The June 29, 2023 revision was the first update to the Guides in 14 years, according to Kirkland & Ellis. The FTC released an updated FAQ, "FTC's Endorsement Guides: What People Are Asking," the same day, and Kirkland & Ellis counted 40 additional questions in it.
What counts as a material connection for affiliate publishers?
A material connection for an affiliate publisher is any commission, payment, free product, gift, employment or ownership tie to the brand being recommended. The test is whether knowing about the tie could change how a reader weighs the recommendation.
The table below applies that test to the relationships affiliate publishers and PR teams meet most often. The right column is this guide's application of the Guides, not text from the FTC, so confirm borderline cases with an advertising lawyer.
| Relationship to the brand | Material connection? | Disclosure needed? |
|---|
| Commission on sales through the publisher's links | Yes | Yes, before the first link |
| Free product or sample sent by the brand | Yes | Yes, next to the recommendation |
| One-time gift with no strings attached | Yes | Yes |
| Paid placement or sponsorship | Yes | Yes, labeled as sponsored |
| Employment or ownership stake in the brand | Yes | Yes, prominently |
| Brand posting about its own product on its own account | Obvious from context | Usually no |
| Unpaid opinion from someone with no relationship | No | No |
An influencer-marketing agency summary published in 2026 states that free products and one-time gifts both create material connections under the 2023 Guides. That matches the table above and removes the common assumption that a disclosure is needed only when money changes hands.
Affiliate programs add a second layer. Each network and merchant writes its own operating terms, and many require specific disclosure wording on top of the FTC standard, so read the terms of every program a page links to.
What does clear and conspicuous mean on a web page?
A clear and conspicuous disclosure is one that is difficult to miss and easily understandable by ordinary consumers, according to the 2023 Endorsement Guides as quoted by Quarles & Brady. The FTC added that online disclosures must be unavoidable and appropriate for both mobile and desktop viewing.
Kirkland & Ellis gave the clearest test in its July 2023 alert. A disclosure that a viewer cannot see without clicking "more" on a social media post is avoidable, so it is not clear and conspicuous.
A second example appears in a June 2023 law firm analysis of the Guides. A built-in disclosure in small white text over a light image that appears for only five seconds is easy to miss and fails the definition.
Format matters because the Guides match the disclosure to the endorsement. Quarles & Brady reported that when the endorsement is audible, the disclosure should be audible, when the endorsement is visual, the disclosure should be visual, and simultaneous visual and audible disclosures are more likely to be clear and conspicuous.
The table applies those principles to the formats affiliate teams publish. The right column is this guide's recommended placement, not FTC text.
| Format | What the FTC standard tests | Recommended placement |
|---|
| Article or review page | Unavoidable, noticeable on mobile and desktop | Plain sentence above the first affiliate link, before any scroll |
| Product roundup or gift guide | Same standard, repeated where readers act | Top-of-page sentence plus a short label beside each product link block |
| Video | Visual endorsement needs a visual disclosure, spoken endorsement needs an audible one | Spoken and on-screen disclosure at the start, repeated when links are mentioned |
| Social post | Cannot sit behind a "more" click | First line of the caption or on the image itself in legible text |
| Podcast or audio | Audible endorsement needs an audible disclosure | Spoken disclosure before the first recommendation, plus show notes |
| Newsletter | Noticeable before the reader reaches the links | Sentence above the first affiliate link in every send |
Where should the disclosure go on an affiliate article?
The disclosure should go above the first affiliate link and above the fold on both mobile and desktop, in plain sentences, in the same text size as the body. Placing it there meets the "unavoidable" standard because a reader sees it before any decision to click.
Long pages need more than one disclosure. A 3,000-word buying guide may place its first links far down the page, so add a short label beside each product block that contains links.
Keep the wording specific to the connection. "We earn a commission if you buy through links on this page" tells an ordinary reader what happens, while "This page contains affiliate links" assumes the reader knows what an affiliate link is.
Why it works: The FTC's 2023 definition requires a disclosure that is unavoidable and easily understandable, and Kirkland & Ellis's July 2023 alert gives the "more" click as an example of an avoidable one. A sentence above the first link removes the click and the scroll that make a disclosure avoidable, so a reader meets the connection before acting on the recommendation.
An affiliate disclosure page or footer link does not meet the FTC standard by itself, because the standard requires an unavoidable disclosure at the point of the recommendation. A reader who never scrolls to the footer, or never opens the policy page, would not see the connection.
