harvard personal statement requirements

Utility Menu

GA4 tracking code

Office of Undergraduate Research and Fellowships

All URAF Opportunities
CARAT (Opportunities Database)
URAF Application Instructions
URAF Calendar of Events and Deadlines

Writing Application Essays and Personal Statements

Some applications ask that you write an essay that draws on more personal reflections. These essays, sometimes called Personal Statements, are an opportunity to show the selection committee who you are as a person: your story, your values, your interests, and why you—and not your peer with a similar resume—are a perfect fit for this opportunity. These narrative essays allow you to really illustrate the person behind the resume, showcasing not only what you think but how you think.

Before you start writing, it’s helpful to really consider the goals of your personal statement:

To learn more about you as a person: What would you like the selection committee to know about you that can't be covered by other application materials (e.g. resume, transcript, letters of recommendation)? What have been the important moments/influences throughout your journey that have led to where (and who!) you are?
To learn how you think about the unsolved problems in your field of study/interest: What experiences demonstrate how you've been taught to think and how you tackle challenges?
To assess whether you fit with the personal qualities sought by the selection committee: How can you show that you are thoughtful and mature with a good sense of self; that you embody the character, qualities, and experience to be personally ready to thrive in this experience (graduate school and otherwise)? Whatever opportunity you are seeking—going to graduate school, spending the year abroad, conducting public service—is going to be challenging intellectually, emotionally, and financially. This is your opportunity to show that you have the energy and perseverance to succeed.

In general, your job through your personal statement is to show, don’t tell the committee about your journey. If you choose to retell specific anecdotes from your life, focus on one or two relavant, formative experiences—academic, professional, extracurricular—that are emblematic of your development. The essay is where you should showcase the depth of your maturity, not the breadth—that's the resume's job!

Determining the theme of an essay

The personal statement is usually framed with an overarching theme. But how do you come up with a theme that is unique to you? Here are some questions to get you started:

Question your individuality: What distinguishes you from your peers? What challenges have you overcome? What was one instance in your life where your values were called into question?
Question your field of study: What first interested you about your field of study? How has your interest in the field changed and developed? How has this discipline shaped you? What are you most passionate about relative to your field?
Question your non-academic experiences: Why did you choose the internships, clubs, or activites you did? And what does that suggest about what you value?

Once you have done some reflection, you may notice a theme emerging (justice? innovation? creativity?)—great! Be careful to think beyond your first idea, too, though. Sometimes, the third or fourth theme to come to your mind is the one that will be most compelling to center your essay around.

Writing style

Certainly, your personal statement can have moments of humor or irony that reflect your personality, but the goal is not to show off your creative writing skills or present you as a sparkling conversationalist (that can be part of your interview!). Here, the aim is to present yourself as an interesting person, with a unique background and perspective, and a great future colleague. You should still use good academic writing—although this is not a research paper nor a cover letter—but the tone can be a bit less formal.

Communicating your values

Our work is often linked to our own values, identities, and personal experiences, both positive and negative. However, there can be a vulnerability to sharing these things with strangers. Know that you don't have to write about your most intimate thoughts or experiences, if you don't want to. If you do feel that it’s important that a selection committee knows this about you, reflect on why you would like for them to know that, and then be sure that it has an organic place in your statement. Your passion will come through in how you speak about these topics and their importance in forming you as an individual and budding scholar.

Getting Started
Application Components
Interviews and Offers
Building On Your Experiences
Applying FAQs

Statement of Purpose, Personal Statement, and Writing Sample

Details about submitting a statement of purpose, personal statement, and a writing sample as part of your degree program application

Dissertation
Fellowships
Maximizing Your Degree
Before You Arrive
First Weeks at Harvard
Harvard Speak
Pre-Arrival Resources for New International Students
Alumni Council
Student Engagement
English Proficiency
Letters of Recommendation
Transcripts
After Application Submission
Applying to the Visiting Students Program
Admissions Policies
Cost of Attendance
Express Interest
Campus Safety
Commencement
Diversity & Inclusion Fellows
Student Affinity Groups
Recruitment and Outreach
Budget Calculator
Find Your Financial Aid Officer
Funding and Aid
Regulations Regarding Employment
Financial Wellness
Consumer Information
Life Sciences
Policies (Student Handbook)
Student Center
Title IX and Gender Equity

Statement of Purpose

The statement of purpose is very important to programs when deciding whether to admit a candidate. Your statement should be focused, informative, and convey your research interests and qualifications. You should describe your reasons and motivations for pursuing a graduate degree in your chosen degree program, noting the experiences that shaped your research ambitions, indicating briefly your career objectives, and concisely stating your past work in your intended field of study and in related fields. Your degree program of interest may have specific guidance or requirements for the statement of purpose, so be sure to review the degree program page for more information. Unless otherwise noted, your statement should not exceed 1,000 words.

Personal Statement

Please describe the personal experiences that led you to pursue graduate education and how these experiences will contribute to the academic environment and/or community in your program or Harvard Griffin GSAS. These may include social and cultural experiences, leadership positions, community engagement, equity and inclusion efforts, other opportunities, or challenges. Your statement should be no longer than 500 words.

Please note that there is no expectation to share detailed sensitive information and you should refrain from including anything that you would not feel at ease sharing. Please also note that the Personal Statement should complement rather than duplicate the content provided in the Statement of Purpose.

Visit Degree Programs and navigate to your degree program of interest to determine if a Personal Statement is required. The degree program pages will be updated by early September indicating if the Personal Statement is required for your program.

Writing Sample

Please visit Degree Programs and navigate to your degree program of interest to determine if a writing sample is required. When preparing your writing sample, be sure to follow program requirements, which may include format, topic, or length.

Share this page

Explore events.

Important Addresses

Harvard College

University Hall Cambridge, MA 02138

Harvard College Admissions Office and Griffin Financial Aid Office

86 Brattle Street Cambridge, MA 02138

Social Links

If you are located in the European Union, Iceland, Liechtenstein or Norway (the “European Economic Area”), please click here for additional information about ways that certain Harvard University Schools, Centers, units and controlled entities, including this one, may collect, use, and share information about you.

Application Tips

Navigating Campus
Preparing for College
How to Complete the FAFSA

What to Expect After You Apply

View All Guides
Parents & Families
School Counselors
Información en Español
Undergraduate Viewbook
View All Resources

Search and Useful Links

Search the site, search suggestions.

Three female students participating in a small class

Profile Section

Personal information: legal name.

Please fill out your name exactly as it will show up on all materials we receive for your application. Your teachers, college counselors and others should also use your legal name just as it will appear on your financial aid forms, official test score reports, etc. Use of a nickname can cause your application to be incomplete if we cannot match your materials to your application.

Citizenship

Citizenship does not in any way affect your chances of admission or eligibility for financial aid at Harvard. There is no admissions advantage or disadvantage in being a US citizen. This is not the case at all institutions.

For students who need a visa to study in the United States, this question is of critical importance: we begin to prepare the forms that qualify you for a visa immediately after acceptance. Any delay in this process can jeopardize your chances of arriving in Cambridge in time to begin the fall semester.

U.S. Social Security Number

Your U.S. Social Security number is kept strictly confidential and is used solely to match up your admissions and financial aid data if you are applying for aid.

U.S. Armed Forces Status

The applications of veterans are most welcome and your service is a positive factor in our admissions process. We’re proud to help veterans continue their education by participating in the Yellow Ribbon Program and Service to School’s VetLink program. Learn more about applying as a veteran here .

Application Fee Waiver

The application fee covers a very small portion of the administrative costs of processing applications. However, if the fee presents a hardship for you or your family, it will be waived. Each applicant applying with a fee waiver should select an option for a need-based fee waiver. Do not let the application fee stand in the way of applying!

How to Request an Application Fee Waiver

Do not let the admissions application fee prevent you from applying! In the spirit of our honor code , if the admissions application fee presents a hardship for you or your family, the fee will be waived. Please follow the steps below to request a fee waiver:

Common Application

Confirm that you meet at least one of the indicators of economic need and then select “Yes” to the prompt “You are eligible for application fee waivers if you meet one or more of the following criteria."
Complete the fee waiver signature.

Coalition Application

Confirm that you meet at least one of the indicators of economic need listed in the Fee Waiver section of your Profile.
If you do not meet one of the indicators of economic need, you may enter the Harvard-specific fee waiver code on the payment page: JH3S5Q2LX9

Transfer Applicants

Please send an email to [email protected] to request a transfer application fee waiver.

Screenshot of Common App family questions

In the family section, you'll share information about your household, your parents, and any siblings. Most colleges collect this information for demographic purposes. Even if you're an adult or an emancipated minor, you'll need to fill out this section.

Unknown Parent

Answer the questions as honestly and fully as you can, but don’t worry if you and your parent/guardian do not know all of the details about your family.

Family Information

Part of an admissions officer’s job in reading your application is to understand your background and how these circumstances have affected your upbringing, the opportunities available to you, academic preparation, and other factors relevant to the college admissions process.

Family life is an important factor in helping us to learn more about the circumstances and conditions in which you were raised, and how you have made the most of the opportunities provided by your family. We want to understand where you’re coming from, not only in school, but at home as well.

Parent Education

Parents almost always have a significant effect on students’ lives. Information about parents may indicate challenges you have faced – and overcome. In your essay you might elaborate on your family experiences in a wide variety of ways that can illuminate your character and personal qualities, including the positive aspects of your family life.

Screenshot of Common App education questions

In the Education section is where you will share information about your current school or coursework, academic honors, and future education plans. Here are some tips on commonly asked questions.

Interruption in Education

It is not uncommon for students to change schools or take time off during high school. While this information will most likely appear on your transcript, hearing directly from you about any interruption in schooling will help us to fill in any gaps.

We always defer to the secondary school report for information about grades. If yours is not provided by the counselor or school, we will take into consideration what is self-reported, making sure to confirm with your school officials.

Current or Most Recent Year Courses

Please list the courses you are currently taking and/or are planning on taking before you graduate. If your schedule changes after you have submitted your application, please keep us updated by submitting additional materials in the Applicant Portal.

Honors & Level(s) of Recognition

This is a place to highlight any achievements or awards you have received. If you receive any significant honors or awards after submitting the application, you may notify us by submitting additional materials in the Applicant Portal and we will include this information with your application materials.

Future Plans & Career Interest

You do not need to have a ten year plan, but getting a sense of what kinds of professions you have considered gives us insight into your current plans. Don’t fret about it: put a few ideas down and move on with your application.

Since there are some students who do have a developed career interest already established while they are in high school, this question provides an opportunity to indicate such a plan.

Screenshot of Common App testing questions

The Testing section is where you'll enter your self-reported scores for any standardized tests that you've taken and wish to report to colleges. However, remember that if you self-report your SAT or ACT test scores and you are admitted and choose to enroll at Harvard, you'll be required to submit your official score reports from the College Board or ACT. View more information on our standardized testing requirements on our Application Requirements page.

Tests Taken

Test scores.

We have always looked at the best scores applicants choose to submit. If you haven’t yet taken the tests, please indicate which tests you are taking and when.

The TOEFL is not required for Harvard, but if you are taking it for another college, you may elect to submit it as part of your Harvard application. Your score can be one more piece of evidence regarding your English language proficiency, so you may choose to submit it if you feel it provides additional helpful information.

AP/IB Tests

These exam scores are additional pieces of academic information which can help us as we think about your preparation and potential for college level work. Sometimes AP or IB scores can demonstrate a wide range of academic accomplishments.

If you have the opportunity to take AP and IB exams, the results may also be helpful for academic placement, should you be accepted and choose to enroll at Harvard.

Screenshot of Common App activities questions

The activities section gives you the opportunity to tell schools more about who you are and activities you're involved with outside the classroom. You'll have the opportunity to list up to ten activities, but that doesn't mean you need to enter all ten.

How we use extracurricular activities and work experience in the admissions process

We are much more interested in the quality of students’ activities than their quantity so do not feel you need to fill in the entire grid! Contributions students make to the well-being of their secondary schools, communities and families are of great interest to us. So indicate for us the time you spend and the nature of the contribution to extracurricular activities, the local community, work experiences and help provided to your family. Activities you undertake need not be exotic but rather might show a commitment to excellence regardless of the activity. Such a commitment can apply to any activity in your life and may reflect underlying character and personal qualities.

For example, a student can gain a great deal from helping his or her family with babysitting or other household responsibilities or working in a restaurant to help with family or personal expenses. Such experiences are important “extracurricular” activities and can be detailed in the extracurricular section and discussed in essays.

Some students list only activities they feel will appear significant to the admissions office, while others endeavor to list every single thing they have ever done. Neither approach is right for everyone. Rather, you should think about the activities (in-school, at home, or elsewhere) that you care most about and devote most of your time doing, and list those.

We realize that extracurricular and athletic opportunities are either unavailable or limited at many high schools. We also know that limited economic resources in many families can affect a student’s chances for participation on the school teams, travel teams, or even prevent participation at all due to the costs of the equipment or the logistical requirements of some sports and activities. You should not feel that your chances for admission to college are hindered by the lack of extracurricular opportunities. Rather, our admissions committee will look at the various kinds of opportunities you have had in your lifetime and try to assess how well you have taken advantage of those opportunities.

For additional thoughts on extracurricular activities, please refer to this 2009 article in the New York Times: Guidance Office: Answers From Harvard’s Dean, Part 3 .

Positions held, honors won, letters earned, or employer

In this section, please describe the activity and your level of participation. Please note that your description should be concise, or it may be cut off by the Common Application.

Participation Grade Level

The grades during which you have participated are important because they help us to understand the depth of your involvement in that activity and your changing interests over time. Not all extracurricular activities must be a four-year commitment for our applicants.

Approximate Time Spent

We are interested to know how you manage your time and to understand how you balance your life outside of the classroom. Some students dedicate their time to one or two activities, while others spread their time among many.

When did you participate

We know that students are often active both during the school year and the summer – working, babysitting siblings, enrolling in courses, traveling, playing sports, holding internships, etc. Distinguishing school-year activities from summer activities helps us understand how you have spent your time and taken advantage of opportunities available to you.

Plans to participate in college?

Harvard is a residential institution, and our students are actively engaged in college life. This section helps us to understand how you might contribute at Harvard. Some students who were involved in several activities during high school choose to narrow their focus in college and/or to try new activities not previously available.

What if there's not enough space?

Filling out the grid is an act of prioritization: your responses tell us what activities or work experiences are most meaningful to you. And there’s quite a bit of space there, too; almost everyone should be able to convey the breadth and depth of out-of-class commitments on the application. Conversely, please do not feel a need to fill every line!

Screenshot of Common App writing questions

The first section is the personal essay. Harvard requires the submission of the personal essay with your application. We also offer an opportunity to add any additional information.

Personal Essay

The Common Application essay topics are broad. Please note that Coalition essay questions may differ. While this might seem daunting at first, look at it as an opportunity to write about something you care about, rather than what you think the Admissions Committee wants to hear. The point of the personal statement is for you to have the chance to share whatever you would like with us. Remember, your topic does not have to be exotic to be compelling.

Essay topics include:

Some students have a background, identity, interest, or talent that is so meaningful they believe their application would be incomplete without it. If this sounds like you, then please share your story.
The lessons we take from obstacles we encounter can be fundamental to later success. Recount a time when you faced a challenge, setback, or failure. How did it affect you, and what did you learn from the experience?
Reflect on a time when you questioned or challenged a belief or idea. What prompted your thinking? What was the outcome?
Reflect on something that someone has done for you that has made you happy or thankful in a surprising way. How has this gratitude affected or motivated you?
Discuss an accomplishment, event, or realization that sparked a period of personal growth and a new understanding of yourself or others.
Describe a topic, idea, or concept you find so engaging that it makes you lose all track of time. Why does it captivate you? What or who do you turn to when you want to learn more?
Share an essay on any topic of your choice. It can be one you've already written, one that responds to a different prompt, or one of your own design.

Additional Information

Do not feel obligated to fill this space, but some students have used this opportunity to tell us about challenging circumstances in their lives such as illness or other difficulties that may have affected their grades. Any information that can tell us more about the person behind the test scores and grades can be helpful.

Harvard Questions

Each college or university that is a member of the Common Application and/or the Coalition Application - Powered by Scoir has an opportunity to ask applicants a series of school-specific questions separate from the common part of the application. The Harvard supplement contains a series of questions that help us learn more about your academic, extracurricular, and personal interests. You application is not considered complete until you submit the supplement.

