By 
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has finalized its enforcement action against Sitejabber, an artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled consumer review platform, barring the company from misrepresenting ratings and reviews.
The FTC’s November 2024 complaint accused Sitejabber of gathering consumer ratings and reviews at the point of purchase—before consumers could experience the product or service—and using these reviews to artificially boost its clients’ average ratings and review counts. Furthermore, the agency alleged that Sitejabber provided tools enabling its clients to falsely represent ratings and reviews as being from verified customers who had used their products.
In a statement accompanying the enforcement announcement on Nov. 6, Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said: “Platforms don’t have free rein to mislead people about the consumer reviews shown for companies and their products.”
On Friday (Jan. 3), the FTC announced the approval of a final order, which prohibits Sitejabber from misrepresenting ratings, average ratings, or reviews that it collects, moderates, or displays.
Sitejabber did not immediately respond to media requests for comment.
In a Nov. 7 response posted on its website, Sitejabber acknowledged the FTC’s allegations but emphasized that the claims pertained to practices before the company implemented changes in early 2024. Sitejabber explained that point-of-sale reviews are intended to capture genuine feedback about customers’ purchasing experiences. However, after the FTC’s proposed new rules and updated guidelines in June 2023 suggested such reviews could be misleading, the company began clearly labeling point-of-sale reviews and separating them from other feedback in late 2023.
“While we disagree with the implied intent and impact of the FTC’s allegations, we have always supported increased transparency and regulation around reviews,” Sitejabber wrote. “It was a difficult decision, but we ultimately chose to settle, as most of the FTC’s concerns had already been addressed by our earlier changes, and the agreement did not involve any further significant alterations to our practices or any civil penalties.”
Comments