# Incentivising reviews without breaking platform policy

You can incentivise reviews legally by rewarding the act of reviewing, never the rating, and disclosing it. Get it wrong and you breach FTC, ASA and platform rules.

By Rohin Aggarwal · 2026-01-23

The merchant offered a discount for a review, and Trustpilot pulled the reviews down inside forty-eight hours. Then the merchant's lawyer flagged a second risk nobody had seen coming. The framework below is the one that keeps both Trustpilot and the FTC quiet, with examples of the language that holds up.

**Quick answer**

- A modest incentive can raise review response. The rules are strict.
- The incentive must be offered for a review regardless of whether it is positive or negative.
- It must never be conditioned on a star rating, and it must be disclosed, both by you and by the reviewer who accepted it.
- Get this wrong and you breach FTC/ASA rules and most review platforms’ policies at once.

Incentivising reviews is one of the easiest ways for a well-meaning brand to land in trouble, because regulators and review platforms police the same line from different directions. The instinct ("leave a review, get a discount") is reasonable, and the execution is where stores quietly cross a line that regulators and review platforms both enforce, starting with the [FTC endorsement guidelines](/blog/ftc-endorsement-guidelines).

## Do incentives for reviews actually work?

An incentive can lift response rates, especially on [photo and video reviews](/blog/photo-video-reviews-vs-text-reviews), where the effort asked of the customer is higher. But an incentivised review is, by definition, not a spontaneous one. That triggers obligations. Get those right and incentives are a legitimate tool; ignore them and you have manufactured a compliance problem. If you would rather avoid incentives altogether, the timing-and-ask playbook in [how to ask customers for reviews](/blog/how-to-ask-customers-for-reviews) lifts volume without any reward attached.

> **The bright lines:** Three rules you do not cross. One: the incentive is for leaving a review, any review, never for leaving a positive one. Two: it is never conditioned on a star rating. Three: the incentive is disclosed, and the reviewer is told to disclose it too. Conditioning a reward on positivity, or hiding the incentive, breaches FTC and ASA rules and almost every review platform’s policy.

## How do I incentivise within the rules?

1. Offer the incentive to every customer who reviews, with no link at all to the score they give, five stars or one.
2. State plainly that an honest negative review earns exactly the same reward.
3. Disclose the incentive, on the ask, and instruct the reviewer to note it on the review.
4. Keep the incentive modest. Large rewards distort behaviour and draw scrutiny.
5. Check the specific policy of any third-party review platform you collect on. Some restrict incentives further.

## What never to do

- Never reward only positive reviews, or reward more for higher ratings.
- Never gate the incentive behind a four- or five-star review.
- Never hide the incentive. Never present incentivised reviews as organic.
- Never, ever write or buy fake reviews: that is not merely against platform policy, it is illegal under both FTC rules and UK consumer law.

## What does compliant phrasing look like?

The difference between a legal ask and a takedown is usually one clause. Sometimes one word. The table below sets the wording side by side so you can audit your own emails against it before they go out. Gifted product follows the same logic, which is why [seeding and gifting programmes](/blog/gifting-and-seeding-programs-for-ugc) also have to carry a disclosure line.

| What you offer | Compliant phrasing | Breaches policy |
| --- | --- | --- |
| The reward | "Leave a review, get £5, whatever you say." | "Leave a 5-star review, get £5." |
| The condition | Reward tied to the act of reviewing | Reward tied to the rating given |
| Disclosure | "This review was written for a discount." | Incentive hidden, review shown as organic |
| Negative reviews | Same reward for an honest 1-star | Reward withheld unless positive |

_Review-incentive wording: what passes and what gets pulled._

**The incentive rule:** Reward the act of reviewing, never the verdict. Then disclose it. That single principle keeps incentives on the right side of the FTC, the ASA, and every review platform you collect on.

> **How Idukki helps:** Idukki helps you collect reviews and customer media at scale through well-timed, low-friction asks, so you can lift response rates with good process, not with risky incentives.

### Sources & notes
- [FTC, Endorsement Guides](https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/ftcs-endorsement-guides) — US rules on incentivised reviews.
- [UK ASA / CMA, review guidance](https://www.asa.org.uk/) — UK rules on incentivised and fake reviews.
- [Bazaarvoice, review collection research](https://www.bazaarvoice.com/resources/) — Incentives and review response rates.
- Note — Practical guidance, not legal advice, confirm with a qualified lawyer and each platform’s current policy.

- **30 days** — GDPR right-to-erasure SLA (End-to-end inc. CDN purges)
- **45 days** — CCPA deletion SLA (CPRA)
- **64%** — of brands fail withdrawal SLA on audit (Idukki research Q1 2026)
- **38%** — Median rights yes-rate (Idukki dataset)

_Compliance benchmarks across UGC programmes._

---
Canonical: https://idukki.io/blog/incentivising-reviews-without-breaking-policy
Tags: reviews, compliance, ftc, strategy