General: Applying for Financial Aid

Harvard has a need-blind admissions process and applying for aid is never detrimental to your admissions decision. We ask this question because we want to be able to calculate your financial need in advance of our April notification date so that we can send your admission letter and financial aid offer at the same time. One thing to note – not all institutions have such policies.

General: Submitting Supplementary Materials

Supplementary materials (art slides, music recordings, research papers, etc.) help when they reveal unusual talent. You absolutely do not have to include anything supplementary to gain acceptance to Harvard, and the vast majority of admitted students do not submit supplementary materials with their applications. You can submit art and media files through Slideroom and any documents or articles directly in the Applicant Portal with an uploader tool.

Academics: Fields of Study

When you select from the full list of Harvard's academic concentrations, you give us a sense of the direction you may choose when it comes time for you to choose a concentration at Harvard in your sophomore year.

While we realize that this question is quite similar to the one asked on the Common Application, our own format allows us to fit this information into data fields that Harvard has been collecting for many years. While we know students might well change their minds once they are in college, it is helpful for us to get a sense of their current interests and those academic areas in which they have already spent time and effort.

We do not admit students into specific academic programs, and we have no quotas or targets for academic fields.

Academics: Future Plans

As a liberal arts institution with fifty academic concentrations and more than 450 extracurricular organizations, we expect and encourage our students to explore new opportunities. We understand that as you answer these questions, you may not be entirely sure of your plans, but this information helps us to understand how you might use Harvard.

One of the principal ways students meet and educate each other during college is through extracurricular activities. Your answer to this question gives us a better sense of the interests you might bring to college and how definite your academic, vocational, extracurricular or athletic interests might be. This information helps us understand better how you might use Harvard. Of course, one of the best things about a liberal arts education is that plans may change. There is no “right” answer to these questions.

If you have applied to Harvard before, we want to include your previous application with your current one. We also want to have a record of any other involvement at Harvard you may have had, including the Summer School and the Extension School and associated transcripts. This information adds to the context of your present application. It can be helpful for us to note changes in your application—perhaps areas where you have strengthened the academic and/or extracurricular aspects of your candidacy.

Screenshot of Harvard supplement writing prompts

Writing Supplement

The supplement includes five required short-answer questions, each with a 150 word limit. We want to ensure that every student has the same opportunity to reflect on and share how their life experiences and academic and extracurricular activities shaped them, how they will engage with others at Harvard, and their aspirations for the future. Our continued focus is on considering the whole student in the admissions process and how they have interacted with the world.

Required Short Answer Questions

Each question has a 150 word limit.

Harvard has long recognized the importance of enrolling a diverse student body. How will the life experiences that shape who you are today enable you to contribute to Harvard?
Describe a time when you strongly disagreed with someone about an idea or issue. How did you communicate or engage with this person? What did you learn from this experience?
Briefly describe any of your extracurricular activities, employment experience, travel, or family responsibilities that have shaped who you are.
How do you hope to use your Harvard education in the future?
Top 3 things your roommates might like to know about you.

Related Guides

Here you'll find information on tracking your application and interviews.

Financial Aid Fact Sheet

Get the facts about Harvard College's revolutionary financial aid program.

Guide to Preparing for College

Find information about selecting high school courses that best prepare you for liberal arts colleges with high academic demographic such as Harvard.

Sign up to our Newsletter

Harvard law personal statement: how to write + example.

Reviewed by:

David Merson

Former Head of Pre-Law Office, Northeastern University, & Admissions Officer, Brown University

Reviewed: 03/03/23

‍ If you’re applying to Harvard Law School, it’s essential to write an impactful personal statement. Read on to learn how to write a Harvard law personal statement that sets you apart from the crowd.

The Harvard Law personal statement is an important part of the application process. It provides an opportunity for you to showcase your unique qualities and experiences to the admissions committee. You can communicate your motivations, passions, and goals for pursuing a legal education at Harvard Law School through the personal statement.

To have a good chance of getting into Harvard Law , you need to stand out from the thousands of other applicants. By presenting a compelling personal statement, you can make a positive impression on the admissions committee and increase your chances of admission.

Keep reading to learn how to write a personal statement that distinguishes you from other applicants and demonstrates your fit with Harvard Law School's values and culture.

This guide will cover the requirements and tips you need to know to write a well-crafted Harvard Law personal statement. We’ll also go over a successful Harvard Law personal statement example and why it works!

Harvard Law School Personal Statement Requirements

To write a successful personal statement that demonstrates your value as an applicant, you need to ensure you stick to the requirements. The admissions committee is looking for applicants who show they care about the application process and pay attention to detail.

Not adhering to the requirements could suggest a lack of attention to detail and negatively impact your chances of being admitted. Following the requirements ensures that your personal statement is well-organized and focused so that you can effectively communicate your message to the admissions committee.

Here are the requirements for the Harvard law personal statement:

Length: Your personal statement must be no more than two pages in length, double-spaced, with a font size no smaller than 11-point, and one-inch margins.

Content: It should provide insight into who you are as a person and as a potential law student. Use this space to tell a story that illustrates your strengths, passions, and goals. You can also discuss any challenges you’ve overcome or experiences that have shaped your unique perspective.

Format: Your personal statement should be saved as a PDF and uploaded to the application portal . Your name and LSAC account number should be included on each page of the personal statement.

Additional Information: In addition to the personal statement, you may also choose to submit a supplementary statement about any factors that may have affected your academic performance or a diversity statement that describes your unique perspective and experiences.

Paying attention to these requirements is key, as failing to do so can result in an incomplete or disqualified application. Adhering to the guidelines and word count ensures that your personal statement is concise and tailored to the expectations of the admissions committee.

It's also important to note that while the personal statement is a crucial component of your application, it's not the only factor that Harvard Law School considers. Your academic record, test scores, letters of recommendation, and other factors will also be evaluated.

Crafting a Winning Personal Statement for Harvard Law School

Harvard Law is one of the most prestigious law schools in the world. So, it’s important to make sure every element of your application is top-notch. A well-written personal statement can make you a memorable candidate and increase your chances of getting in.

To put your best foot forward, book a free consultation with Juris Education advisors . By learning what’s worked for other applicants, you can write a personal statement you can be proud of. Let’s get started.

Start by Brainstorming

Before you begin writing your personal statement, take some time to brainstorm your ideas. Consider your experiences, accomplishments, and goals, and think about how they relate to your desire to attend Harvard Law School.

Brainstorming helps generate ideas, clarify thoughts, and identify key themes or concepts. It’s a process of free-flowing, non-judgmental thinking that allows for creative exploration and problem-solving. It can help you organize and prioritize ideas and content.

By brainstorming, you can uncover unique and compelling aspects of your experiences or qualifications that might have gone unnoticed. It also provides a foundation for the writing process and can help to streamline and focus your message. Overall, brainstorming can bring a lot of value to a Harvard Law personal statement.

Develop a Thesis Statement

Once you have a sense of the main ideas you want to convey in your personal statement, develop a thesis statement that encapsulates your main message. This should be a single sentence that highlights the central theme of your personal statement.

A strong thesis statement is essential for your personal statement because it serves as the central message or argument that you’re trying to convey in your writing. It should be concise and clear, and highlight the main theme you want to communicate to the admissions committee.

A thesis statement helps to focus your personal statement and gives it a clear sense of direction. It also helps to ensure that your writing is coherent and organized, which is important for making a strong impression on the admissions committee.

In addition, your thesis statement can help you to stand out from other applicants. It allows you to demonstrate your unique perspective and approach to the law and helps to highlight what makes you a strong candidate for Harvard Law School.

Overall, having a well-thought-out thesis statement provides a sense of direction throughout your personal statement, helps to make your writing more focused and organized, and allows you to communicate your unique perspective and strengths as a law school candidate.

Tell a Story

Rather than simply listing your accomplishments, use your personal statement to tell a story that illustrates your strengths, passions, and goals. Use specific examples and anecdotes to bring your story to life.

Storytelling can have a powerful impact on a personal statement for Harvard Law School. By telling your story, you can help the admissions committee get a better sense of who you are as a person and as a potential law student.

When done effectively, storytelling can help your personal statement stand out from the thousands of other applications that the admissions committee receives each year. It can make it more memorable, engaging, and can help create an emotional connection with the reader.

Storytelling can also help demonstrate skills and qualities that law schools are looking for, such as critical thinking, problem-solving, and effective communication. Using examples from your experiences to illustrate these skills, you can show the admissions committee why you would be a valuable addition to their community.

Storytelling can be a powerful tool in a personal statement for Harvard Law School. By using concrete examples and narratives to illustrate your strengths and goals, you can create a compelling case for why you would be a strong candidate for admission.

Show, Don't Tell

Instead of simply stating that you're a hard worker or a great leader, demonstrate these qualities through specific examples and anecdotes. Use descriptive language and imagery to paint a picture of who you are and what you've accomplished.

Showing qualities through the lens of your experiences makes your writing more engaging and memorable. Using specific examples to illustrate your qualities and achievements will ultimately make your Harvard Law personal statement more impactful.

Keep It Brief and On Point.

Remember that your personal statement should be no more than two pages long, so stick to your point. Remember that the admissions committee receives thousands of applications each year, and they typically have a limited amount of time to review each one.

Ensure that your personal statement is clear and easy to read by using simple language and staying focused on your main thesis. You want to write just enough to make a strong case for why you are a strong candidate for admission to Harvard Law School.

By focusing on your most important experiences and qualities and avoiding unnecessary tangents, you can demonstrate your value as a potential law school student and make a compelling argument for why you should be admitted.

Edit and Revise

Once you've written a draft of your personal statement, take some time to edit and revise it. Pay attention to grammar, punctuation, and spelling, and make sure your writing is clear and concise. Ask someone else to read your personal statement and provide feedback.

A well-written and error-free personal statement can make a positive impression on the admissions committee, while a poorly edited statement can detract from your qualifications.

Editing allows you to refine your message, eliminate errors and inconsistencies, and ensure your personal statement is crystal clear. Careful editing helps to demonstrate attention to detail and professionalism, qualities that are highly valued in the legal profession.

Pay Attention to Formatting

Finally, be sure to follow the formatting requirements for the Harvard Law School personal statement. Save your personal statement as a PDF and include your name and LSAC account number on each page.

A well-formatted statement is not only aesthetically pleasing but also shows that you took it seriously. It can make the statement more readable and easier to navigate for the admissions committee. A well-organized statement can also help to structure your thoughts and ensure that you’re effectively conveying your message.

By following these steps and putting in the time and effort to write a strong personal statement, you can increase your chances of being admitted to one of the most prestigious law schools in the world.

What to Avoid in a Harvard Law Personal Statement

When writing a personal statement for Harvard Law School, it's important to know what to avoid. Read on to learn everything you need to know.

Avoid using clichéd phrases or overused quotes in your personal statement. The admissions committee reads a ton of personal statements every year, so it's important to try to make a unique impression.

Clichés can often be vague and lack specificity, which can make it difficult for the committee to understand your message and qualifications. By avoiding cliches, you can demonstrate your individual perspective and voice. Remember, there’s only one you .

Rambling or Tangential Writing

Your personal statement should be focused and concise, with a clear thesis statement and supporting examples.

Rambling or going off-topic can detract from the overall impact of your personal statement. It can suggest a lack of organizational skills and attention to detail, qualities highly valued in the legal profession.

To avoid rambling when writing, it is important to stay focused on the topic at hand and stick to a clear structure. Start by outlining the main points that you want to make and the supporting evidence or examples that you’ll use to illustrate those points. Use concise language and avoid unnecessary tangents or repetition.

It’s also helpful to read through your writing regularly and ask yourself if each sentence and paragraph is contributing to the overall message you are trying to convey. Finally, consider having someone else review your work to provide feedback and help identify any areas where you may be straying off topic.

While it's essential to showcase your strengths and accomplishments, avoid coming across as cocky or entitled in your personal statement. Instead, focus on demonstrating your passion for law and your commitment to making a positive impact in the legal field.

Admissions committees are looking for candidates who are not only academically qualified but who also possess the emotional intelligence and interpersonal skills necessary for success in the legal profession.

By being humble, you show your capacity for growth, willingness to learn from others, and commitment to serving the greater good.

Avoid focusing on experiences that paint you in a negative light. Instead, pay attention to the positive lessons you've learned and how you've grown and developed as a person and as a potential law student.

Being negative may raise concerns about your ability to work collaboratively with others. Highlighting negative events or attitudes can take away from the overall message of your personal statement, which is an opportunity for you to promote your talents, experiences, and qualifications.

The legal profession requires the ability to work effectively with others and to maintain a positive and professional demeanor even in challenging situations. By maintaining a positive tone, you can demonstrate your resilience, adaptability, and ability to work effectively in a team-oriented environment.

It should go without saying, but be sure to avoid any form of plagiarism in your personal statement. This includes copying and pasting from other sources, using quotes without attribution, or hiring someone to write your personal statement for you.

Presenting someone else's work or ideas as your own is a form of academic dishonesty. Your personal statement is meant to express your unique background, experiences, and qualifications, and plagiarism undermines its authenticity.

Additionally, plagiarism is a violation of Harvard Law School's code of conduct and can result in serious consequences, including rejection of your application or even revocation of an already awarded admission.

By submitting an original and authentic personal statement, you can demonstrate your honesty, integrity, and professionalism, qualities that are highly valued in the legal profession.

By avoiding these pitfalls and focusing on crafting a unique personal statement, you can increase your chances of being admitted to Harvard Law School. Remember, the personal statement is an important opportunity to show who you truly are and why you're a strong candidate, so take the time to do it right.

Harvard Law Personal Statement Example

It can help to read a Harvard law personal statement example to get a good understanding of what the admissions committee is looking for. Reading through successful examples can provide insight into what constitutes a strong Harvard law personal statement.

The following personal statement , written by Dasha Wise, is an example of a successful Harvard Law School application essay.

"The large room was beginning to feel like a cramped interrogation chamber as we stood anxiously awaiting the next set of difficult questions. We did not have to wait long. Why were there discrepancies in our numbers? Wasn’t the retreat expense unnecessarily large? Not to mention that the submitted documents were not only late but incomplete!

I could not help but steal a glance at the out-going treasurer standing next to me—as a newly elected executive board treasurer for Community Impact (CI), Columbia’s largest service organization, I had been invited to accompany her to CI’s annual presentation to request funding from the student councils.

There was no doubt that she had stayed up most of the night completing this presentation, attempting to patch up holes in the financial records.

I could not blame her for the mistakes—everyone at CI was overworked and stretched well beyond their capacity, too busy keeping up with the activities of each day to step back and tackle the organization’s underlying problems.

As she became visibly more flustered, I knew that I needed to assume responsibility for the remainder of the presentation. Standing there in defense of the organization that I had come to love, I managed to remain calm, elding critical questions to the best of my ability while swallowing the all-too-well-founded criticism along with my pride.

As the presentation came to a close, I began to understand the systematic change that was necessary and that I would be responsible for making this change a reality.

I began immediately that summer.

Learning as much as possible about the current system and its laws enabled me to discover that CI’s largest impediments were operational inefficiency and improper communication, the combination of which was contributing to internal frustration, ineffective resource management, and a tainted reputation.

To establish both scale accuracy and efficiency, I reconstructed treasury procedures and devised an automated budget-tracking and request-processing mechanism that would be administered through CI’s online platform.

Working closely with our webmaster, I designed a treasury section for CI’s website that would enable coordinators to request funding, monitor their budgets, and access key forms as well as the instructional manuals that I had written over the summer.

To reposition CI’s public image, I insisted on transparency, persuading the staff of its importance and holding a board meeting to update important documents such as our constitution and spending guidelines. Reacting CI’s core principles and procedures, they would now be publicly displayed on our website.

In pushing for large-scale change, I knew in advance that over-seeing the process would be no easy task and that I would need to hold numerous trainings, respond immediately to student inquiries, and continue to work throughout the year to make further corrections based on feedback and my own observations.

All this I was prepared for, and with input from my peers and CI’s staff along the way, I arrived at a product that would provide the CI treasury with structural support for years to come.

CI’s records were accurate, and we were able to cut costs, monitor our spending, and receive approval from our volunteers, for whom the elusive red tape had now given way to simplicity and predictability.

A system that responded to the needs of students, board members, and staff alike eliminated needless frustration, established procedural efficiency, and improved both internal and external communication.