This conclusion applies the 2023 definition rather than quoting a rule about footers. Kirkland & Ellis's example of a disclosure hidden behind "more" shows the same logic: the disclosure fails when the reader must take an extra step to reach it.
A disclosure page still has a job. Use it to explain the full policy, list the affiliate programs the site belongs to and describe how editorial decisions are made, then link to it from the on-page sentence.
What should an affiliate disclosure policy page contain?
An affiliate disclosure policy page should state how the site earns money, which programs it joins, how products reach the editors and who owns the site. The page supplements the on-page sentence and never replaces it.
List every affiliate network and merchant program the site belongs to, so a reader can see who pays the publisher. State the sampling policy in the same place: whether the site accepts free products, whether it returns them and whether a gift can change a rating.
State ownership in one sentence near the top. The FTC's August 14, 2024 announcement says a business may not misrepresent that a website it controls provides independent reviews of a category that includes its own products, so a brand-owned comparison site must say who owns it.
Add the date of the last review, so readers and auditors can see that someone maintains the policy. Link the page from every on-page disclosure sentence.
Why it works: The 2023 definition makes the short on-page sentence carry the legal weight, and the policy page supplies the detail a reader may want after seeing it. Keller and Heckman reported in 2023 that the FTC carries the burden of proving a deceptive endorsement, and a dated, public policy gives the team a record of what it said and when.
Who is liable when a creator or agency skips the disclosure?
Liability can reach the creator, the advertiser and the intermediaries between them, including public relations firms. Keller and Heckman's 2023 summary of the revision reported that the Guides apply to intermediaries such as advertising agencies, public relations firms, review brokers and reputation management companies.
That coverage matters for PR teams that arrange gifting, sampling or sponsored placements. A PR firm that tells a publisher or creator what to say about a client's product is inside the scope the FTC described, so the firm needs its own disclosure process.
Keller and Heckman also noted that the FTC acknowledges it carries the burden of proving that a specific communication is a deceptive or unfair endorsement. Enforcement is fact specific, which is why records of what was disclosed, where and when are worth keeping.
Brands that pay creators or publishers should monitor posts after they go live. Track360's 2026 operator guide reports that the 2023 update reinforced that advertisers must monitor endorsers, so confirm that source against the FTC's FAQ before building a contract clause on it.
How does the 2024 fake reviews rule affect affiliate sites?
The 2024 fake reviews rule affects affiliate sites that a brand controls, that pay for sentiment, or that rely on bought followers. The FTC announced the final rule on August 14, 2024, Morgan Lewis reported it was published in the Federal Register on August 22, 2024, and it took effect on October 21, 2024.
The FTC's final rule announcement says the Commission voted 5-0 to approve it. The announcement also says the Supreme Court's decision in AMG Capital Management v. FTC hindered the agency's ability to seek monetary relief, and that the rule lets it seek civil penalties against knowing violators.
The table lists the six prohibitions in the FTC's announcement and the affiliate publishing question each one raises. The right column is this guide's application.
| Prohibition in the FTC announcement | What it covers | Affiliate publishing question |
|---|
| Fake or false reviews and testimonials | Reviews by people who do not exist, including AI-generated reviews, or who lacked real experience | Does any review text on the page come from a person who used the product? |
| Buying positive or negative reviews | Compensation conditioned on a particular sentiment | Does any gifting or payment depend on favorable consumer reviews? |
| Insider reviews and testimonials | Reviews by officers, managers or agents without a clear disclosure of the connection | Do staff or owners of the brand appear as independent reviewers? |
| Company-controlled review websites | Misrepresenting that a site the business controls gives independent reviews of a category that includes its products | Does a brand-owned "best of" page present itself as independent? |
| Review suppression | Using groundless threats to remove negative reviews, or claiming displayed reviews are all or most when some were suppressed | Does the page claim to show all reviews while hiding low ratings? |
| Fake social media indicators | Buying or selling bot-generated followers or views, where the buyer knew or should have known they were fake | Do audience numbers in a media kit include purchased followers? |
The company-controlled website prohibition deserves attention from anyone who owns both a brand and a comparison site. The FTC's announcement bars a business from misrepresenting that a website or entity it controls provides independent reviews about a category of products that includes its own.
