In November 2024, the FTC issued a formal order against SiteJabber for publishing reviews from people who had never received the products they reviewed. SiteJabber's system allowed businesses to collect reviews at the point of sale, before the customer ever received the product. The FTC found this deceptive. Here's how Signed Reviews compares, and why our model structurally can't have the problem that got SiteJabber in trouble.
How SiteJabber's verification works
SiteJabber is an open review platform: businesses invite customers to leave reviews, and in some cases the platform also displays reviews it has collected directly. A "verified" label on SiteJabber reflects the business's invitation to the reviewer rather than an independently confirmed purchase. It is the same invitation model used by most review platforms, and it is precisely where the FTC found room for abuse: reviews collected at the point of sale, from people who had not yet received the product, were presented as customer feedback about the product.
The invitation model is reactive. The platform publishes first and polices later: automated tools and moderators remove bad reviews after they are reported, but the review is already live and already influencing readers in the meantime. It is a fundamentally different posture from a platform where a review cannot exist until an independent third party confirms the purchase happened.
What the FTC found
The FTC's case against SiteJabber centered on what consumers were led to believe. Reviews and ratings collected at the point of sale, before delivery, were counted into the average ratings and review counts that shoppers rely on. A customer who had never received a product could still be counted as a satisfied reviewer of it. The FTC found that deceptive, and the order requires SiteJabber to change those practices and stop misrepresenting what its reviews mean.
For any business choosing a review platform, the takeaway is not about one company. It is about structure: if the platform's design permits reviews without independently verified proof of purchase, the platform is one enforcement action, or one bad actor, away from the same problem.
Signed Reviews vs SiteJabber: full comparison
| Capability | Signed Reviews | SiteJabber |
|---|---|---|
| FTC compliance | FTC-compliant by construction, every review requires an independently verified Stripe charge. The purchase is confirmed by a third-party payment processor before a review can exist. | FTC Order (Nov 2024), found to have misrepresented that reviews came from customers who'd received products. SiteJabber allowed point-of-sale collection before product receipt. |
| Verification method | Processor-attested (Level 4) (Stripe independently confirms the charge, and refunds auto-hide reviews. | Email + optional receipt (Level 1–2)) reviewers self-attest. SiteJabber's system did not verify product receipt at all. |
| Review timing | After purchase, reviews are only possible after a Stripe charge succeeds. Configurable delay for shipped products. | Point-of-sale, SiteJabber's model encouraged reviews at checkout, before the customer had the product. The FTC found this deceptive. |
| Fake review prevention | Structural, impossible to post a review without a verified Stripe transaction backing it. | Reactive, reviews are open to anyone with an email address. Optional receipt verification is self-attested. |
| Regulatory standing | Clean, launched after the FTC's 2024 rule took effect. Designed for compliance from day one. | Under FTC order, required to change practices and stop misrepresenting review authenticity. |
| Stripe integration | Native, one-click OAuth, minimal permissions. Automatic on every charge. | No Stripe integration. Reviews are collected independently of payment processing. |
| Pricing | Free plan + $29–$199/mo. Transparent, self-serve. | Custom pricing, not publicly listed. Typically requires a sales conversation. |
| Review ownership | Business owns the reviews. Exportable, portable via API. | Business owns the reviews. |
Why the verification method determines compliance
Verification method is the whole game, because it decides whether fake reviews are prevented or merely detected. On an invitation platform, the business controls who gets invited, the reviewer self-attests, and the platform has no independent record of any purchase. On a processor-attested platform like Signed Reviews, a review cannot exist unless Stripe, a neutral third party, has independently confirmed a real charge. The merchant cannot invite a reviewer whose payment Stripe has not seen, and refunded charges automatically hide their associated reviews.
That is the difference between "we catch most fakes after they appear" and "fakes from non-customers cannot appear at all." Both models run content moderation, but only one makes the FTC's SiteJabber scenario structurally impossible: there is no point of sale to collect from, because the review flow starts with a confirmed transaction, not an invitation list.
Why this matters beyond SiteJabber
The SiteJabber FTC order established a precedent: the FTC will act against platforms whose review collection practices mislead consumers about authenticity. Any platform that allows reviews without independently verified proof of purchase, or that collects reviews before the customer has the product, is exposed to the same regulatory risk. Signed Reviews was designed after this precedent to be structurally compliant: no purchase verification, no review, no exceptions.
When SiteJabber may still be relevant
SiteJabber has a large existing review base and established consumer brand recognition. For businesses already listed there with legitimate reviews, maintaining that presence has value. But as a primary review collection platform, the FTC order raises questions about both compliance risk and consumer trust that newer, structurally compliant alternatives don't face.
Frequently asked questions
Is SiteJabber legitimate?
SiteJabber is a legitimate, established review platform with a large existing review base. But legitimacy is a different question from verification strength: the FTC's November 2024 order found that SiteJabber allowed reviews collected at the point of sale, before the customer received the product, to be presented as customer feedback. The platform is real; the reliability of its individual reviews is the open question.
Does SiteJabber verify purchases?
No. SiteJabber's model relies on business invitations and self-attestation rather than independent proof of purchase. There is no third-party payment processor confirming that a reviewer actually bought the product, which is exactly the gap the FTC's order addressed. Signed Reviews takes the opposite approach: Stripe independently confirms the charge before a review can exist.
Is Signed Reviews better than SiteJabber?
For verification strength and FTC-compliance risk, yes. Signed Reviews is processor-attested by construction, while SiteJabber operates under an FTC order requiring it to change its collection practices. SiteJabber's advantages are its brand recognition and existing review base. If your priority is provably authentic reviews from confirmed customers, Signed Reviews is the structurally stronger choice.
Start collecting FTC-compliant reviews →
Related: Free fake review checker · What "Verified Buyer" means · The Fake Review Problem · Signed Reviews vs Trustpilot