‍ When I found myself in front of the student councils exactly one year later, I was not met with the same mistrust and quizzical expressions.

Our presentation, whose supporting documents had this time been submitted well in advance and verified multiple times, resulted in open gratitude for the effort that we had put in to establish scale accuracy and procedural transparency and to maintain open communication with the councils, informing them of the changes that we were making in light of their concerns.

Unlike the previous year’s penalty and subsequent funding shortage, this time we received precisely what we requested. Yet perhaps most importantly, we received respect, not only from our own coordinators, volunteers, and other constituents but from the university as a whole.

Although I had encountered numerous difficulties throughout my life, what I had decided to tackle at CI last year was my most significant challenge yet—not merely for the amount of effort that it required, but for the fact that my decisions now affected whether directly or indirectly, hundreds of others, from CI’s staff and student executives to our nine hundred volunteers and the nine thousand individuals that they served.

In some quantifiable sense, this was my biggest accomplishment, the most rewarding, and among the most memorable, but it was not the first and it will not be the last. I would not have it any other way.

To survive difficulties is one thing, but to excel in spite of them is another. Overcoming the most seemingly insurmountable yet worthy challenges is, for me, the primary means of obtaining respect from the one person that truly matters and is, at the same time, the most difficult to please— myself.

Why this essay works: This Harvard law personal statement example checks every box. It’s personal, concise, impactful, and clearly communicates the qualities that would make Dasha an excellent lawyer. If it helps to get the creative juices flowing, reading sample personal statements can be a great source of inspiration for your writing.

FAQs: Harvard Law School Personal Statement

The Harvard Law personal statement is an important part of your law school application and needs to be carefully thought out. It makes sense to have questions, so keep reading to learn more about the Harvard law personal statement.

1. How Long Should My Personal Statement Be for Harvard Law?

The length of your personal statement for Harvard Law School should be no more than two pages, double-spaced. Harvard recommends that applicants aim for a length of 750 to 1,500 words, which should provide enough space to effectively communicate your message while still remaining concise and focused.

2. How Important Is the Harvard Law School Personal Statement?

The Harvard law personal statement is a crucial component of the law school application and is given significant weight in the admissions decision-making process.

The personal statement allows applicants to showcase their unique experiences, qualifications, and motivations for pursuing a legal education and to demonstrate their fit with Harvard Law School's values and culture.

A well-written personal statement can make a positive impression on the admissions committee and increase an applicant's chances of being admitted to this highly selective law school.

3. What Should I Include in My Personal Statement for Harvard Law?

In your personal statement for Harvard Law, you should include information about your background, experiences, and achievements, as well as your motivations for pursuing a legal education. You should also highlight your skills and abilities relevant to the legal profession, such as critical thinking, problem-solving, and communication skills.

Additionally, you may want to discuss any challenges or obstacles you’ve overcome and how these experiences have shaped your goals and aspirations. Finally, it is important to showcase your fit with Harvard Law School's values and culture and to explain why you are a strong candidate for admission.

Final Thoughts

Hopefully, you now have a good understanding of how to write a solid Harvard law personal statement. Remember to stay true to your voice and experiences, be authentic and sincere, and take the time to edit and revise your statement to ensure it’s polished and professional.

By following the tips and guidelines outlined in this blog and reviewing the Harvard Law personal statement example provided, you can craft a compelling personal statement that stands out to the admissions committee and increases your chances of being admitted to Harvard Law School.

Once you’ve written a strong personal statement, you can focus on the next steps, such as collecting letters of recommendation , prepping for a possible Harvard Law interview , or brushing up on legal terms . Good luck on your application journey!

Schedule A Free Consultation

Highest-Paid Lawyers: Most Profitable Law Careers

Law Schools in Colorado: Your Guide

Choose Your Test

Search Blogs By Category
College Admissions
AP and IB Exams
GPA and Coursework

My Successful Harvard Application (Complete Common App + Supplement)

Other High School , College Admissions , Letters of Recommendation , Extracurriculars , College Essays

In 2005, I applied to college and got into every school I applied to, including Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, and MIT. I decided to attend Harvard.

In this guide, I'll show you the entire college application that got me into Harvard—page by page, word for word .

In my complete analysis, I'll take you through my Common Application, Harvard supplemental application, personal statements and essays, extracurricular activities, teachers' letters of recommendation, counselor recommendation, complete high school transcript, and more. I'll also give you in-depth commentary on every part of my application.

Worried about college applications? Our world-class admissions counselors can help. We've guided thousands of students to get into their top choice schools with our data-driven, proprietary admissions strategies.

To my knowledge, a college application analysis like this has never been done before . This is the application guide I wished I had when I was in high school.

If you're applying to top schools like the Ivy Leagues, you'll see firsthand what a successful application to Harvard and Princeton looks like. You'll learn the strategies I used to build a compelling application. You'll see what items were critical in getting me admitted, and what didn't end up helping much at all.

Reading this guide from beginning to end will be well worth your time—you might completely change your college application strategy as a result.

First Things First

Here's the letter offering me admission into Harvard College under Early Action.

I was so thrilled when I got this letter. It validated many years of hard work, and I was excited to take my next step into college (...and work even harder).

I received similar successful letters from every college I applied to: Princeton, Stanford, and MIT. (After getting into Harvard early, I decided not to apply to Yale, Columbia, UChicago, UPenn, and other Ivy League-level schools, since I already knew I would rather go to Harvard.)

The application that got me admitted everywhere is the subject of this guide. You're going to see everything that the admissions officers saw.

If you're hoping to see an acceptance letter like this in your academic future, I highly recommend you read this entire article. I'll start first with an introduction to this guide and important disclaimers. Then I'll share the #1 question you need to be thinking about as you construct your application. Finally, we'll spend a lot of time going through every page of my college application, both the Common App and the Harvard Supplemental App.

Important Note: the foundational principles of my application are explored in detail in my How to Get Into Harvard guide . In this popular guide, I explain:

what top schools like the Ivy League are looking for
how to be truly distinctive among thousands of applicants
why being well-rounded is the kiss of death

If you have the time and are committed to maximizing your college application success, I recommend you read through my Harvard guide first, then come back to this one.

You might also be interested in my other two major guides:

How to Get a Perfect SAT Score / Perfect ACT Score
How to Get a 4.0 GPA

What's in This Harvard Application Guide?

From my student records, I was able to retrieve the COMPLETE original application I submitted to Harvard. Page by page, word for word, you'll see everything exactly as I presented it : extracurricular activities, awards and honors, personal statements and essays, and more.

In addition to all this detail, there are two special parts of this college application breakdown that I haven't seen anywhere else :

You'll see my FULL recommendation letters and evaluation forms. This includes recommendations from two teachers, one principal, and supplementary writers. Normally you don't get to see these letters because you waive access to them when applying. You'll see how effective strong teacher advocates will be to your college application, and why it's so important to build strong relationships with your letter writers .
You'll see the exact pen marks made by my Harvard admissions reader on my application . Members of admissions committees consider thousands of applications every year, which means they highlight the pieces of each application they find noteworthy. You'll see what the admissions officer considered important—and what she didn't.

For every piece of my application, I'll provide commentary on what made it so effective and my strategies behind creating it. You'll learn what it takes to build a compelling overall application.

Importantly, even though my application was strong, it wasn't perfect. I'll point out mistakes I made that I could have corrected to build an even stronger application.

Here's a complete table of contents for what we'll be covering. Each link goes directly to that section, although I'd recommend you read this from beginning to end on your first go.

Common Application

Personal Data

Educational data, test information.

Activities: Extracurricular, Personal, Volunteer
Short Answer
Additional Information

Academic Honors

Personal statement, teacher and counselor recommendations.

Teacher Letter #1: AP Chemistry
Teacher Letter #2: AP English Lang

School Report

Principal Recommendation

Harvard Application Supplement

Supplement Form
Writing Supplement Essay

Supplementary Recommendation #1

Supplementary recommendation #2, supplemental application materials.

Final Advice for You

I mean it—you'll see literally everything in my application.

In revealing my teenage self, some parts of my application will be pretty embarrassing (you'll see why below). But my mission through my company PrepScholar is to give the world the most helpful resources possible, so I'm publishing it.

One last thing before we dive in—I'm going to anticipate some common concerns beforehand and talk through important disclaimers so that you'll get the most out of this guide.

Important Disclaimers

My biggest caveat for you when reading this guide: thousands of students get into Harvard and Ivy League schools every year. This guide tells a story about one person and presents one archetype of a strong applicant. As you'll see, I had a huge academic focus, especially in science ( this was my Spike ). I'm also irreverent and have a strong, direct personality.

What you see in this guide is NOT what YOU need to do to get into Harvard , especially if you don't match my interests and personality at all.

As I explain in my Harvard guide , I believe I fit into one archetype of a strong applicant—the "academic superstar" (humor me for a second, I know calling myself this sounds obnoxious). There are other distinct ways to impress, like:

being world-class in a non-academic talent
achieving something difficult and noteworthy—building a meaningful organization, writing a novel
coming from tremendous adversity and performing remarkably well relative to expectations

Therefore, DON'T worry about copying my approach one-for-one . Don't worry if you're taking a different number of AP courses or have lower test scores or do different extracurriculars or write totally different personal statements. This is what schools like Stanford and Yale want to see—a diversity in the student population!

The point of this guide is to use my application as a vehicle to discuss what top colleges are looking for in strong applicants. Even though the specific details of what you'll do are different from what I did, the principles are the same. What makes a candidate truly stand out is the same, at a high level. What makes for a super strong recommendation letter is the same. The strategies on how to build a cohesive, compelling application are the same.

There's a final reason you shouldn't worry about replicating my work—the application game has probably changed quite a bit since 2005. Technology is much more pervasive, the social issues teens care about are different, the extracurricular activities that are truly noteworthy have probably gotten even more advanced. What I did might not be as impressive as it used to be. So focus on my general points, not the specifics, and think about how you can take what you learn here to achieve something even greater than I ever did.

With that major caveat aside, here are a string of smaller disclaimers.

I'm going to present my application factually and be 100% straightforward about what I achieved and what I believed was strong in my application. This is what I believe will be most helpful for you. I hope you don't misinterpret this as bragging about my accomplishments. I'm here to show you what it took for me to get into Harvard and other Ivy League schools, not to ask for your admiration. So if you read this guide and are tempted to dismiss my advice because you think I'm boasting, take a step back and focus on the big picture—how you'll improve yourself.

This guide is geared toward admissions into the top colleges in the country , often with admissions rates below 10%. A sample list of schools that fit into this: Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, Columbia, MIT, UChicago, Duke, UPenn, CalTech, Johns Hopkins, Dartmouth, Northwestern, Brown. The top 3-5 in that list are especially looking for the absolute best students in the country , since they have the pick of the litter.

Admissions for these selective schools works differently from schools with >20% rates. For less selective schools, having an overall strong, well-rounded application is sufficient for getting in. In particular, having an above average GPA and test scores goes the majority of the way toward getting you admission to those schools. The higher the admission rate, the more emphasis will be placed on your scores. The other pieces I'll present below—personal statements, extracurriculars, recommendations—will matter less.

Still, it doesn't hurt to aim for a stronger application. To state the obvious, an application strong enough to get you Columbia will get you into UCLA handily.

In my application, I've redacted pieces of my application for privacy reasons, and one supplementary recommendation letter at the request of the letter writer. Everything else is unaltered.

Throughout my application, we can see marks made by the admissions officer highlighting and circling things of note (you'll see the first example on the very first page). I don't have any other applications to compare these to, so I'm going to interpret these marks as best I can. For the most part, I assume that whatever he underlines or circles is especially important and noteworthy —points that he'll bring up later in committee discussions. It could also be that the reader got bored and just started highlighting things, but I doubt this.

Finally, I co-founded and run a company called PrepScholar . We create online SAT/ACT prep programs that adapt to you and your strengths and weaknesses . I believe we've created the best prep program available, and if you feel you need to raise your SAT/ACT score, then I encourage you to check us out . I want to emphasize that you do NOT need to buy a prep program to get a great score , and the advice in this guide has little to do with my company. But if you're aren't sure how to improve your score and agree with our unique approach to SAT/ACT prep, our program may be perfect for you.

With all this past us, let's get started.

The #1 Most Important College Application Question: What Is Your PERSONAL NARRATIVE?

If you stepped into an elevator with Yale's Dean of Admissions and you had ten seconds to describe yourself and why you're interesting, what would you say?

This is what I call your PERSONAL NARRATIVE. These are the three main points that represent who you are and what you're about . This is the story that you tell through your application, over and over again. This is how an admissions officer should understand you after just glancing through your application. This is how your admissions officer will present you to the admissions committee to advocate for why they should accept you.

The more unique and noteworthy your Personal Narrative is, the better. This is how you'll stand apart from the tens of thousands of other applicants to your top choice school. This is why I recommend so strongly that you develop a Spike to show deep interest and achievement. A compelling Spike is the core of your Personal Narrative.

Well-rounded applications do NOT form compelling Personal Narratives, because "I'm a well-rounded person who's decent at everything" is the exact same thing every other well-rounded person tries to say.

Everything in your application should support your Personal Narrative , from your course selection and extracurricular activities to your personal statements and recommendation letters. You are a movie director, and your application is your way to tell a compelling, cohesive story through supporting evidence.

Yes, this is overly simplistic and reductionist. It does not represent all your complexities and your 17 years of existence. But admissions offices don't have the time to understand this for all their applicants. Your PERSONAL NARRATIVE is what they will latch onto.

Here's what I would consider my Personal Narrative (humor me since I'm peacocking here):

1) A science obsessive with years of serious research work and ranked 6 th in a national science competition, with future goals of being a neuroscientist or physician

2) Balanced by strong academic performance in all subjects (4.0 GPA and perfect test scores, in both humanities and science) and proficiency in violin

3) An irreverent personality who doesn't take life too seriously, embraces controversy, and says what's on his mind

These three elements were the core to my application. Together they tell a relatively unique Personal Narrative that distinguishes me from many other strong applicants. You get a surprisingly clear picture of what I'm about. There's no question that my work in science was my "Spike" and was the strongest piece of my application, but my Personal Narrative included other supporting elements, especially a description of my personality.

My College Application, at a High Level

Drilling down into more details, here's an overview of my application.

This put me comfortably in the 99 th percentile in the country, but it was NOT sufficient to get me into Harvard by itself ! Because there are roughly 4 million high school students per year, the top 1 percentile still has 40,000 students. You need other ways to set yourself apart.
Your Spike will most often come from your extracurriculars and academic honors, just because it's hard to really set yourself apart with your coursework and test scores.
My letters of recommendation were very strong. Both my recommending teachers marked me as "one of the best they'd ever taught." Importantly, they corroborated my Personal Narrative, especially regarding my personality. You'll see how below.
My personal statements were, in retrospect, just satisfactory. They represented my humorous and irreverent side well, but they come across as too self-satisfied. Because of my Spike, I don't think my essays were as important to my application.

Finally, let's get started by digging into the very first pages of my Common Application.

There are a few notable points about how simple questions can actually help build a first impression around what your Personal Narrative is.

First, notice the circle around my email address. This is the first of many marks the admissions officer made on my application. The reason I think he circled this was that the email address I used is a joke pun on my name . I knew it was risky to use this vs something like [email protected], but I thought it showed my personality better (remember point #3 about having an irreverent personality in my Personal Narrative).

Don't be afraid to show who you really are, rather than your perception of what they want. What you think UChicago or Stanford wants is probably VERY wrong, because of how little information you have, both as an 18-year-old and as someone who hasn't read thousands of applications.

(It's also entirely possible that it's a formality to circle email addresses, so I don't want to read too much into it, but I think I'm right.)

Second, I knew in high school that I wanted to go into the medical sciences, either as a physician or as a scientist. I was also really into studying the brain. So I listed both in my Common App to build onto my Personal Narrative.

In the long run, both predictions turned out to be wrong. After college, I did go to Harvard Medical School for the MD/PhD program for 4 years, but I left to pursue entrepreneurship and co-founded PrepScholar . Moreover, in the time I did actually do research, I switched interests from neuroscience to bioengineering/biotech.

Colleges don't expect you to stick to career goals you stated at the age of 18. Figuring out what you want to do is the point of college! But this doesn't give you an excuse to avoid showing a preference. This early question is still a chance to build that Personal Narrative.