Several prohibitions carry a knowledge standard. The announcement says businesses may not disseminate fake testimonials when they knew or should have known the testimonials were fake, and Wilson Sonsini noted that a company can violate the rule without actual knowledge.
See how affiliate publishers capture AI answers in affiliate publishers and content businesses, which explains why independent-looking affiliate content carries commercial weight and therefore regulatory risk.
How should publishers treat AI-written product text?
Publishers should never present AI-written text as the experience of a real customer or reviewer. The FTC's August 14, 2024 announcement names AI-generated fake reviews as an example of reviews that misrepresent that they come from someone who does not exist.
The prohibition reaches businesses that create or sell such reviews. The announcement also bars buying them, procuring them from company insiders or disseminating them when the business knew or should have known they were fake.
Label AI-assisted summaries as summaries. Quote only real reviewers, keep a source for every review excerpt, and delete any excerpt whose author or experience cannot be confirmed.
Why it works: The 2024 rule turns a fabricated experience into a defined violation, according to the FTC announcement, so an excerpt with no traceable author carries rule risk that a clearly labeled summary does not. A source log lets an editor remove the excerpts that cannot be traced before a regulator or reader asks.
What must PR teams disclose when pitching affiliate publishers?
PR teams must tell publishers about any gift, sample, payment or other benefit attached to a pitch, in writing, so the publisher can make its own disclosure. The publisher owns the disclosure on its page, and the PR team owns the accuracy of what it told the publisher.
Put the facts in the pitch itself. State whether the product is free, whether it must be returned, whether any fee or commission is involved and whether the client is paying for placement.
Keep the pitch neutral on sentiment. The FTC's 2024 announcement prohibits compensation or incentives conditioned on consumer reviews expressing a particular sentiment, and says the condition may be conveyed expressly or implicitly. That rule addresses consumer reviews, so whether it reaches an editorial product review depends on the facts, and counsel should decide.
Ask each publisher for its disclosure and sampling policy before sending product. Affiliate-first publishers write their own rules, and a pitch that conflicts with them wastes time and creates risk.
For pitch structure and follow-up, see this site's guide to effective media pitches. For the commercial side of the same programs, see affiliate marketing and the referral economy.
How do you audit an affiliate page against the FTC standard?
An affiliate page passes the FTC standard when it clears five tests: presence, placement, plainness, persistence and proof. This guide calls the set the Five-Point Disclosure Audit, and each test maps to a phrase in the 2023 Guides.
| Test | Pass condition | Typical fail |
|---|
| Presence | Every material connection on the page is disclosed | Commission disclosed, free product not mentioned |
| Placement | Disclosure appears before the first link, without a click or scroll | Disclosure sits behind "more" or at the foot of the page |
| Plainness | An ordinary reader understands what the connection is | The page says only "contains affiliate links" |
| Persistence | Disclosure survives republishing, clipping and format changes | Video clip reposted without the disclosure |
| Proof | The team can show what was disclosed, where and when | No record of the original wording or date |
Does the page pass the presence test?
A page passes the presence test when every material connection it contains has a disclosure, not only the commission. List every relationship on the page: commissions, free products, sponsorships and ownership ties, then match each to a sentence.
Why it works: The Guides treat a material connection that consumers would not expect as the trigger for disclosure, in Kirkland & Ellis's July 2023 summary. A page that discloses the commission but hides a free product still leaves one expected-connection gap, so checking each relationship separately closes it.
Does the page pass the placement test?
A page passes the placement test when the disclosure appears before the first affiliate link and is visible on mobile and desktop without a click. Load the page on a phone and check the first screen.
Why it works: The FTC's 2023 revision requires online disclosures to be unavoidable, according to Quarles & Brady, and Kirkland & Ellis gives the "more" click as an avoidable example. A first-screen sentence removes the extra step, so a reader sees the connection before the link.
Does the page pass the plainness test?
A page passes the plainness test when an ordinary reader can say, after one reading, what the publisher gains from a click. Replace "affiliate links" with "we earn a commission if you buy."
Why it works: The 2023 definition requires a disclosure that is easily understandable by ordinary consumers, in the Quarles & Brady analysis. A sentence that names the payment in everyday words meets that wording, while a term of art leaves readers to guess.
Does the page pass the persistence test?
A page passes the persistence test when the disclosure travels with the content wherever it is republished, clipped or reformatted. Add the disclosure to the template and the video script, not only the first version of a post.
