Review gating is banned: what a compliant review flow looks like in 2026

Google, UK law, Trustpilot and Tripadvisor ban sending happy customers to review sites and unhappy ones to a private form, and the FTC treats it as potentially deceptive. Here is what a compliant flow looks like instead.

By Loylo6 min read

For years, many review tools worked like this. The customer picks a star rating. Four or five stars, and they are sent to Google. One to three, and they land on a private “tell us what went wrong” form. The public review site only hears from the happy ones.

That is review gating. In 2026 it is banned almost everywhere that matters to a local business, and regulators are also looking at the software providers that make it easy.

This guide covers the rules, the enforcement and what a compliant flow looks like. It is written for agencies and local businesses. It is not legal advice.

What counts as review gating

Review gating is any flow that treats customers differently depending on how satisfied they seem, so that satisfied customers are more likely to post in public. The obvious version hides the public link from low raters. Subtler versions count too:

  • showing the public link to everyone, but making it small, grey or second for low raters;
  • asking unhappy customers to complain first, and only then offering the public link;
  • sending review requests only to customers who scored you highly in a survey.

Every source below treats steering as the problem, not just hiding.

What the rules say

Google. Google’s Maps user-generated content policy says businesses must not discourage or prohibit negative reviews, or selectively ask for positive ones. The same policy bans incentives for posting any review and bans review quotas for staff. Google can stop a profile receiving new reviews, unpublish existing ones and show a warning on the profile.

United Kingdom. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 lists banned review practices in Schedule 20, paragraph 13, in force since 6 April 2025. It covers fake reviews, hidden incentivised reviews and publishing reviews in a misleading way. Paragraph 13(4) also bans offering services to traders that facilitate those practices. That can reach review software providers and the agencies that resell them.

The Competition and Markets Authority’s fake reviews guidance (CMA208) describes gating without using the word. Paragraph 4.5 says cherry-picking can happen “by encouraging just those who are satisfied to leave reviews”. Paragraph 8.11 says publishers should not try to persuade consumers to complain instead of leaving a review.

United States. The FTC’s Consumer Review Rule (16 CFR Part 465) took effect in October 2024. It bans incentives that depend on a review’s sentiment. In its final rule statement, the FTC said gating can still break Section 5 of the FTC Act. Its Endorsement Guides give this exact example: a marketer invites only very positive customers to post reviews and simply thanks the rest.

European Union. The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, as amended by Directive (EU) 2019/2161, bans misrepresenting consumer reviews. The Commission’s guidance gives “only soliciting and making available positive reviews” as an example.

Review platforms. Trustpilot’s guidelines for businesses ban pre-screening: sending customers with a good experience to review and those with a bad one to contact you. Tripadvisor’s review guidelines require any flow that leads to Tripadvisor to give positive and negative reviewers an identical experience. Both ban incentives for reviews, including prize-draw entries.

Enforcement is real

In March 2026 the CMA opened investigations into five businesses over reviews. One, Feefo, is a review-collection provider. The CMA has said no finding has been made. It can now fine up to 10% of global turnover.

In December 2025 the FTC sent warning letters to ten companies about the Consumer Review Rule, citing civil penalties of up to $53,088 per violation.

What a compliant flow looks like

Two patterns fit these rules.

Direct. Every customer goes to the same public review page by the same path, whatever they think. There may be no rating step at all, just a “Review us on Google” button. This is the only pattern that suits Trustpilot and Tripadvisor.

Same screen for every rating (Google only). The customer taps a star rating, then always lands on one screen. It has the public review button and an optional box to tell the team privately, both equally prominent. Only the heading changes with the rating: a thank-you at five stars, an apology at two.

Either way, these conditions should hold:

  1. Every customer is offered the public review link on the screen straight after rating, with no extra click.
  2. Layout, button size, colour and position are the same for every rating. No grey text links.
  3. No automatic redirect for high ratings only.
  4. Private feedback is optional and sits beside the public button, never before it. The thank-you screen after private feedback offers the public link again.
  5. Neutral wording at every rating. Nothing like “If you loved it, leave five stars” or “Contact us before posting”.
  6. No incentive tied to a review or a rating. That includes loyalty stamps, discounts and prize draws. If the business runs a loyalty scheme, the stamp is earned by the visit, whether or not the customer reviews.
  7. No suggested wording, keywords or staff names for the public review.
  8. Customers review on their own phone. No venue tablets and no staff watching.
  9. Any contact-details step is optional, the same for everyone, and never blocks the public link.
  10. Service-recovery offers are unconditional. They never depend on not posting, or on editing or removing a review.
  11. Review requests are never paused because of recent ratings.
  12. Each session is logged, so the business can show every customer was offered the public link.

The risk that remains

Google has not explicitly approved a flow that offers private feedback next to the public link. A same-screen flow follows the wording of the policy, but Google could still read any difference based on rating as selective asking. For the lowest risk, use the direct pattern. Policies change, so check them regularly.

A note for agencies

Compliance is a selling point. Never promise a star rating, a number of reviews or a ranking, and never pitch “keeping bad reviews off Google”. Under the UK rules, that promise could itself be evidence of offering a banned service.

How Loylo handles it

Loylo has two review modes. Tone mode is for Google: every customer sees the same screen with the same public button, and only the heading changes with the rating. Direct mode sends every customer straight to Google, Trustpilot or Tripadvisor. Both are locked at platform level, so neither agencies nor their clients can switch the rules off. In Loylo’s rewards feature, stamps are earned by visits, never by reviews.

Sources

All checked on 9 October 2026.