Ask an eligible customer
Define eligibility before you know whether the person is happy or critical.
Reviews · Requests and replies
Ask for reviews without manipulating the answer.
You can usually ask a real customer to describe a genuine experience. The process becomes risky when you choose only likely positive reviewers, offer value for a certain rating, hide a relationship, pressure the customer, suppress legitimate criticism or expose protected information.
The practical answer
Ask neutrally. Keep the experience real. Record the process.
A sound request goes to people who had a genuine experience. It does not tell them what rating to leave, what words to use or whether they should post at all.
That is only the starting point. The Federal Trade Commission, the receiving platform, the industry and the request channel can each impose a different rule. Mindflow Marketing treats those rules as separate controls instead of turning one FTC summary into a universal answer.
Do not ask for praise
Invite an honest account. Do not request five stars, staff names or specific talking points.
Disclose—or exclude
Staff, managers, relatives, contractors and compensated reviewers need a reviewed disclosure or should not post.
Keep private facts private
A public reply should not confirm a patient, client or other protected relationship.
General educational information, not legal advice. Last reviewed 16 August 2026. The current text of 16 CFR Part 465 controls over summaries, and the FTC rule Q&A states that its staff views are not binding on the Commission.
Four separate checks
Start with four rules, not one.
Federal law sets an important floor. A platform may be stricter. Healthcare, Legal and some communication channels add duties that a generic review script cannot solve.
| Layer | Question | Owner | Stop the request when |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal law | Is the experience real, the request unconditioned and any material connection handled? | Legal or compliance reviewer | The content is fake, sentiment is required, a connection is hidden or criticism is suppressed |
| Platform policy | Does this platform permit the request, incentive, collection method and reply? | Platform owner | The current policy conflicts with the planned workflow |
| Industry duty | Could the request or reply expose protected or confidential information? | Privacy or professional reviewer | Patient, client, matter, advertising or professional-rule questions remain unresolved |
| Channel and jurisdiction | Is the contact method, timing and wording permitted where the business operates? | Counsel and operations | Consent, messaging, state or adopted professional rules are unclear |
Part 465, the FTC Endorsement Guides and the Consumer Review Fairness Act solve different problems. Platform rules and adopted jurisdiction rules remain separate.
Eligibility before sentiment
Ask only people with a genuine experience.
Write the eligible-population rule before results are known. A home-service company might use completed jobs. A software company might use verified active users. An eCommerce business might use fulfilled orders through the marketplace’s approved tool.
Do not create reviewer personas, ask employees to pose as customers, buy reviews or use generated text as if it came from a real person. Part 465 prohibits covered fake or false reviews. The fact that software wrote the words does not create a genuine experience.
A fair process can still produce criticism. That is evidence the rule is neutral, not proof that the process failed.
The request itself
Keep the request neutral.
Do not ask only customers expected to leave praise. Do not send unhappy customers to a private form while sending everyone else to Google. Do not pressure people to post before they leave the premises.
Google’s current policies allow a merchant to request a review from someone with a genuine experience. They also prohibit incentives, selective positive solicitation, requested ratings, staff quotas and pressure. That is a platform rule. It should not be mislabeled as the complete federal rule.
Define the experience trigger
Choose the completed job, appointment stage, engagement, active-use milestone or fulfilled order that makes a person eligible.
Select the audience neutrally
Use the written eligibility rule. Do not filter by satisfaction score, complaint history or staff judgment.
Use neutral wording
Ask for an honest review. Do not supply the rating, sentiment, required staff name or approved phrases.
Log the request
Record the audience rule, platform, text, channel, date, owner and policy version.
Use wording the whole eligible audience can receive.
A neutral request can identify the real experience, invite an honest account and link to the approved platform path. It does not need to ask whether the customer was satisfied first. It does not need to describe the rating the business hopes to receive.
Review the surrounding workflow as carefully as the message. A staff member should not stand over the customer while the review is written. A manager should not turn the request into a performance quota. A follow-up should not become pressure after the customer declines.
Keep service recovery separate from review eligibility. A business can resolve a complaint without offering value for a positive review, a changed review or removal of truthful criticism. When facts create a real legal, safety or platform issue, preserve the evidence and use the proper escalation path instead of arguing in public.
Review the current Google Maps content policy and rating-manipulation policy before a Google request campaign begins.
Incentives
Treat incentives as platform-specific.
The safest operating default is no incentive. Part 465 does not ban every unconditioned incentive, but it does prohibit value conditioned expressly or by implication on a particular sentiment. Other FTC rules may require disclosure. The platform may prohibit the incentive entirely.