Why it works: A 2026 influencer-agency summary of the Guides states that repurposed content keeps its original disclosure obligations, and Quarles & Brady reported that a visual endorsement should carry a visual disclosure. A clip cut from a video loses any disclosure placed elsewhere, so building it into the clip itself keeps it attached.
Does the page pass the proof test?
A page passes the proof test when the team can produce the disclosure wording, its placement and the publish date on request. Save a dated screenshot of each affiliate page after publishing and after every edit.
Why it works: Keller and Heckman reported in 2023 that the FTC carries the burden of proving a deceptive endorsement, and enforcement is fact specific. The FTC has not published a records requirement for publishers, so this step is a defensive practice and the mechanism is not yet published as a rule.
What does a worked audit of a gift guide look like?
A worked audit shows the five tests catching problems a quick read misses. This example is a hypothetical holiday gift guide, not a real page or case.
The guide lists 25 products, was published before the 2023 revision and carries one line in the footer: "This post contains affiliate links." Three products came from brands as free samples, and the guide also exists as a video with the same recommendations.
The presence test fails because the three free samples are not mentioned anywhere. The placement test fails because the only disclosure sits in the footer, far below the first link.
The plainness test fails because "affiliate links" does not say that the publisher earns money. The persistence test fails because the video has no spoken or on-screen disclosure, and the proof test fails because no one saved the original wording or date.
The fixes are specific. Add a sentence above the first link that says the site earns a commission and received three products free, label the three product blocks, add a spoken and on-screen disclosure to the video, and save a dated screenshot of the corrected page.
After those five edits, the page can show a reader, an editor and a regulator the same disclosure in the same place. That consistency is the practical goal of the audit.
What should an affiliate disclosure sentence say?
An affiliate disclosure sentence should state the connection in plain words and sit next to the recommendation it qualifies. The examples below are drafting models, not wording approved by the FTC.
- We earn a commission if you buy through links in this article.
- The brand sent us this product for free, and we also earn a commission on sales from our links.
- This page is sponsored by the brand, and the brand paid for the placement.
- The company that owns this site also makes some of the products reviewed here.
The last example answers the company-controlled website risk. Disclosing ownership at the top of a comparison page avoids the misrepresentation of independence that the 2024 rule prohibits.
Keep the sentence short. A disclosure buried in a paragraph about editorial policy is harder to notice than a standalone line.
Which disclosure mistakes appear most often?
The most common disclosure mistakes are hiding the disclosure behind a click, shrinking it, using jargon, and losing it when content is reused. Each maps to a failure example in the 2023 guidance.
- A disclosure placed behind a "more" link on a social post, which Kirkland & Ellis called avoidable.
- Small, low-contrast text shown briefly, the built-in disclosure example in a June 2023 law firm analysis.
- A disclosure that says "affiliate" without saying that the publisher earns money.
- A disclosure on the original video that disappears from clips and reposts.
- A comparison page owned by a brand that does not say so.
Audit older pages first. The 2023 revision is more than three years old as of October 2026, and affiliate pages published before it may follow the 2009 version of the Guides.
The comparison page model is one place to check, because those pages combine rankings, product claims and links in one layout. The LTK retail affiliate infrastructure analysis covers creator-driven programs, where disclosure travels across many individual posts.
What should a publisher or PR team do this week?
A publisher or PR team should audit its 20 most-visited affiliate pages against the five tests, fix placement first, and update every template. Start with the pages that earn the most, because they carry the most exposure.
- Export the 20 affiliate pages with the highest traffic and check each against the Five-Point Disclosure Audit.
- Move every disclosure above the first affiliate link and rewrite it in plain words.
- Add the disclosure to article, video and newsletter templates so new content inherits it.
- Add gifting, sampling and payment facts to every pitch, in writing, and record the publisher's reply.
- Check whether any brand-owned comparison page presents itself as independent, and add an ownership sentence where it does.
Then link the cleaned pages to the site's main reference on the affiliate marketing referral economy and to the citation cartel analysis, which explains why affiliate-heavy sources appear so often in AI answers.
This guide reflects the 2023 Endorsement Guides and the 2024 reviews rule as of October 11, 2026. Check ftc.gov for later changes, and treat the material as general information, not legal advice.
How this was made: the draft was written with AI assistance and checked against the FTC's August 14, 2024 announcement and the named law firm analyses. An editor should confirm each figure and date against the primary FTC texts before relying on it.
