Procter & Gamble recently initiated an NAD challenge against Zuru, a consumer <a href="https://shoppixy.com/our-editors-pick-the-top-products-and-technologies-of-ces-2026/” title=”Our Editors Pick the Top Products and Technologies of CES 2026″>products firm based in New Zealand. The dispute centered on a program where Zuru encouraged shoppers to purchase its items, publish reviews on retail websites, and provide screenshots of those posts to receive a reimbursement. Allegedly, consumers were not directed to reveal that these reviews were incentivized.
Zuru defended its program, arguing that it was not problematic because the reimbursements were not tied to positive sentiment, favorable ratings, or the endorsement of specific product features. Regardless, the company agreed to adjust its practices by requiring consumers to clearly and conspicuously disclose that Zuru had covered the purchase price of the reviewed items.
This commitment satisfied the NAD regarding future reviews. For reviews already published, the NAD recommended that Zuru make a reasonable effort to have recent reviews of current products updated to include the necessary disclosures or inform third-party retail platforms that the content was incentivized.
This outcome is not unexpected, yet it serves as a helpful reminder that disclosure requirements remain in effect regardless of whether reviewers are permitted to share negative feedback. Even when a company requests only “honest” reviews, incentives establish a material connection that consumers deserve to know about. An honest review can still be an incentivized one, and that incentive must be disclosed.