Never offer a discount, refund, gift or prize only for a positive review. Never offer value to change or remove truthful criticism. If a reviewed program permits an incentive, record the terms, disclosure, platform rule and approved audience before launch.
| Platform | Request default | Incentive default | Operational warning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neutral request after a genuine experience | Prohibited | No gating, pressure, requested content, staff quotas or staff-name prompts | |
| Yelp | Do not solicit Yelp reviews | Avoid | Recheck Yelp’s current no-solicitation position before publication |
| G2 | Unbiased collection from verified users | Some disclosed incentives currently allowed within stated limits | Never condition sentiment or target only likely positive users |
| Trustpilot | Neutral invitation | Prohibited | Do not pressure a reviewer to change the review; flag consistently |
| Amazon | Approved tools and eligible programs | Prohibited outside approved programs | No inserts, refunds or benefits tied to reviews or changes |
This is a dated operating summary, not a substitute for the linked policy. See the current G2 Community Guidelines, Trustpilot business guidelines and Amazon Seller Central policy before using any program.
Connections
Disclose a relationship—or exclude the review.
A manager, employee, contractor, close relative or compensated reviewer is not an ordinary independent customer. A material connection may need a clear disclosure where the review first appears.
Do not hide the connection behind a profile link. Do not present a company-controlled review site as independent. When the platform prohibits the relationship, disclosure does not cure the platform conflict.
Moderation
Moderate by content, not sentiment.
Use written rules for fake, abusive, private, unlawful, irrelevant or duplicate content. Apply the same rules to praise and criticism.
Do not hide negative reviews, make them harder to find or use an unfounded threat to silence a reviewer. The Consumer Review Fairness Act also restricts specified anti-review terms in form contracts while preserving listed exceptions.
The FTC’s guide for featuring customer reviews describes neutral collection, moderation and publication principles.
Public replies
Reply without exposing private facts.
A Google Business Profile reply appears publicly. A calm response can acknowledge the concern and move the conversation to an approved offline channel. It should not debate private details, accuse the reviewer or offer value for a change.
| Decision | Action | Record |
|---|---|---|
| Is the content fake, abusive, private or unrelated under a written rule? | Flag or moderate consistently through the platform | Policy section, evidence, date and owner |
| Could a reply confirm PHI, representation or confidential facts? | Stop. Route to privacy or professional review | Escalation only; keep protected facts out of the public log |
| Does the draft threaten, accuse or offer value for removal? | Stop. Do not publish the reply | Reason, approver and next action |
| Can the concern be acknowledged without private facts? | Post a short response and invite an approved offline channel | Final text, owner, date and follow-up |
HHS OCR has resolved matters involving protected health information disclosed in review replies, including New Vision Dental and Manasa Health Center. For lawyers, ABA Formal Opinion 496 is model guidance; the adopted jurisdiction rules control.
Five operating models
Change the controls by industry.
The neutral-experience principle stays the same. The experience trigger, response stop and required record do not.
| Industry | Neutral ask | Public response | Required record |
|---|---|---|---|
| Home Services | After a completed job, to the written eligible population | Thank, acknowledge and move job-specific disputes offline | Job ID, request time, platform and response owner |
| Healthcare | Only through a privacy-reviewed workflow | Do not confirm patient status or disclose PHI; route offline | Approved template, access record and privacy escalation |
| Legal | Only under adopted jurisdiction rules and approved timing | Do not reveal representation or client information | Jurisdiction, approval, request and response record |
| B2B SaaS | Ask verified users under the marketplace’s rules | Answer product facts without pressuring a change | User eligibility, platform and incentive/disclosure record |
| eCommerce | Use approved marketplace tools or a neutral onsite process | Address service facts without conditioning a refund on review change | Order eligibility, request tool and moderation reason |
The evidence record
Keep a record before the next request goes out.
A script alone cannot prove the workflow was fair. Keep the campaign ID, platform, industry and jurisdiction, eligible-population rule, experience trigger, request text, channel, timestamp, incentive and disclosure status, moderation reason, approved response and policy version.
Name the person who can stop the process. Record the recheck date. When a privacy, professional or jurisdiction question appears, preserve the minimum necessary facts and route the decision to the qualified reviewer.
Train every staff member who sends requests or posts replies, and review exceptions before the same mistake becomes a repeatable system.
Use the review-recency guide for discovery effects, the honest-measurement guide for observation records and Mindflow Marketing’s methodology for evidence and decision ownership.
Legal, privacy and professional-rule questions stay with qualified counsel. Mindflow Marketing can help make the marketing workflow, owner and evidence record clear.
Review the process
Bring the request, the platform and the response workflow.
Mindflow Marketing can identify the marketing controls that need a clearer owner, record or policy check. The review does not certify compliance, promise more reviews or guarantee a star-rating, profile, lead or revenue result.
Do not submit patient information, legal-client information or private dispute details through a general web form.
Private draft. Qualified legal, healthcare privacy and jurisdiction-specific professional review remain required before publication. Platform policies must be rechecked at release.