We almost shipped an email that said "leave us a review and get 10% off." It was standard practice in 2019 and a problem in 2026, because the FTC's consumer-reviews rule (16 CFR Part 465) draws lines around exactly that kind of incentive. Nobody on the team knew the line had moved. That's the scary part about compliance copy: the law changes and your old template doesn't.

So I built a pre-check that scores review and testimonial wording before it goes out.

What the pre-check actually looks at

You paste the copy you're about to use — a review-solicitation email, the text around displayed reviews on your site, or the wording on a review-collection page. The tool returns a scored report focused on the failure modes the rule targets: conditioning incentives on positive reviews, suppressing negative ones, and presenting fake or bought reviews as genuine.

The scored part is what I wanted. A binary "safe/unsafe" is useless when most copy is "mostly fine with one bad line." The score points at the line, so you fix the sentence, not the whole draft.

Why a pre-check, not a legal review

A lawyer is the right call for anything high-stakes, and I'm not replacing that. But most review copy is written weekly by a founder or marketer who just needs to not ship the obvious mistake. A pre-check is the cheap gate before the expensive review — it catches "you offered a discount for any review without saying it's open to all" so the lawyer never has to.

ReviewPrecheck is built for that gate. It's not a certification; it's a second pass you run in the minute before publish.

The honest boundary

This is decision-support, and I say that in the product, not in the footer. The report tells you where your copy likely runs into the rule; it does not tell you the copy is lawful, and it does not know your specific situation, jurisdiction nuances, or any exemptions you might qualify for. I will not print "FTC-compliant" on the output, because that's a claim only a human reviewer with context can make.

What it also can't do is read intent. If your program is structured to dodge the rule in spirit, a wording check won't save you — it reads the text you paste, not the scheme behind it.

What I'd tell a small team

Run the pre-check on every template once, then on each meaningful edit after. The risk isn't the first draft; it's the sixth tweak where someone "improved" the incentive language and reintroduced the problem. Cheap, repeatable, boring — that's the right shape for a compliance gate.

When the campaign is live and I'm about to hit send, ReviewPrecheck is the thirty-second gate I run. It won't replace a lawyer, but it catches the line I'd have shipped on autopilot.

The habit that matters is running it on edits, not just the first draft. Most compliance slips happen on the sixth tweak, when someone "improved" the incentive wording and reintroduced the problem the original check caught. Cheap, repeatable, boring — that's the right shape for a gate you'll actually keep using.

FAQ

What copy should I run through it?
Review-solicitation emails, the text around displayed reviews on your site, and any review-collection page wording before it ships.

Does a clean score mean I'm legally safe?
No. The score flags likely problems in the text you paste. It is not a legal opinion and doesn't certify compliance with the rule.

Can it catch fake or bought reviews?
It reviews the wording you provide for the failure modes the rule targets, including presenting misleading reviews. It can't verify what's real behind your program.

Should this replace a lawyer?
No. It's a pre-publish gate for obvious mistakes. Anything high-stakes still warrants real legal review.