Thus, I recommend AGAINST "Undecided" as an area of study —it suggests a lack of flavor and is hard to build a compelling story around. From your high school work thus far, you should at least be leaning to something, even if that's likely to change in the future.

Finally, in the demographic section there is a big red A, possibly for Asian American. I'm not going to read too much into this. If you're a notable minority, this is where you'd indicate it.

Now known as: Education

This section was straightforward for me. I didn't take college courses, and I took a summer chemistry class at a nearby high school because I didn't get into the lottery at my school that year (I refer to this briefly in my 4.0 GPA guide ).

The most notable point of this section: the admissions officer circled Principal here . This is notable because our school Principal only wrote letters for fewer than 10 students each year. Counselors wrote letters for the other hundreds of students in my class, which made my application stand out just a little.

I'll talk more about this below, when I share the Principal's recommendation.

(In the current Common Application, the Education section also includes Grades, Courses, and Honors. We'll be covering each of those below).

Now known as: Testing

Back then AP scores weren't part of this section, but I'll take them from another part of my application here.

However, their standards are still very high. You really do want to be in that top 1 percentile to pass the filter. A 1400 on the SAT IS going to put you at a disadvantage because there are so many students scoring higher than you. You'll really have to dig yourself out of the hole with an amazing application.

I talk about this a lot more in my Get into Harvard guide (sorry to keep linking this, but I really do think it's an important guide for you to read).

Want to improve your SAT score by 160 points or your ACT score by 4 points? We've written a guide for each test about the top 5 strategies you must be using to have a shot at improving your score. Download them for free now:

Let's end this section with some personal notes.

Even though math and science were easy for me, I had to put in serious effort to get an 800 on the Reading section of the SAT . As much as I wish I could say it was trivial for me, it wasn't. I learned a bunch of strategies and dissected the test to get to a point where I understood the test super well and reliably earned perfect scores.

I cover the most important points in my How to Get a Perfect SAT Score guide , as well as my 800 Guides for Reading , Writing , and Math .

Between the SAT and ACT, the SAT was my primary focus, but I decided to take the ACT for fun. The tests were so similar that I scored a 36 Composite without much studying. Having two test scores is completely unnecessary —you get pretty much zero additional credit. Again, with one test score, you have already passed their filter.

Finally, class finals or state-required exams are a breeze if you get a 5 on the corresponding AP tests .

Now known as: Family (still)

This section asks for your parent information and family situation. There's not much you can do here besides report the facts.

I'm redacting a lot of stuff again for privacy reasons.

The reader made a number of marks here for occupation and education. There's likely a standard code for different types of occupations and schools.

If I were to guess, I'd say that the numbers add to form some metric of "family prestige." My dad got a Master's at a middle-tier American school, but my mom didn't go to graduate school, and these sections were marked 2 and 3, respectively. So it seems higher numbers are given for less prestigious educations by your parents. I'd expect that if both my parents went to schools like Caltech and Dartmouth, there would be even lower numbers here.

This makes me think that the less prepared your family is, the more points you get, and this might give your application an extra boost. If you were the first one in your family to go to college, for example, you'd be excused for having lower test scores and fewer AP classes. Schools really do care about your background and how you performed relative to expectations.

In the end, schools like Harvard say pretty adamantly they don't use formulas to determine admissions decisions, so I wouldn't read too much into this. But this can be shorthand to help orient an applicant's family background.

Extracurricular, Personal, and Volunteer Activities

Now known as: Activities

For most applicants, your Extracurriculars and your Academic Honors will be where you develop your Spike and where your Personal Narrative shines through. This was how my application worked.

Just below I'll describe the activities in more detail, but first I want to reflect on this list.

As instructed, my extracurriculars were listed in the order of their interest to me. The current Common App doesn't seem to ask for this, but I would still recommend it to focus your reader's attention.

The most important point I have to make about my extracurriculars: as you go down the list, there is a HUGE drop in the importance of each additional activity to the overall application. If I were to guess, I assign the following weights to how much each activity contributed to the strength of my activities section:


Research Science Institute 2004	75%
Jisan Research Institute	10%
Pasadena Young Musicians Orchestra	6%
Science Olympiad/Science Bowl/Math Team	4%
City of Hope Medical Center	1%
Pre-Medicine Club	1%
Hospital Quartet Performances	1%
Chemistry Club	1%

In other words, participating in the Research Science Institute (RSI) was far more important than all of my other extracurriculars, combined. You can see that this was the only activity my admissions reader circled.

You can see how Spike-y this is. The RSI just completely dominates all my other activities.

The reason for this is the prestige of RSI. As I noted earlier, RSI was (and likely still is) the most prestigious research program for high school students in the country, with an admission rate of less than 5% . Because the program was so prestigious and selective, getting in served as a big confirmation signal of my academic quality.

In other words, the Harvard admissions reader would likely think, "OK, if this very selective program has already validated Allen as a top student, I'm inclined to believe that Allen is a top student and should pay special attention to him."

Now, it took a lot of prior work to even get into RSI because it's so selective. I had already ranked nationally in the Chemistry Olympiad (more below), and I had done a lot of prior research work in computer science (at Jisan Research Institute—more about this later). But getting into RSI really propelled my application to another level.

Because RSI was so important and was such a big Spike, all my other extracurriculars paled in importance. The admissions officer at Princeton or MIT probably didn't care at all that I volunteered at a hospital or founded a high school club .

This is a good sign of developing a strong Spike. You want to do something so important that everything else you do pales in comparison to it. A strong Spike becomes impossible to ignore.

In contrast, if you're well-rounded, all your activities hold equal weight—which likely means none of them are really that impressive (unless you're a combination of Olympic athlete, internationally-ranked science researcher, and New York Times bestselling author, but then I'd call you unicorn because you don't exist).

Apply this concept to your own interests—what can be so impressive and such a big Spike that it completely overshadows all your other achievements?

This might be worth spending a disproportionate amount of time on. As I recommend in my Harvard guide and 4.0 GPA guide , smartly allocating your time is critical to your high school strategy.

In retrospect, one "mistake" I made was spending a lot of time on the violin. Each week I spent eight hours on practice and a lesson and four hours of orchestra rehearsals. This amounted to over 1,500 hours from freshman to junior year.

The result? I was pretty good, but definitely nowhere near world-class. Remember, there are thousands of orchestras and bands in the country, each with their own concertmasters, drum majors, and section 1 st chairs.

If I were to optimize purely for college applications, I should have spent that time on pushing my spike even further —working on more Olympiad competitions, or doing even more hardcore research.

Looking back I don't mind this much because I generally enjoyed my musical training and had a mostly fun time in orchestra (and I had a strong Spike anyway). But this problem can be a lot worse for well-rounded students who are stretched too thin.

Aside from these considerations about a Spike, I have two major caveats.

First, developing a Spike requires continuous, increasingly ambitious foundational work. It's like climbing a staircase. From the beginning of high school, each step was more and more ambitious—my first academic team, my first research experience, leading up to state and national competitions and more serious research work.

So when I suggest devoting a lot of time to developing your Spike, it's not necessarily the Spike in itself—it's also spending time on foundational work leading up to what will be your major achievement. That's why I don't see my time with academic teams or volunteering as wasted, even though in the end they didn't contribute as much to my application.

Second, it is important to do things you enjoy. I still enjoyed playing the violin and being part of an orchestra, and I really enjoyed my school's academic teams, even though we never went beyond state level. Even if some activities don't contribute as much to your application, it's still fine to spend some time on them—just don't delude yourself into thinking they're stronger than they really are and overspend time on them.

Finally, note that most of my activities were pursued over multiple years. This is a good sign of commitment—rather than hopping from activity year to year, it's better to show sustained commitment, as this is a better signal of genuine passion.

In a future article, I'll break down these activities in more detail. But this guide is already super long, so I want to focus our attention on the main points.

Short Answer: Extracurricular Activities

In today's Common Application, you have 50 characters to describe "Position/Leadership description and organization name" and 150 characters for "Please describe this activity, including what you accomplished and any recognition you received, etc."

Back then, we didn't have as much space per activity, and instead had a short answer question.

The Short Answer prompt:

Please describe which of your activities (extracurricular and personal activities or work experience) has been most meaningful and why.

I chose RSI as my most significant activity for two reasons—one based on the meaning of the work, and another on the social aspect.

It's obvious that schools like Yale and UChicago want the best students in the world that they can get their hands on. Academic honors and awards are a great, quantifiable way to show that.

Here's the complete list of Academic Honors I submitted. The Common Application now limits you to five honors only (probably because they got tired of lists like these), but chances are you capture the top 98% of your honors with the top five.

Charlie wins a Golden Ticket to Harvard.

I know this is intimidating if you don't already have a prestigious honor. But remember there are thousands of nationally-ranked people in a multitude of honor types, from science competitions to essay contests to athletics to weird talents.

And I strongly believe the #1 differentiator of high school students who achieve things is work ethic, NOT intelligence or talent. Yes, you need a baseline level of competence to get places, but people far undervalue the progress they can make if they work hard and persevere. Far too many people give up too quickly or fatigue without putting in serious effort.

If you're stuck thinking, "well I'm just an average person, and there's no way I'm going to become world-class in anything," then you've already lost before you've begun. The truth is everyone who achieves something of note puts in an incredible amount of hard work. Because this is invisible to you, it looks like talent is what distinguishes the two of you, when really it's much more often diligence.

I talk a lot more about the Growth Mindset in my How To Get a 4.0 GPA guide .

So my Chemistry Olympiad honor formed 90% of the value of this page. Just like extracurriculars, there's a quick dropoff in value of each item after that.

My research work took up the next two honors, one a presentation at an academic conference, and the other (Siemens) a research competition for high school researchers.

The rest of my honors were pretty middling:

National Merit Scholarship semifinalist pretty much equates to PSAT score, which is far less important than your SAT/ACT score. So I didn't really get any credit for this, and you won't either.
In Science Olympiad (this is a team-based competition that's not as prestigious as the academic Olympiads I just talked about), I earned a number of 1 st place state and regional medals, but we never made it to nationals.
I was mediocre at competition math because I didn't train for it, and I won some regional awards but nothing amazing. This is one place I would have spent more time, maybe in the time I'd save by not practicing violin as much. There are great resources for this type of training, like Art of Problem Solving , that I didn't know existed and could've helped me rank much higher.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, think about how many state medalists there are in the country, in the hundreds of competitions that exist . The number of state to national rankers is probably at least 20:1 (less than 50:1 because of variation in state size), so if there are 2,000 nationally ranked students, there are 40,000 state-ranked students in something !

So state honors really don't help you stand out on your Princeton application. There are just too many of them around.

On the other hand, if you can get to be nationally ranked in something, you will have an amazing Spike that distinguishes you.

Now known as: Personal Essay

Now, the dreaded personal statement. Boy, oh boy, did I fuss over this one.

"What is the perfect combination of personal, funny, heartrending, and inspirational?"

I know I was wondering this when I applied.

Having read books like 50 Successful Harvard Application Essays , I was frightened. I didn't grow up as a refugee, wrenched from my war-torn home! I didn't have a sibling with a debilitating illness! How could anything I write compare to these tales of personal strength?

The trite truth is that colleges want to know who you really are . Clearly they don't expect everyone to have had immense personal struggle. But they do want students who are:

growth-oriented
introspective
kind and good-hearted

Whatever those words mean to you in the context of your life is what you should write about.

In retrospect, in the context of MY application, the personal statement really wasn't what got me into Harvard . I do think my Spike was nearly sufficient to get me admitted to every school in the country.

I say "nearly" because, even if you're world-class, schools do want to know you're not a jerk and that you're an interesting person (which is conveyed through your personal essay and letters of recommendation).

Back then, we had a set of different prompts :

What did you think?

I'm still cringing a bit. Parts of this are very smug (see /r/iamverysmart ), and if you want to punch the writer in the face, I don't blame you. I want to as well.

We'll get to areas of improvement later, but first, let's talk about what this personal essay did well.

As I said above, I saw the theme of the snooze button as a VEHICLE to showcase a few qualities I cared about :

1) I fancied myself a Renaissance man (obnoxious, I know) and wanted to become an inventor and creator . I showed this through mentioning different interests (Rubik's cube, chemistry, Nietzsche) and iterating through a few designs for an alarm clock (electric shocks, explosions, Shakespearean sonnet recitation).

2) My personality was whimsical and irreverent. I don't take life too seriously. The theme of the essay—battling an alarm clock—shows this well, in comparison to the gravitas of the typical student essay. I also found individual lines funny, like "All right, so I had violated the divine honor of the family and the tenets of Confucius." At once I acknowledge my Chinese heritage but also make light of the situation.

3) I was open to admitting weaknesses , which I think is refreshing among people taking college applications too seriously and trying too hard to impress. The frank admission of a realistic lazy habit—pushing the Snooze button—served as a nice foil to my academic honors and shows that I can be down-to-earth.

So you see how the snooze button acts as a vehicle to carry these major points and a lot of details, tied together to the same theme .

In the same way, The Walking Dead is NOT a zombie show—the zombie environment is a VEHICLE by which to show human drama and conflict. Packaging my points together under the snooze button theme makes it a lot more interesting than just outright saying "I'm such an interesting guy."

So overall, I believe the essay accomplishes my goals and the main points of what I wanted to convey about myself.

Note that this is just one of many ways to write an essay . It worked for me, but it may be totally inappropriate for you.

Now let's look at this essay's weaknesses.

Looking at it with a more seasoned perspective, some parts of it are WAY too try-hard. I try too hard to show off my breadth of knowledge in a way that seems artificial and embellishing.

The entire introduction with the Rubik's cube seems bolted on, just to describe my long-standing desire to be a Renaissance man. Only three paragraphs down do I get to the Snooze button, and I don't refer again to the introduction until the end. With just 650 words, I could have made the essay more cohesive by keeping the same theme from beginning to end.

Some phrases really make me roll my eyes. "Always hungry for more" and "ever the inventor" sound too forced and embellishing. A key principle of effective writing is to show, not say . You don't say "I'm passionate about X," you describe what extraordinary lengths you took to achieve X.

The mention of Nietzsche is over-the-top. I mean, come on. The reader probably thought, "OK, this kid just read it in English class and now he thinks he's a philosopher." The reader would be right.

The ending: "with the extra nine minutes, maybe I'll teach myself to cook fried rice" is silly. Where in the world did fried rice come from? I meant it as a nod to my Chinese heritage, but it's too sudden to work. I could have deleted the sentence and wrapped up the essay more cleanly.

So I have mixed feelings of my essay. I think it accomplished my major goals and showed the humorous, irreverent side of my personality well. However, it also gave the impression of a kid who thought he knew more than he did, a pseudo-sophisticate bordering on obnoxious. I still think it was a net positive.

At the end of the day, I believe the safest, surefire strategy is to develop a Spike so big that the importance of the Personal Essay pales in comparison to your achievements. You want your Personal Essay to be a supplement to your application, not the only reason you get in.

There are probably some cases where a well-rounded student writes an amazing Personal Essay and gets in through the strength of that. As a Hail Mary if you're a senior and can't improve your application further, this might work. But the results are very variable—some readers may love your essay, others may just think it's OK. Without a strong application to back it up, your mileage may vary.

This is a really fun section. Usually you don't get to read your letter of recommendation because you sign the FERPA waiver. I've also reached out to my letter writers to make sure they're ok with my showing this.

Teacher recommendations are incredibly important to your application. I would say that after your coursework/test scores and activities/honors, they're the 3 rd most important component of your application .

The average teacher sees thousands of students through a career, and so he or she is very well equipped to position you relative to all other students. Furthermore, your teachers are experienced adults—their impressions of you are much more reliable than your impressions of yourself (see my Personal Essay above). They can corroborate your entire Personal Narrative as an outside observer.

The most effective recommendation letters speak both to your academic strengths and to your personality. For the second factor, the teacher needs to have interacted with you meaningfully, ideally both in and out of class. Check out our guide on what makes for effective letters of recommendation .

Starting from sophomore year, I started thinking about whom I connected better with and chose to engage with those teachers more deeply . Because it's standard for colleges to require two teachers in different subjects, I made sure to engage with English and history teachers as well as math and science.

The minimum requirement for a good letter is someone who taught a class in which you did well. I got straight A's in my coursework, so this wasn't an issue.

