A review-removal service has to begin with a boundary: legitimate criticism is not a target. The objective is not to make a rating look better by silencing real customers. The objective is to report evidence of a potential policy violation or coordinated abuse for the platform to evaluate.
The FTC Boundary
The Federal Trade Commission's Consumer Reviews and Testimonials Rule addresses fake or false reviews, incentives conditioned on sentiment, and review suppression. The FTC also explains that paying consumers to remove or change truthful negative reviews may violate the FTC Act. Read the FTC's official questions and answers.
That boundary belongs in the operating procedure, not only in legal fine print.
What Good-Faith Reporting Looks Like
A good-faith report identifies a specific condition, preserves the supporting material, and avoids claims the evidence cannot establish. It does not ask Amazon to remove a review merely because the rating is low. It does not offer the reviewer money. It does not manufacture positive activity to offset the negative review.
What MajestIQ Will Not File
MajestIQ will not file a case whose only basis is negative sentiment. We do not target authentic product experiences, promise that Amazon will agree, or present an unsupported network conclusion as proven.
Build the Control Into the Workflow
Every case should have a defined review population, a documented condition, a source record, and a final confirmation step. Ambiguous evidence should be marked ambiguous. If the record does not support a good-faith report, the review stays outside the filing set.
This article is operational guidance, not legal advice. Businesses should have current counsel review their review practices against the FTC rule and Amazon's current policies.
