Procter & Gamble recently filed an NAD challenge against Zuru, a New Zealand-based consumer products company, over a program Zuru ran to encouarge consumers to buy Zuru’s products, post reviews on retailer websites, and submit screenshots of those reviews to obtain reimbursement. Consumers were allegedly not instructed to disclose that the reviews were incentivized.
Zuru responded that the program wasn’t problematic because reimbursement wasn’t contingent on positive sentiment, favorable ratings, or endorsement of any product attributes. Nevertheless, the company volunteered to modify its practices by instructing consumers to clearly and conspicuously disclose that Zuru had reimbursed the purchase price of the reviewed product.
That satisfied NAD with respect to future reviews. For reviews that had already been posted, NAD recommended that Zuru make reasonable efforts to have recent reviews of current products revised to include the necessary disclosures or notify third-party retail channels that the reviews were incentivized.
The decision isn’t surprising, but it is another useful reminder that disclosure obligations don’t depend on whether reviewers are free to post negative feedback. Even when a company seeks only “honest” reviews, incentives can create a material connection that consumers should know about. An honest review can still be an incentivized review, and the incentive still needs to be disclosed.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]