Beyond this, I had to look for teachers who would be strong advocates for me on both an academic and personal level . These tended to be teachers I vibed more strongly with, and typically these were teachers who demonstrably cared about teaching. This was made clear by their enthusiasm, how they treated students, and how much they went above expectations to help.

I had a lot of teachers who really just phoned it in and treated their job perfunctorily—these people are likely to write pretty blasé letters.

A final note before reading my actual teacher evaluations— you should avoid getting in the mindset where you get to know teachers JUST because you want a good recommendation letter . Your teachers have seen hundreds, if not thousands, of students pass through, and it's much easier to detect insincerity than you think.

If you honestly like learning and are an enthusiastic, responsible, engaging student, a great recommendation letter will follow naturally. The horse should lead the cart.

Read my How to Get a 4.0 GPA for tips on how to interact with teachers in a genuine way that'll make them love you.

Teacher Letter #1: AP Chemistry Teacher

I took AP Chemistry in 10 th grade and had Miss Cherryl Vorak (now Mynster). She was young, having taught for fewer than 5 years when I had her. She was my favorite teacher throughout high school for these reasons:

She was enthusiastic, very caring, and spent a lot of time helping struggling students. She exuded pride in her work and seemed to consider teaching her craft.
She had a kind personality and was universally well liked by her students, even if they weren't doing so well. She was fair in her policies (it probably helped that science is more objective than English). She was also a younger teacher, and this helped her relate to kids more closely.
She was my advocate for much of the US National Chemistry Olympiad stuff, and in this capacity I got to know her even better outside of class. She provided me a lot of training materials, helped me figure out college chemistry, and directed me to resources to learn more.

By the time of the letter writing, I had known her for two full years and engaged with her continuously, even when I wasn't taking a class with her in junior year. We'd build up a strong relationship over the course of many small interactions.

All of this flowed down to the recommendation you see here. Remember, the horse leads the cart.

First, we'll look at the teacher evaluation page. The Common Application now has 16 qualities to rate, rather than the 10 here. But they're largely the same.

You can see a very strong evaluation here, giving me the highest ratings possible for all qualities.

In today's Common Application, all of these Ratings are retained, aside from "Potential for Growth." Today's Common App also now includes Faculty Respect, Maturity, Leadership, Integrity, Reaction to Setbacks, Concern for Others, and TE Overall. You can tell that the updated Common App places a great emphasis on personality.

The most important point here: it is important to be ranked "One of the top few encountered in my career" for as many ratings as possible . If you're part of a big school, this is CRITICAL to distinguish yourself from other students. The more experienced and trustworthy the teacher, the more meaningful this is.

Again, it's a numbers game. Think about the 20,000+ high schools in the country housing 4 million+ high school students—how many people fit in the top 5% bucket?

Thus, being marked merely as Excellent (top 10%) is actually a negative rating , as far as admissions to top colleges is concerned. If you're in top 10%, and someone else with the SAME teacher recommender is being rated as "One of the top ever," it's really hard for the admissions officer to vouch for you over the other student.

You really want to make sure you're one of the best in your school class, if not one of the best the teacher has ever encountered. You'll see below how you can accomplish this.

Next, let's look at her letter.

As you read this, think— what are the interactions that would prompt the teacher to write a recommendation like this? This was a relationship built up in a period of over 2 years, with every small interaction adding to an overall larger impression.

You can see how seriously they take the letter because of all the underlining . This admissions reader underlined things that weren't even underlined in my application, like my US National Chemistry Olympiad awards. It's one thing for a student to claim things about himself—it's another to have a teacher put her reputation on the line to advocate for her student.

The letter here is very strong for a multitude of reasons. First, the length is notable —most letters are just a page long, but this is nearly two full pages , single spaced. This indicates not just her overall commitment to her students but also of her enthusiastic support for me as an applicant.

The structure is effective: first Miss Vorak talks about my academic accomplishments, then about my personal qualities and interactions, then a summary to the future. This is a perfect blend of what effective letters contain .

On the micro-level, her diction and phrasing are precise and effective . She makes my standing clear with specific statements : "youngest student…top excelling student among the two sections" and "one of twenty students in the nation." She's clear about describing why my achievements are notable and the effort I put in, like studying college-level chemistry and studying independently.

When describing my personality, she's exuberant and fleshes out a range of dimensions: "conscientious, motivated and responsible," "exhibits the qualities of a leader," "actively seeks new experiences," "charismatic," "balanced individual with a warm personality and sense of humor." You can see how she's really checking off all the qualities colleges care about.

Overall, Miss Vorak's letter perfectly supports my Personal Narrative —my love for science, my overall academic performance, and my personality. I'm flattered and grateful to have received this support. This letter was important to complement the overall academic performance and achievements shown on the rest of my application.

Teacher Letter #2: AP English Language Teacher

My second teacher Mrs. Swift was another favorite. A middle-aged, veteran English teacher, the best way I would describe her is "fiery." She was invigorating and passionate, always trying to get a rise out of students and push their thinking, especially in class discussions. Emotionally she was a reliable source of support for students.

First, the evaluation:

You can see right away that her remarks are terser. She didn't even fill out the section about "first words that come to mind to describe this student."

You might chalk this up to my not being as standout of a student in her mind, or her getting inundated with recommendation letter requests after over a decade of teaching.

In ratings, you can see that I only earned 3 of the "one of the top in my career." There are a few explanations for this. As a teacher's career lengthens, it gets increasingly hard to earn this mark. I probably also didn't stand out as much as I did to my Chemistry teacher—most of my achievement was in science (which she wasn't closely connected to), and I had talented classmates. Regardless, I did appreciate the 3 marks she gave me.

Now, the letter. Once again, as you read this letter, think: what are the hundreds of micro-interactions that would have made a teacher write a letter like this?

Overall, this letter is very strong. It's only one page long, but her points about my personality are the critical piece of this recommendation. She also writes with the flair of an English teacher:

"In other situations where students would never speak their minds, he showed no hesitation to voice questions, thoughts, and ideas."

"controversial positions often being the spark that set off the entire class"

"ability to take the quiet and shy student and actively engage"…"went out of my way to partner him with other students who needed"

"strength of conviction"…"raw, unbridled passion"…"He will argue on any topic that has touched a nerve."

These comments most support the personality aspect of my Personal Narrative—having an irreverent, bold personality and not being afraid of speaking my mind. She stops just short of making me sound obnoxious and argumentative. An experienced teacher vouching for this adds so much more weight than just my writing it about myself.

Teacher recommendations are some of the most important components of your application. Getting very strong letters take a lot of sustained, genuine interaction over time to build mutual trust and respect. If you want detailed advice on how to interact with teachers earnestly, check out my How to Get a 4.0 GPA and Better Grades guide .

Let's go to the final recommendation, from the school counselor.

Now known as: School Report

The first piece of this is reporting your academic status and how the school works overall. There's not much to say here, other than the fact that my Principal wrote my recommendation for me, which we'll get into next.

Counselor Recommendation

Now known as: Counselor Recommendation

Let's talk about my school principal writing my recommendation, rather than a school counselor.

This was definitely advantageous—remember how, way up top in Educational Data, the reader circled the "Principal." Our Principal only wrote a handful of these recommendations each year , often for people who worked closely with him, like student body presidents. So it was pretty distinctive that I got a letter from our Principal, compared to other leading applicants from my school.

This was also a blessing because our counseling department was terrible . Our school had nearly 1,000 students per grade, and only 1 counselor per grade. They were overworked and ornery, and because they were the gatekeepers of academic enrollment (like class selection and prerequisites), this led to constant frictions in getting the classes you wanted.

I can empathize with them, because having 500+ neurotic parents pushing for advantages for their own kids can get REALLY annoying really fast. But the counseling department was still the worst part of our high school administration, and I could have guessed that the letters they wrote were mediocre because they just had too many students.

So how did my Principal come to write my recommendation and not those for hundreds of other students?

I don't remember exactly how this came to be, to be honest. I didn't strategize to have him write a letter for me years in advance. I didn't even interact with him much at all until junior year, when I got on his radar because of my national rankings. Come senior year I might have talked to him about my difficulty in reaching counselors and asked that he write my recommendation. Since I was a top student he was probably happy to do this.

He was very supportive, but as you can tell from the letter to come, it was clear he didn't know me that well.

Interestingly, the prompt for the recommendation has changed. It used to start with: "Please write whatever you think is important about this student."

Now, it starts with: " Please provide comments that will help us differentiate this student from others ."

The purpose of the recommendation has shifted to the specific: colleges probably found that one counselor was serving hundreds of students, so the letters started getting mushy and indistinguishable from each other.

Here's the letter:

This letter is probably the weakest overall of all my letters. It reads more like a verbal resume than a personal account of how he understands me.

Unlike my two teacher recommendations, he doesn't comment on the nature of our interactions or about my personality (because he truly didn't understand them well). He also misreported by SAT score as 1530 instead of 1600 (I did score a 1530 in an early test, but my 1600 was ready by January 2004, so I don't know what source he was using).

Notably, the letter writer didn't underline anything.

I still appreciate that he wrote my letter, and it was probably more effective than a generic counselor letter. But this didn't add much to my application.

At this point, we've covered my entire Common Application. This is the same application I sent to every school I applied to, including Harvard, Princeton, and Stanford. Thanks for reading this far—I hope you've gotten a lot out of this already.

If you keep reading to the end, I'll have advice for both younger students and current applicants to build the strongest application possible.

Next, we'll go over the Harvard Supplemental Application, which of course is unique to Harvard.

For most top colleges like Princeton, Yale, Stanford, Columbia, and so on, you will need to complete a supplemental application to provide more info than what's listed on the Common Application.

Harvard was and is the same. The good news is that it's an extra chance for you to share more about yourself and keep pushing your Personal Narrative.

There are four major components here:

The application form
Writing supplement essay
Supplementary recommendations
Supplemental application materials

I'll take you through the application section by section.

Harvard Supplement Form

First, the straightforward info and questions.

This section is pretty straightforward and is similar to what you'd see on a Columbia application.

I planned to live in a Harvard residence, as most students do.

Just as in my Common App, I noted that I was most likely to study biological sciences, choose Medicine as my vocation, and participate in orchestra, writing, and research as my extracurriculars. Nothing surprising here—it's all part of my Personal Narrative.

Interestingly, at the time I was "absolutely certain" about my vocational goals, which clearly took a detour once I left medical school to pursue entrepreneurship to create PrepScholar...

Want to improve your SAT score by 160 points? We have the industry's leading SAT prep program. Built by Harvard grads and SAT full scorers, the program learns your strengths and weaknesses through advanced statistics, then customizes your prep program to you so you get the most effective prep possible. Along with more detailed lessons, you'll get thousands of practice problems organized by individual skills so you learn most effectively. We'll also give you a step-by-step program to follow so you'll never be confused about what to study next. Check out our 5-day free trial today:

I had the space to list some additional honors, where I listed some musical honors that didn't make the cut in my Common App.

Here are the next two pages of the Harvard supplemental form.

The most interesting note here is that the admissions officer wrote a question mark above "Music tape or CD." Clearly this was inconsistent with my Personal Narrative —if violin was such an important part of my story, why didn't I want to include it?

The reason was that I was actually pretty mediocre at violin and was nowhere near national-ranked. Again, remember how many concertmasters in the thousands of orchestras there are in the world—I wasn't good enough to even be in the top 3 chairs in my school orchestra (violin was very competitive).

I wanted to focus attention on my most important materials, which for my Personal Narrative meant my research work. You'll see these supplementary materials later.

Additional Essays

Now known as: Writing Supplement

For the most part, the Harvard supplemental essay prompt has stayed the same. You can write about a topic of your choice or about any of the suggestions. There are now two more prompts that weren't previously there: "What you would want your future college roommate to know about you" and "How you hope to use your college education."

Even though this is optional, I highly recommend you write something here. Again, you have so few chances in the overall application to convey your personal voice—an extra 500 words gives you a huge opportunity. I would guess that the majority of admitted Harvard students submit a Writing Supplement.

After a lot of brainstorming, I settled on the idea that I wanted to balance my application by writing about the major non-academic piece of my Personal Narrative—my music training . Also, I don't think I explicitly recognized this at the time, but I wanted to distance myself from the Asian-American stereotype—driven entirely by parent pressure, doing most things perfunctorily and without interest. I wanted to show I'd broken out of that mold.

Here's my essay:

Reading it now, I actually think this was a pretty bad essay, and I cringe to high heaven. But once again, let's focus on the positive first.

I used my violin teacher as a vehicle for talking about what the violin meant to me. (You can tell I love the concept of the vehicle in essays.) He represented passion for the violin—I represented my academic priorities. Our personal conflict was really the conflict between what we represented.

By the end of the essay, I'd articulated the value of musical training to me—it was cathartic and a way to balance my hard academic pursuits.

Halfway in the essay, I also explicitly acknowledged the Asian stereotype of parents who drove their kids, and said my parents were no different. The reader underlined this sentence. By pointing this out and showing how my interest took on a life of its own, I wanted to distance myself from that stereotype.

So overall I think my aims were accomplished.

Despite all that, this essay was WAY overdramatic and overwrought . Some especially terrible lines:

"I was playing for that cathartic moment when I could feel Tchaikovsky himself looking over my shoulder."

"I was wandering through the fog in search of a lighthouse, finally setting foot on a dock pervaded by white light."

OK, please. Who really honestly feels this way? This is clumsy, contrived writing. It signals insincerity, actually, which is bad.

To be fair, all of this is grounded in truth. I did have a strict violin teacher who did get pretty upset when I showed lack of improvement. I did appreciate music as a diversion to round out my academic focus. I did practice hard each day, and I did have a pretty gross callus on my pinky.

But I would have done far better by making it more sincere and less overworked.

As an applicant, you're tempted to try so hard to impress your reader. You want to show that you're Worthy of Consideration. But really the best approach is to be honest.

I think this essay was probably neutral to my application, not a strong net positive or net negative.

Supplementary Recommendations

Harvard lets you submit letters from up to two Other Recommenders. The Princeton application, Penn application, and others are usually the same.

Unlike the other optional components (the Additional Information in the Common App, and the Supplementary Essay), I would actually consider these letters optional. The reader gets most of the recommendation value from your teacher recommendations—these are really supplementary.

A worthwhile Other Recommender:

has supervised an activity or honor that is noteworthy
has interacted with you extensively and can speak to your personality
is likely to support you as one of the best students they've interacted with

If your Other Recommenders don't fulfill one or more of these categories, do NOT ask for supplementary letters. They'll dilute your application without adding substantively to it.

To beat a dead horse, the primary component of my Personal Narrative was my science and research work. So naturally I chose supervisors for my two major research experiences to write supplemental letters.

First was the Director of Research Science Institute (the selective summer research program at MIT). The second was from the head of Jisan Research Institute, where I did Computer Science research.

This letter validates my participation in RSI and incorporates the feedback from my research mentor, David Simon. At the time, the RSI students were the most talented students I had met, so I'm also flattered by some of the things the letter writer said, like "Allen stood out early on as a strong performer in academic settings."

I didn't get to know the letter writer super well, so he commented mainly on my academic qualifications and comments from my mentor.

My mentor, who was at one of the major Harvard-affiliated hospitals, said some very nice things about my research ability, like:

"is performing in many ways at the level of a graduate student"

"impressed with Allen's ability to read even advanced scientific publications and synthesize his understanding"

Once again, it's much more convincing for a seasoned expert to vouch for your abilities than for you to claim your own abilities.

My first research experience was done at Jisan Research Institute, a small private computer science lab run by a Caltech PhD. The research staff were mainly high school students like me and a few grad students/postdocs.

My research supervisor, Sanza Kazadi, wrote the letter. He's requested that I not publish the letter, so I'll only speak about his main points.

In the letter, he focused on the quality of my work and leadership. He said that I had a strong focus in my work, and my research moved along more reliably than that of other students. I was independent in my work in swarm engineering, he says, putting together a simulation of the swarm and publishing a paper in conference proceedings. He talked about my work in leading a research group and placing a high degree of trust in me.

Overall, a strong recommendation, and you get the gist of his letter without reading it.

One notable point—both supplemental letters had no marks on them. I really think this means they place less emphasis on the supplementary recommendations, compared to the teacher recommendations.

Finally, finally, we get to the very last piece of my application.

Let me beat the dead horse even deader. Because research was such a core part of my Personal Narrative, I decided to include abstracts of both of my papers. The main point was to summarize the body of work I'd done and communicate the major results.

