actions against review hijacking and fake reviews represent only one layer of legal risk for businesses that engage in these practices. State consumer protection laws in California, New York, and other states provide both regulatory enforcement authority and private rights of action for deceptive advertising practices. A business that publishes fake positive reviews or hijacks product listings may face not only FTC enforcement but also class action litigation brought by consumers who claim they were deceived into purchasing products based on fraudulent social proof.

In the e-commerce context, competitors also have legal remedies. False advertising claims under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), can be brought by competitors who are injured by false or misleading representations about a product’s quality or endorsement. If a competitor can show that your review hijacking misled consumers and caused a diversion of sales or other commercial harm, you may face a Lanham Act lawsuit in addition to FTC enforcement. The combination of regulatory action, class action risk, and competitor litigation creates a powerful incentive for businesses to implement robust review integrity policies and to train employees and marketing partners on compliant review solicitation practices.

For more information, contact the experienced FTC Defense Lawyers at Revision Legal. You can contact us through the form on this page or call (855) 473-8474.