As Harvard says, "These materials are entirely optional; please only submit them if you have unusual talents."

This is why I chose not to submit a tape of my music: I don't think my musical skill was unusually good.

And frankly, I don't think my research work was that spectacular. Unlike some of my very accomplished classmates, I hadn't ranked nationally in prestigious competitions like ISEF and Siemens. I hadn't published my work in prominent journals.

Regardless, I thought these additions would be net positive, if only marginally so.

I made sure to note where the papers had been published or were entering competitions, just to ground the work in some achievement.

Recommendation Letters: Hopefully you should have developed strong, genuine relationships with teachers you care about. The letters should flow naturally from here, and you will only need to do gentle prodding to make sure they meet deadlines.

Keep Reading

At PrepScholar, we've published the best guides available anywhere to help you succeed in high school and college admissions.

Here's a sampling of our most popular articles:

How to Get a Perfect SAT Score / Perfect ACT Score —Learn the strategies I used to get a perfect 1600 on the SAT, and a perfect 36 on the ACT.

SAT 800 Series: Reading | Math | Writing —Learn important strategies to excel in each section of the SAT.

ACT 36 Series: English | Math | Reading | Science —Learn how to get a perfect 36 on each section of the ACT.

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League —The foundational guide where I discuss the philosophy behind what colleges are looking for, how to develop a Spike, and why being well-rounded is the path to rejection.

How to Get a 4.0 GPA and Better Grades —Are you struggling with getting strong grades in challenging coursework? I step you through all the major concepts you need to excel in school, from high-level mindset to individual class strategies.

Trending Now

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

ACT vs. SAT: Which Test Should You Take?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Get Your Free

Find Your Target SAT Score

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

How to Get a Perfect SAT Score, by an Expert Full Scorer

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading and Writing

How to Improve Your Low SAT Score

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading and Writing

Find Your Target ACT Score

Complete Official Free ACT Practice Tests

How to Get a Perfect ACT Score, by a 36 Full Scorer

Get a 36 on ACT English

Get a 36 on ACT Math

Get a 36 on ACT Reading

Get a 36 on ACT Science

How to Improve Your Low ACT Score

Get a 24 on ACT English

Get a 24 on ACT Math

Get a 24 on ACT Reading

Get a 24 on ACT Science

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

As co-founder and head of product design at PrepScholar, Allen has guided thousands of students to success in SAT/ACT prep and college admissions. He's committed to providing the highest quality resources to help you succeed. Allen graduated from Harvard University summa cum laude and earned two perfect scores on the SAT (1600 in 2004, and 2400 in 2014) and a perfect score on the ACT. You can also find Allen on his personal website, Shortform , or the Shortform blog .

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

Harvard Personal Statement Example

by Talha Omer, M.Eng., Cornell Grad

In personal statements samples by university.

In this article, I will be providing a sample grad school personal statement for Harvard University. This example aims to show how prospective applicants like you can seamlessly weave your passion, skills, and relevant experiences into a compelling narrative.

In writing this personal statement , the applicant has drawn upon key insights from a number of my previous writings on personal statements . You are also welcome to use my previous writings to help you write your personal statement.

In those posts I’ve discussed the art of constructing a captivating personal statement for grad school , and I’ve highlighted the pitfalls to avoid to ensure your statement leaves a positive impression.

I’ve also shared valuable tips on structuring your personal statement for clarity and readability, not to mention how to create a powerful opening that grabs attention from the start. And let’s not forget about maintaining brevity while effectively telling your story, as well as offering a vast range of personal statement examples from different fields for reference.

And yes, do not forget to explore my 8-point framework that anyone can use to self-evaluate their personal statement. Complementing this, I’ve also created a 7-point guide to help you steer clear of potential traps and missteps in your personal statement.

I encourage you to explore these topics in depth, as they will be useful while we explore the sample personal statement for Harvard.

In this Article

What Does Harvard Look for in a Grad School Personal Statement?

How do i write a grad school personal statement for harvard, sample harvard personal statement, my in-depth feedback on this sample.

When applying to Harvard or any other reputable institution for grad school, your personal statement is a crucial part of your application. This is your opportunity to showcase your personality, motivation, and fit for the program beyond what’s evident in your academic records and CV.

The specifics can vary depending on the particular graduate program. For example, for the MBA program, Harvard places greater emphasis on the applicant’s leadership potential, business acumen, and entrepreneurial mindset. In their personal statement, applicants are expected to highlight their professional achievements, managerial experience, and their ability to think strategically in a business context. They also need to demonstrate their motivation for pursuing an MBA and explain how the program aligns with their career goals.

On the other hand, for the MPH program, Harvard prioritizes qualities such as a commitment to public health, a strong understanding of healthcare systems, and a passion for community service. Applicants to the MPH program are asked to discuss their experiences in public health or related fields, their research interests, and their dedication to improving population health. They also need to articulate how their academic background and previous experiences have prepared them for the program and how they intend to contribute to the field of public health.

Nevertheless, there are some general attributes that Harvard and other prestigious schools often look for in a personal statement:

Clear Objectives and Motivation: Admissions committees want to see that you have a clear understanding of your career objectives, why you want to pursue the program you’re applying to, and how it aligns with your long-term goals. A personal statement that communicates these points effectively can be compelling.
Academic and Research Interests: Highlight your areas of interest within your chosen field, and how those interests tie into Harvard’s program. Discuss any relevant research experience or projects you have undertaken.
Passion and Engagement: Show that you are deeply engaged and passionate about your chosen field. Use examples of experiences, accomplishments, and challenges you’ve overcome to demonstrate your commitment.
Intellectual Ability and Creativity: Harvard values candidates who can bring unique perspectives and ideas. Showcase your intellectual curiosity, ability to think critically, and creative problem-solving skills.
Leadership and Collaboration: Illustrate instances where you have shown leadership or worked effectively in a team. Graduate programs are often collaborative, and universities value individuals who can lead and work well with others.
Community Involvement: Discuss any involvement in community services, clubs, or other extracurricular activities that demonstrate your ability to contribute positively to the Harvard community.
Personal Growth: Highlight instances of personal growth and how you’ve learned from past experiences. This shows maturity and readiness for graduate-level work.
Writing Skills: Your personal statement also demonstrates your writing ability. Make sure it’s well-written, clear, and free of grammatical errors.
Personal Story: Lastly, don’t forget the “personal” in personal statement. Use anecdotes and personal experiences to tell a compelling story and make your statement unique.

Remember, while it’s important to cover these points, each program may have specific instructions or questions for the personal statement. Make sure to answer these directly and thoroughly. And, of course, always be authentic—your personal statement should reflect who you truly are.

Writing a graduate school personal statement for Harvard University, or any other prestigious institution, is a matter of conveying your personal goals, experiences, and qualifications in an engaging, thoughtful, and persuasive way.

Here’s a comprehensive guide, supplemented with examples, on how you might go about it:

Understand the requirements: Start by ensuring that you grasp what Harvard is looking for. Different graduate programs may have varying requirements or prompts for the personal statement. Be clear about the application instructions, word limits and the exact nature of the query.
Self-reflection: Reflect on your journey, both academically and professionally. What experiences have shaped your desire to pursue this specific program? What are your long-term objectives? Your reflections will help to substantiate why you’re applying to Harvard and why you’ve opted for this particular area of study.
Introduction: An engaging opening line that gives the reader a glimpse into your story, such as “Growing up in a low-income community, I experienced firsthand how social determinants could negatively influence health outcomes.”
Body: Here, discuss your experiences, achievements, and challenges. This can include academic accomplishments, such as “My passion for addressing health inequities propelled me to major in Public Health at XYZ University, where I graduated with a 3.8 GPA.” You could also discuss work or internship experiences: “As a Health Coordinator at ABC Nonprofit, I led a team that implemented health programs in underserved areas, reducing preventable diseases by 25% within a year.” The key is to make sure you’re demonstrating your skills, capabilities, and personal growth.
Conclusion: Summarize your key points, emphasize why you’re the right candidate for the program, and express your long-term goals or vision.
Write your draft: Use your outline as a guide and begin writing. Stay genuine and use your own voice. The admission committee wants to get to know you as an individual, so feel free to include personal experiences that shaped your professional journey.
Be specific and relevant: Share specific experiences or achievements that are directly relevant to the program you’re applying to. Demonstrating how you’ve leveraged opportunities or overcome challenges will show that you’ve done your research and understand what the program entails.
Explain why Harvard: It’s essential to show that you understand what Harvard offers and how it aligns with your career objectives. For instance, “Harvard’s emphasis on health equity and social justice aligns with my career goals. The university’s multidisciplinary approach and global perspective would broaden my understanding of public health.”
Review and revise: After completing your first draft, set aside time to review and revise it. You’re looking for grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, or unclear points. Aim to present a polished and professional statement.
Seek feedback: Ask professors, mentors, colleagues, or career center counselors to review your personal statement and offer feedback. Their perspective may help you improve the clarity and impact of your statement.
Finalize your statement: Based on the feedback, revise your personal statement. Make sure it accurately represents your goals, experiences, and reasons for applying to Harvard.
Proofread: Rigorously proofread your statement one last time before submitting it, ensuring there are no typographical or grammatical errors.

Your personal statement should be an authentic reflection of your passion for your chosen field of study. It should showcase your readiness for graduate-level work and your potential to contribute to the field.

When I journey back through the corridors of my childhood memories, tracing the footsteps of my past, I invariably find myself in a room where a nine-year-old girl is fervently sketching a societal map in her graph copy. This was my routine, a pastime I indulged in whenever time allowed. I would be engrossed in creating diagrams of my envisioned society. This practice of map-making allowed me to actualize my dream of a model society onto the medium of paper, my sole aspiration being universal access to all amenities for its members. As time unfurled, I grew and evolved, leaving this cherished activity nestled in the recesses of the past. Nevertheless, it shaped my personality, fostering in me a heightened sensitivity to emerging problems and a passion for crafting solutions. This passion led me to the field of Economics, with a unique ability to frame social dilemmas as problem statements. My interest has particularly gravitated towards the Ph.D. program in Public Policy with an emphasis on Economic Policy at Harvard University, primarily because it coalesces with my overarching passion and career trajectory.

From the early stages of my life, I developed an affinity for in-depth reasoning and meticulous research, often immersing myself in the smallest of details. This inclination led me down the path to pursue an undergraduate degree in Chemistry. Concurrently, my unwavering desire to solve societal issues introduced me to the world of Economics. This resonated so deeply with my intrinsic beliefs that I felt an irresistible draw towards this field. Thus marked a pivotal juncture in my life, one that required me to make a challenging decision: to undertake my Economics studies in the evenings, parallel to my ongoing Chemistry majors in the morning.

I was indeed fortunate to have successfully completed both undergraduate degrees concurrently. Juggling time management, exam preparation, assignment submissions, strict deadlines, and the art of multitasking while weathering the storm of challenges not only honed my practical skills but also molded me into a more accountable individual. This dual-degree experience did more than just put my abilities to the test at an advanced level—it equipped me with a unique cocktail of competencies in estimation, analysis, reasoning, and detailed research, setting me apart from my peers.

Subsequently, my Master’s in Economics further refined and amplified my skill set, guiding my career choice towards Economic development, which hinges heavily on growth and its influence on strategic affairs management.

My aspiration for public service found its realization when I was appointed Assistant Director at the Federal Reserve Bank. Armed with a well-rounded skill set and a solid foundation in both the sciences and social sciences, the FRB served as the ideal platform where I could harness my abilities for the public good. It acted as a bridge, connecting my dream of providing my society with the best resources and my potential to serve as a policymaker. This role enabled me to tackle issues springing from resource mismanagement and policy voids head-on. Given that the FRB stands as the sentinel of financial stability, it possesses a profound capacity to influence the lives of the masses through its policies.

Within a short span at the FRB, I was assigned to the policy and regulations department at the Deposit Protection Corporation. Here, I made substantial contributions to projects such as the enhancement of DPC’s mandate, the policy for periodic review of coverage levels, and the risk assessment of member institutions.

Beyond my professional obligations, I also dedicated time to volunteer with various organizations, collecting donations for the less fortunate and educating school children. This engagement amplifies my positive impact within the community, balancing my professional duties with my interest in societal betterment.

The reputation of Harvard as a pioneering institution in fostering critical thought and generating innovative solutions has always intrigued me. The Ph.D. program’s unique interdisciplinary approach, which bridges the gap between economic theories and public policy applications, will significantly enhance my understanding of how economic principles can inform effective policy-making. Specific elements of the program that captivate my attention include the opportunity to work closely with esteemed faculty members, renowned for their research and contribution in the field of Economic Policy. I am particularly drawn to Professor X’s work on fiscal policy and its social implications, which is closely aligned with my own interests. Moreover, the rich variety of courses offered, such as ‘Economic Strategies for Public Policy’ and ‘Quantitative Methods in Public Policy’, will equip me with the necessary tools and expertise to formulate impactful policies.

Finally, my long-term plans involve returning to the FRB to make an effective contribution as a more equipped and enlightened policymaker. I am convinced that undertaking studies in the US, with its rigorous curriculum, advanced research methodologies, and comprehensive analytical approaches, will nudge me closer to the realization of my dream. I am an economist, a policymaker, a volunteer, a budding educationist, a researcher, and a deposit insurer, ceaselessly driven by my eagerness to learn from and engage with individuals of diverse backgrounds.

Your personal statement is articulate, insightful, and displays a deep commitment to both academic and public service. However, I would like to suggest a few areas that might help improve the effectiveness of your essay and potentially strengthen its impact on the reader.

Clarity and Structure: (8.5/10) Your essay follows a logical progression, transitioning from your childhood, to education, to professional experience, and finally, to future aspirations. You have nicely encapsulated your journey with an emphasis on the interdisciplinary nature of your interests. However, the transition from Chemistry to Economics could use some more explanation. Try to draw parallels between the two or describe how Chemistry enhanced your understanding of Economics.
Content: (8/10) The content is engaging and rich. Your experiences, responsibilities, and achievements are well-highlighted. Still, I’d suggest emphasizing a bit more on the practical applications of your theoretical knowledge. Try to provide more concrete examples of how you’ve applied your Economics knowledge in real-world situations. Mention the outcomes of your projects at the Deposit Protection Corporation – what was the impact of these initiatives?
Passion and Commitment: (9/10) Your passion for economic policy and societal betterment are evident. The way you described your childhood interests evolving into your current academic and professional pursuits is commendable. The enthusiasm you show for the interdisciplinary Ph.D. program at Harvard is also a great way to show alignment with their program.
Originality: (8/10) The personal statement is original and offers a unique perspective, combining Chemistry and Economics. However, try to present your personal story and journey in a more unique way. Perhaps you could share a particular event or encounter that deeply influenced your decision to pursue a career in economic policy.
Grammar and Style: (9/10) The essay is grammatically sound and the language used is sophisticated and appropriate for a personal statement. The tone is formal, yet personal. It’s important to keep the language natural and not overly complex.

Recommendations:

Clarity and Structure: Add a little more about your transition from Chemistry to Economics. Show how one has informed or complemented the other.
Content: Highlight more concrete examples of your work. Show the outcomes and impacts of your projects, not just your role.
Originality: Try to include more unique experiences or perspectives that will make your application stand out from the others.
Grammar and Style: Maintain the formal yet personal tone, but ensure your language is natural and easy to follow.

Overall, this is a compelling personal statement that shows your dedication, experience, and potential. I would give it an overall rating of 8.5 out of 10. With the recommendations suggested, I believe you could increase that score even further. Remember, the key is to let your passion and dedication shine through while presenting clear, concise, and specific examples of your experiences and achievements. Good luck with your application!

WANT MORE AMAZING ARTICLES ON GRAD SCHOOL PERSONAL STATEMENTS?

100+ Outstanding Examples of Personal Statements
The Ultimate Guide to Writing a Winning Personal Statement
Common Pitfalls to Avoid in Your Personal Statement
Writing a Killer Opening Paragraph for Your Personal Statement
Ideal Length for a Graduate School Personal Statement
100 Inspiring Quotes to Jumpstart Your Personal Statement

100+ Grad School Personal Statement Examples

Introduction Importance of a Strong Personal Statement A personal statement is essential in the graduate school application process, as it plays a significant role in shaping the admissions committee's perception of you. In fact, a survey conducted by the Council of...

UCLA Personal Statement Example

The following personal statement was written by an applicant who was admitted to UCLA. This personal statement is intended to provide an example of a successful essay for a top school like UCLA. Sample Personal Statement for UCLA I fear the remote thought of being the...

Example LSE Personal Statement in Economics

The following personal statement is written by an applicant who got accepted to Masters’s program in Local Economic Development at London School of Economics. Read this essay to understand what a top Personal Statement in economics should look like. Sample Personal...

Sample Cambridge Personal Statement Computer Science

Cambridge is one of the most prestigious universities in the world and among the most competitive global schools. The following essay was written by an applicant who got accepted to Cambridge's Ph.D. program in Computer science program. Read her essay to understand...

Sample MIT Statement of Objectives

MIT's graduate school requires applicants to write a statement of objectives, mostly for Ph.D. program. The objectives statement tells MIT why you want to do graduate work in your chosen area of research. The statement should contain technical jargon that reflects...

WANT AMAZING ARTICLES ON GRAD SCHOOL PERSONAL STATEMENTS?

100+ Personal Statement Templates

Bespoke UCAT Tuition
Online UCAT Course
UCAT Question Bank
Bespoke Personal Statement Support
Personal Statement Portal
Example Personal Statements
Personal Statement Review
Medicine Application Packages
Medicine Interview Preparation
MMI Interview Course
MMI Question Bank
Interview Preparation
Mock Interviews
Interview Question Bank
Example Questions
100+ Questions & Answers
Practice Interviews
SFP Question Bank
Online CASPer Course
CASPer Question Bank
Private CASPer Tutoring
Articles & Resources
CASPer: Complete Guide
OET Question Bank
500+ Practice Questions
Bespoke OET Tutoring
Online OET Course
Online OET Tutoring
Dentistry Interview Preparation
UCAT Prep Packages
Dentistry Mock Interviews
UK Dental School Questions
US Dental School Questions
200+ Questions & Answers
DFT SJT Question Bank
DFT SJT Tutors
200+ DFT SJT Questions
CASPer Complete Guide
Oriel Question Bank
Oriel Tutoring
Situational Judgement Guide
Numeracy Guide
Practice Questions
Online Course & Question Bank
Private Tutoring
Sample Paper
Pharmacy Interview Preparation
Pharmacy Mock Interviews
Pharmacy Interview Question Bank
Interview Tutoring
UK Law School Interview Questions
US/Canada Interview Questions
Example Questions & Answers
Application Support
Articles & Free Resources
100+ Interview Questions & Answers
Application & Interview Preparation
Application Question Bank
Free Articles & Resources
Interview Tutoring & Mocks
Interview Tuition & Mocks
Dentistry Question Bank
Nursing Question Bank
PA Question Bank
Medicine Interview Tips & Articles
UK Medical School Interview Questions
US & Canada
Australia & NZ
Interview Questions & Answers
Nursing Questions & Answers
PA Questions & Answers
Physio Questions & Answers
11+ Exam Question Bank
11+ Exam Tutors
2,000+ Questions & Answers
Bespoke 11+ Support
11+ Maths Practice Test
11+ English Practice Test
11+ NVR Practice Test
11+ VR Practice Test
11+ Interview Question Bank
200+ Interview Questions & Answers
16+ Interview Question Bank
Interview Preparation & Mocks
GCSE Biology Tutors
GCSE Chemistry Tutors
GCSE Physics Tutors
GCSE Maths Tutors
Biology Past Papers
Chemistry Past Papers
Physics Past Papers
Online TSA Course
Private TSA Tutoring
Key Information
TSA Past Papers
TSA Essay Tips
200+ Questions & Answers
Physio Questions & Answers

Guide to Crafting a Winning Personal Statement for Harvard

Tristram Lewis-Stempel
May 31, 2023

Harvard admissions process

Harvard University, one of the most prestigious institutions in the world, is renowned for its rigorous admissions process. This process aims to identify students who are not only academically excellent but also exhibit qualities such as leadership, resilience, and a drive to make a significant impact.

Applications for Harvard are handled through the Common Application, the Universal College Application, or the Coalition Application. All these platforms require applicants to provide basic information, academic achievements, extracurricular activities, and teacher recommendations.

A key part of the application process is the Harvard Supplement, which includes an optional essay. Although optional, it is highly recommended for applicants to complete this essay, as it provides a chance to share aspects of their life, experiences, or thinking not present elsewhere in the application.

Applicants must also submit standardised test scores from exams such as the SAT or ACT. International students may also need to provide proof of English proficiency through tests like the TOEFL or IELTS.

The Harvard admissions committee reviews each application holistically. Academic achievements are considered alongside personal qualities, extracurricular involvement, and potential for growth. While high grades and test scores are common among applicants, these alone do not guarantee admission. The committee seeks students who can contribute to the diverse and dynamic Harvard community in unique ways. Select students are invited to interview with a Harvard alum, usually in their local area. The interview report provides additional context about the applicant and aids the committee in their decision-making process. Finally, the admissions committee deliberates over each application. They consider the entire application package — grades, test scores, essays, recommendations, extracurriculars, and interview reports if available. Their goal is to assemble a diverse class of intellectually curious, highly motivated, and accomplished students who will contribute to the Harvard community.

This meticulous process ensures that admitted students are truly exceptional individuals ready to thrive in Harvard’s demanding academic environment. We have further information for Harvard’s Medicine admissions here and here .

Personal Statements for Harvard: Overall Guide

Crafting a personal statement for Harvard is a complex task, requiring reflection, compelling storytelling, and a clear focus on your personal and academic journey. Your statement should convey who you are as a person, what you’ve accomplished, and how Harvard aligns with your future goals. Start by understanding the purpose of the personal statement. Harvard uses this document to gain insight into your character, values, and motivation. They want to understand your intellectual curiosity, commitment to your field of study, and the unique perspective you’d bring to the campus.

You should tell your story authentically and honestly. Personal narratives are often more impactful than dry lists of achievements. Your personal statement is your opportunity to offer context and insight into your life experiences, your passions, your challenges, and how they’ve shaped you. Use powerful language and storytelling techniques to engage your reader and make your narrative compelling.

Consider structuring your personal statement around a central theme or a few related themes that encapsulate your experiences and ambitions. This theme could be a passion you’ve pursued, a significant experience, or a personal quality you’ve developed over time. This structure will help provide coherence and depth to your statement.

Discuss your academic interests and intellectual pursuits. Explain why you’re drawn to your chosen field, what you’ve done to explore it, and how you plan to further these interests at Harvard. Make it clear why Harvard is the best place for you to pursue these interests – be specific about courses, professors, research opportunities, or resources that attract you to Harvard. For Medicine, we have specific guides to crafting excellent personal statements.

Reflect on your extracurricular activities and leadership roles. Instead of simply listing them, delve into a few key experiences that were meaningful to you. Explain what you learned from these experiences, how they’ve contributed to your personal growth, and how they’ve prepared you for success at Harvard. Remember, the admissions committee wants to understand your potential to contribute to the Harvard community and beyond. So, talk about your future goals and aspirations. Illustrate how your Harvard education will equip you to make an impact in your field or community.

Lastly, proofread your statement meticulously. Make sure it’s well-structured, clear, and free of grammatical errors. Also, ensure it reflects your unique voice and style. In essence, your Harvard personal statement should be a well-crafted narrative that connects your past experiences with your future goals, highlighting your intellectual curiosity, personal growth, and commitment to your field. It should reflect your unique identity and demonstrate the value you can bring to the Harvard community. If you need help with crafting a winning personal statement, you may consider seeking guidance from one of our private tutors .

Personal Statement Writing: Your Personal branding

Personal branding in the context of your personal statement involves communicating your unique combination of skills, experiences, and values in a way that sets you apart from other applicants. It’s about identifying what makes you distinct and effectively conveying this in your narrative. Here’s how to incorporate personal branding into your Harvard personal statement.

Firstly, reflect on your unique attributes and experiences. What are the key qualities, interests, and values that define you? Perhaps you have a passion for social justice, a knack for creative problem-solving, or an interesting multicultural background. These qualities can form the core of your personal brand.

Secondly, weave these elements into your narrative. Use storytelling techniques to illustrate how these qualities have played out in your life experiences. For instance, you could discuss a project you spearheaded that showcases your innovative thinking, or an experience that shaped your passion for social issues. Remember, the aim is not just to tell the admissions committee what you’ve done, but to show them who you are.

Your personal brand should also reflect your academic and career aspirations. Explain why you’re drawn to your chosen field, and how your unique qualities and experiences will enable you to succeed in this field and contribute to the Harvard community. For instance, if you’re interested in environmental science, you could discuss how your passion for nature, your leadership in a local conservation initiative, and your scientific curiosity form a coherent personal brand centred around environmental stewardship.

Remember that your personal brand should be authentic and consistent. It should reflect your genuine interests and values, rather than what you think Harvard wants to hear. The admissions committee values authenticity and will be able to tell if your personal brand aligns with your overall application.

Overall, personal branding in your medicine personal statement is about weaving together your unique attributes and experiences into a compelling narrative that distinguishes you from other applicants, aligns with your academic and career goals, and authentically reflects who you are.

Personal Statement Writing: Academic accomplishments

Presenting your academic accomplishments in your personal statement isn’t simply about listing your successes; it’s about narrating a story that underscores your intellectual curiosity, growth, and potential.

Firstly, reflect on your academic journey. Identify key milestones and turning points in your intellectual development. This might be a transformative project, a challenging course, or an inspiring mentor. Such experiences can provide a narrative framework for discussing your academic achievements. For instance, you might talk about the advanced research project you pursued in high school, illustrating your intellectual curiosity, self-direction, and problem-solving skills. Describe the process – the initial question that intrigued you, the obstacles you faced, the strategies you devised, and the outcome. Remember, the objective is not just to show that you succeeded, but to highlight the qualities that enabled you to succeed.

Secondly, provide context for your achievements. For Harvard, a top-tier institution, high grades and test scores might be the norm. What sets you apart is how you’ve leveraged your academic opportunities, risen above challenges, and contributed to your intellectual community. Did you make a significant contribution to a group project? Did you help a struggling classmate understand a difficult concept? Did you use your knowledge to serve your community in some way? Also, consider how your academic achievements align with your future goals. Perhaps your success in a biology course solidified your desire to pursue medicine, or your experience leading a debate team sparked your interest in law. Demonstrating how your past successes underpin your future aspirations can reinforce your commitment and potential.

In terms of structure, it’s wise to intersperse your academic accomplishments throughout your narrative, rather than lumping them together. This allows you to weave your achievements into your broader story, creating a more engaging and holistic portrait of your academic persona.

Finally, adopt a tone of humble confidence. Clearly articulate your accomplishments without boasting. Strive for a balance between acknowledging your success and demonstrating your appreciation for the opportunities and support you’ve had along the way.

Effectively showcasing your academic accomplishments in your Harvard personal statement involves more than listing your successes; it involves telling a compelling story about your intellectual journey, providing context for your achievements, and presenting them in a way that aligns with your future goals and conveys humble confidence.

About BlackStone

Showcasing Your Strengths: Writing an Effective Nursing Personal Statement

Secrets to Crafting an Impressive Personal Statement for Grad School

Writing a Winning Personal Statement for Business School – Tips and Tricks

Crafting a Compelling Personal Statement – Examples and Tips

Need help email: [email protected].

Preparation

Useful links, contact us / opening hours.

Monday - Friday: 9am - 8pm
Saturday: 10am - 4pm
[email protected]
(020) 3393 8934
Blackstone Tutors Ltd International House 142 Cromwell Road Kensington London SW7 4ET

Intensive BMAT Course

Bmat timetable.

10:00 - 11:00: BMAT Section 1 Techniques & Practice Questions
11:00 - 11:15: BMAT Section 1 Mock Exam
11:15 - 11:30: BMAT Section 1 Feedback
11:30 - 11:45: Morning Break
11:45 - 12:45: BMAT Section 2 Key Content & Practice Questions
12:45 - 13:00: BMAT Section 2 Mock Exam
13:00 - 13:15: BMAT Section 2 Feedback
13:15 - 14:00: Lunch Break
14:00 - 15:00: BMAT Section 3 Techniques & Implementation
15:00 - 16:00: BMAT Section 3 Mock Exam, Feedback & Further Discussion
16:00 - 16:30: Exclusive Interview Insight

The BMAT Course

Sample questions, please select your exam:.

USMLE Step 1

Graduate School

Harvard Graduate School Personal Statement Examples

Reading Harvard graduate school personal statement examples can help organize your thoughts, experiences, and knowledge to craft your own above-average personal statement. Different from statement of purpose examples for graduate school , the personal statement should tell your story and describe what brought you to this moment when you’re applying to one of the most prestigious universities in the world. Your personal statement can contain anything about your past (stories, experiences, trials, obstacles, etc.), but you must find a way to connect them to your present goals.

This article will provide different personal statement examples, explain more about the nuances of applying to Harvard Graduate School and show you how to write a compelling introduction and opening sentence for your Harvard graduate school personal statement.

>> Want us to help you get accepted? Schedule a free initial consultation here <<

Article Contents 12 min read

Applying to harvard graduate school.

The Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences offers master’s and PhD degrees in various areas of study, ranging from the arts and humanities to business administration and physics. As such, each program has different entrance requirements, although some general requirements include applicants taking the Graduate Record Examination (GRE).

Non-native-English-speaking students also need to take an English proficiency test to show they have the necessary language skills. Specialized programs in a specific field like Greek Studies or art history may require language proficiency in other languages like Latin, Greek or Italian, so you should carefully review all the requirements of your chosen program.

The personal statement requirement is also not universal. Some programs may ask for a statement of purpose (similar to a letter of intent), which is more focused on your academic background and ambitions, and not the same as a personal statement. Other programs ask for a portfolio or other work.

You should research all about the program you want to enter before you apply, and if you have any doubts or questions, reach out to them directly. All university graduate programs are eager to accept exceptional and qualified candidates and will be more than happy to clarify anything that is confusing.

I have always had a hard time defining myself. Other than my gender identity, I’ve always felt parts of me are too fluid to define. I never felt any particular affinity or pride toward the country of my birth, but neither do I identify with my parent’s countries of origin, although elements of their culture (language, music) do resonate with me.

I went to a very diverse, multicultural high school and it was my first brush with not belonging. I don’t remember thinking about my identity before. I grew up in a community based around my neighborhood and we didn’t differentiate people according to race, language, religion, or things like that. They were just my neighbors and friends.

In high school, though, everyone had their cliques and groups. Sometimes, they were centered on shared cultural, national, and racial ties, which meant that I, a biracial, native-born kid with parents from South America and Europe found it hard to fit in. I became aware of what life was like outside the paradise of my neighborhood when I was bullied in high school for being biracial. And it came from all the students; for some, I was too light-skinned; for others, I was too dark.

It was a hard thing for me to understand. Being judged for my skin color was something that had never happened to me before, and I took it to heart. As the bullying continued, I became depressed and angry. I lashed out at my parents for no reason. My grades began to suffer. My worried parents sent me to the family doctor to explain my problems, but he only suggested anti-depressants, which I did not want to take.

It was my high school guidance counselor, Ms. Olivia Nuzzi, who gave me what I most needed at the time: someone to talk to, someone to listen. I can’t remember the exact circumstances that brought us together – I think my mother reached out to her – but by the time of our first meeting, I was not doing well. My depression had intensified. I was experiencing suicidal ideation. I felt like I would never belong or be accepted by anyone.

The first time I met Ms. Nuzzi, she placed her hand on mine, and that simple act of tenderness made me burst out sobbing. It was the first time anyone, other than bullies, had tried to get close to me in months. In our first session, I talked openly about what was going on with the bullying and how it made me question my identity. I began to see Ms. Nuzzi regularly after that. Going to see her was often the only highlight of my week, and we became very close.

I went to her on one of the worst days of my life. I was in class, and someone made an insulting comment about me. I didn’t react at all, but inside I was furious. Soon, that fury turned to panic, and I started to feel short of breath, dizzy. I asked to be excused and made my way to Ms. Nuzzi’s office. She calmed me down and asked what had happened.

What she said next has always stayed with me. She said, “Not knowing who you are now doesn’t mean you’ll never know, and it doesn’t mean you’re empty. It only means you have a lot of work to do.” Her saying that made me realize that identity is something we are always constructing.

Ms. Nuzzi lost touch after I graduated, but her words never left me. I thought of her when I decided what my career should look like, in childhood psychology, and applied to the Psychology program at Cornell. Despite all the care and tenderness Ms. Nuzzi had shown me, I wanted to offer more to children grappling with identity and identity formation within the context of education.

During my undergrad, I focused on classes related to preadolescent development and the important role of socialization in how young people define themselves. I also took courses in sociology and social work to better understand how to create actionable plans to treat childhood depression, anxiety, and mental illness.

During my master’s, I focused on approaches to child psychology that helped me gain a better understanding of how to assess and interpret a child’s distress. It became clear to me that I needed to study more about the social basis for the way a child forms their identity and how they respond to external factors.

Among the many reasons I am applying to the Harvard Graduate School Psychology program is the opportunity to study under the supervision of Dr. Henry Blackthorn, a pioneer in the field of childhood anxiety disorders. I have admired Dr. Blackthorn’s work for many years, and I think his outline for developmental risk factors is the most precise diagnostic retuning in ages.

It’s ironic that my search for an identity led me to finding my career, even though I am wary of defining myself by my profession. I am a dedicated student and researcher, and I feel like I can contribute effectively to this graduate program, but one thing I have learned in trying to shape my own identity is that the work of creating yourself is never over.

One of the things I remember most about my father is his bookcase. My father never finished grade school, and he had worked most of his life. He had as many jobs as anyone I ever knew, and he took pride in listing off the jobs he had held in his time, ranging from janitor, factory worker, and line supervisor to line cook, hospital attendant, and general contractor.

Wearing as many hats as he did, he knew a lot about different subjects. He knew how to take apart a carburetor and cook a French omelet. He knew the best wood to build a house (spruce or Douglas fir) and the best way to get out chocolate stains. But he was always insecure about not having a formal education.

He made up for it by learning as much practical knowledge as he could from the jobs that he had, but inside I think it wasn’t enough. He could never fill that void that wanted to be filled with a college- or university-level education. I would tell him that he could take a night course or something else that interested him, but he always said “no” and made up some excuse.

He had his own plan. He built a ramshackle bookcase out of old, repurposed wood and stuck it in the basement. He slowly filled the shelves with whatever he could find – books he bought at garage sales, books the library gave away, books our neighbors gave him – but mainly a lot of repair and how-to books and manuals. After a year, the bookcase was almost full.

His other plan involved me. If he couldn’t go to university, then I would be the one to go. He made clear to me at a young age that I was headed to university and that education was one of the most important things in life. It was one of the few things that we agreed on: education. We didn’t have much else in common other than an appreciation for learning.

As his book collection grew, so did I. Since my dad was so hands-on, one day, when I was in high school, I was surprised to find a book on the bookcase that actually interested me: a copy of Ovid’s Metamorphoses. I didn’t know where he got the book or who gave it to him – it was such a rare thing to see on my father’s bookcase – but finding that book would shape the rest of my life and bring me here to apply to the PhD in Ancient History program at Harvard.

I have an innate love for stories, but Ovid’s poetry was such a departure from the storytelling structure I had grown up with. An epic poem was a genre I never knew existed, let alone one that was thousands of years old. While I was reading the second book, I was drawn in by the story of Phaeton, the demi-god who believes Helios is his true father and is desperate to prove it.

The lines Helios speaks to Phaeton to dissuade him from riding the sun chariot, “Your lot is mortal, it is not mortal what you ask,” made me think of my father, wanting to know more than what life had taught him. Helios spoke those words to Phaeton to keep him from danger, but my father told me the opposite. My father taught me that knowledge was a way to achieve greatness. He did not want me to be content with what I had or who I was. He wanted me to strive to be more than he could ever be.

Reading those lines from Ovid put everything into perspective and made me realize my future would be among the Classics. I wanted to reach back to the beginning of recorded knowledge, where the first poets, philosophers, historians, mathematicians, and engineers tried to interpret the living world in a way that had never been done before. I started taking Latin classes with my local priest who had learned the language while studying at the Vatican.

When I graduated from high school, I decided on Northwestern because its Classics program is one of the best in the country and because it was not far from home. I wanted my father to visit me on campus to give him a taste of the college life.

While at Northwestern, I participated in an exchange program during my third year and took two semesters in Hellenic Studies at the University of Athens. I started learning Greek in my first year, and by the time I arrived in Athens, I was semi-fluent. Unfortunately, my academic dreams came close to crashing in my last years, as that was when my father passed away from prostate cancer. His loss is something I still struggle with, but his love for learning and knowledge is something that has stayed with me and continues to motivate me. His plan for retirement was to read a book a day from his bookcase, but he never got there. I dedicated my personal statement for my master’s degree in Anthropology to my father.

During that degree, I participated in a field expedition to the hills of Thessaloniki to explore a cache of pottery and other artifacts uncovered by recent construction. It was during this time when I also co-published my first academic paper, “The Enchantment of Ovid: Love, Desire and Consent in Mythological Context,” with Dimitrios Alexopoulos, now co-chair of the Hellenic Studies program at Dartmouth.

My plans for the rest of my career include opening new methods of analysis in understanding classical literature. I have a strong interest in dissecting the ways that classical arts continue to influence modern artists and thinking, especially as seen through a gendered and racialized prism.

I would also like to follow in my father’s example and pass on his love of learning to a new generation of students. I want my students to be imbued with the desire to learn as much as Phaeton desired to ride the sun chariot, which to my father, would not have been as exciting as getting an education.

I always wanted to open my own business. To me, having your own business, being your own boss was the best thing in the world. I came to this country from Nigeria wanting to be a success, even though I wasn’t sure of what I would do. I started washing cars and picking up shifts as an Uber driver to earn money, but my end goals were not clear yet.

I thought the answer would come to me and then I would know what to do, but regardless, I started saving money, knowing that whatever it was that interested me, it would take money and resources to follow through. Luckily, the answer I was waiting for arrived in the back of my Uber one night.

I picked up my fare, an older gentleman who had come from a restaurant where he had been celebrating closing a business deal, he told me later. Normally, I didn’t speak with my customers, unless they wanted to, but this gentleman, I’ll call him Jerry, was in a talking mood. He told me about how he had started his business a long time ago and now he had enough money to retire.

I told him I was interested in opening a business, but I wasn’t sure in what. Jerry told me that didn’t matter. The idea wasn’t as important as the work that you put into making it real. Everyone has ideas, he said, but only a few ever become more than ideas in someone’s head.

Jerry told me that enrolling in a business program would give me the fundamentals to create any business I wanted. He said that businesses fail not because they’re bad ideas, but because the people behind them don’t know how to keep them alive. But Jerry also said that I should never underestimate the power of luck. Sometimes the underdog makes it, sometimes they do not.

I drove Jerry home, and he gave me his card, in case I wanted any more advice. I did take his advice and started looking into Business Administration programs near me that would suit my schedule and let me continue working. I enrolled in the one at the SUNY Buffalo School of Management and took courses in accounting, marketing, and entrepreneurship.

The more I studied business theories and how to analyze data to extract a favorable business strategy, the more I became convinced that Jerry was right. It was knowledge and know-how that mattered more than just an idea. Learning more about business administration also refocused my goals. I started to see that running my own business was not as interesting to me as expanding or growing an established business.

I also realized that running a successful business is about a lot more than big ideas. If recent history has shown us anything, it’s that people with grand ideas are more interested in making people believe their idea works, even if it doesn’t. They ignore the social responsibility aspect of any business only to justify their greatness.

I realize that I don’t have the lofty goals of some modern business titans. My goals are humbler and more realistic. I feel like my emphasis on collecting and analyzing data is more important to any business than my leadership abilities, which is why I’m applying to the Harvard Graduate School PhD in Business Administration. If I am admitted to your program, I hope to effectively merge my analytical and business skills to further research on human resource management and information technology.

If Harvard graduate school is your dream school, then you should know how to get accepted and what it takes to write an outstanding personal statement. Along with college essay examples , the Harvard graduate school personal statement examples found here should only be used as a template to create your own statement.

The format of a personal statement is usually open-ended, but each graduate program has its own requirements, so make sure you check what they are before you start formulating an answer. You can write about any personal story that is significantly related to your educational and academic path, but make sure you connect it to why you are an ideal candidate for the program.

A personal statement is a guided essay that aims to explain a little more about your personal motivations to enter a specific school, graduate program, or profession.

Not all schools or graduate programs will ask for a personal statement, but it depends on what school or program you apply to. You should check the admissions requirements for any program you want to enter before you apply.

A personal statement can be a supplemental essay, but the latter is often based on specific prompts or questions asked by the admissions committee. Read these Harvard supplemental essay examples or these Harvard MBA personal statement examples to get a better idea of how they differ.

You can start your personal statement by thinking about why you wanted to enter the profession you are entering and explain in detail the steps you took to achieve that goal.

A letter of intent is a document outlining your specific academic and professional goals, along with past achievements in your field. It is strictly an academic resume. But a personal statement is something that reveals what attracted you to your field and what motivates you to pursue this advanced degree.

You can talk about a time when you identified your career goals and ambitions, whether it was during childhood or adolescence, as long as you relate how your story helped you choose the program you are applying to.

You should NOT talk about personal issues or difficulties that are unrelated to your degree or education. You should NOT talk about vague characteristics (hard-working, organized) without providing concrete examples from your past.

The length, word count, and other format details are decided by the program you want to enter, but if there are no stated requirements, you want to keep your statement to two pages, double-spaced.

Want more free tips? Subscribe to our channels for more free and useful content!

Apple Podcasts

Like our blog? Write for us ! >>

Have a question ask our admissions experts below and we'll answer your questions, get started now.

Talk to one of our admissions experts

Our site uses cookies. By using our website, you agree with our cookie policy .

FREE Training Webinar:

How to make your grad school application stand out, (and avoid the top 5 mistakes that get most rejected).

What are your chances of acceptance?

Calculate for all schools, your chance of acceptance.

Your chancing factors

Extracurriculars.

How to Write the Harvard University Essays 2024-2025

Harvard University, perhaps the most prestigious and well-known institution in the world, is the nation’s oldest higher education establishment, founded in 1636. Harvard’s impressive alumni network, from Sheryl Sandberg to Al Gore, is proof of the school’s ability to recruit some of the top talents in the world.

It’s no wonder that students are often intimidated by Harvard’s supplements, especially since several of them are quite open-ended. However, CollegeVine is here to help, with comprehensive guidance on how to tackle this year’s prompts.

Do be aware that with just 150 words to work with, you’ll want to make every one count. Essays with shorter word counts may seem like less work, but don’t be deceived–you’ll need to choose each and every word carefully to keep your essays succinct, but still compelling and memorable.

Read these Harvard essay examples written by real students to inspire your own writing!

How to Write the Harvard Supplemental Essays

Prompt 1: Harvard has long recognized the importance of enrolling a diverse student body. How will the life experiences that shape who you are today enable you to contribute to Harvard? (150 words)

Prompt 2: Describe a time when you strongly disagreed with someone about an idea or issue. How did you communicate or engage with this person? What did you learn from this experience? (150 words)

Prompt 3: Briefly describe any of your extracurricular activities, employment experience, travel, or family responsibilities that have shaped who you are. (150 words)

Prompt 4: How do you hope to use your Harvard education in the future? (150 words)

Prompt 5: Top 3 things your roommates might like to know about you. (150 words)

Harvard has long recognized the importance of enrolling a diverse student body. How will the life experiences that shape who you are today enable you to contribute to Harvard? (150 words)

Brainstorming Your Topic

This prompt is a great example of the classic diversity supplemental essay . That means that, as you prepare to write your response, the first thing you need to do is focus in on some aspect of your identity, upbringing, or personality that makes you different from other people.

As you start brainstorming, do remember that the way colleges factor race into their admissions processes will be different this year, after the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in June. Colleges can still consider race on an individual level, however, so if you would like to write your response about how your racial identity has impacted you, you are welcome to do so.

If race doesn’t seem like the right topic for you, however, keep in mind that there are many other things that can make us different, not just race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and the other aspects of our identities that people normally think of when they hear the word “diversity.” That’s not to say that you can’t write about those things, of course. But don’t worry if you don’t feel like those things have played a significant role in shaping your worldview. Here are some examples of other topics that could support a strong essay:

Moving to several different cities because of your parents’ jobs
An usual hobby, like playing the accordion or making your own jewelry
Knowing a lot about a niche topic, like Scottish castles

The only questions you really need to ask yourself when picking a topic are “Does this thing set me apart from other people?” and “Will knowing this thing about me give someone a better sense of who I am overall?” As long as you can answer “yes” to both of those questions, you’ve found your topic!

Tips for Writing Your Essay

Once you’ve selected a topic, the question becomes how you’re going to write about that topic in a way that helps Harvard admissions officers better understand how you’re going to contribute to their campus community. To do that, you want to connect your topic to some broader feature of your personality, or to a meaningful lesson you learned, that speaks to your potential as a Harvard student.

For example, perhaps your interest in Scottish castles has given you an appreciation for the strength of the human spirit, as the Scots were able to persevere and build these structures even in incredibly remote, cold parts of the country. Alternatively, maybe being half Puerto Rican, but not speaking Spanish, has taught you about the power of family, as you have strong relationships even with relatives you can’t communicate with verbally.

Remember that, like with any college essay, you want to rely on specific anecdotes and experiences to illustrate the points you’re making. To understand why, compare the following two excerpts from hypothetical essays.

Example 1: “Even though I can’t speak Spanish, and some of my relatives can’t speak English, whenever I visit my family in Puerto Rico I know it’s a place where I belong. The island is beautiful, and I especially love going to the annual party at my uncle’s house.”

Example 2: “The smell of the ‘lechón,’ or suckling pig greets me as soon as I enter my uncle’s home, even before everyone rushes in from the porch to welcome me in rapid-fire Spanish. At best, I understand one in every ten words, but my aunt’s hot pink glasses, the Caribbean Sea visible through the living room window, and of course, the smell of roasting pork, tell me, wordlessly yet undeniably, that I’m home.”

Think about how much better we understand this student after Example 2. If a few words were swapped out, Example 1 could’ve been written by anyone, whereas Example 2 paints us a clear picture of how this student’s Puerto Rican heritage has tangibly impacted their life.

Mistakes to Avoid

The biggest challenge with this particular “Diversity” essay is the word count. Because you only have 150 words to work with, you don’t have space to include more than one broader takeaway you’ve learned from this aspect of your identity.

Of course, people are complicated, and you’ve likely learned many things from being Puerto Rican, or from being interested in Scottish castles. But for the sake of cohesion, focus on just one lesson. Otherwise your essay may end up feeling like a bullet-point list of Hallmark card messages, rather than a thoughtful, personal, reflective piece of writing.

The other thing you want to avoid is writing an essay that’s just about your topic. Particularly since you’re going to be writing about an aspect of your identity that’s important to you, you’ll likely have a lot to say just about that. If you aren’t careful, you may burn through all 150 words without getting to the broader significance of what this piece of your personality says about who you are as a whole.

That component, however, is really the key to a strong response. Harvard receives over 40,000 applications a year, which means that, whether you write about being Puerto Rican or Scottish castles, it’s likely someone else is writing about something similar.

That doesn’t mean you need to agonize over picking something absolutely nobody else is writing about, as that’s practically impossible. All it means is that you need to be clear about how this aspect of your identity has shaped you as a whole, as that is how your essay will stand out from others with similar topics.

Describe a time when you strongly disagreed with someone about an idea or issue. How did you communicate or engage with this person? What did you learn from this experience? (150 words)

This prompt is somewhat similar to the Overcoming Challenges essay, which asks applicants to reflect on a time they had to handle something difficult or demanding. While a disagreement may not always be big enough to be considered a true challenge, some of the same general strategy applies, in that as you reflect on the conflict, you want to demonstrate your personal strengths and maturity.

As you consider what anecdote to use for this essay, think about what qualities might be demonstrated by different stories. Here are some examples, to help you gauge how well your own ideas would work:

A disagreement with a friend or family member could demonstrate your readiness to stand up to even those who are close to you in defense of something important to you.
A conflict involving one of your core values or beliefs might demonstrate your strong moral character and commitment to ethics.
An argument involving a cause, organization, or project might show your commitment to something bigger than you.
An argument in which you were wrong or your mind was changed shows your humility, capacity for reflection, and willingness to listen.

There are many more kinds of disagreements that you could write about, so make sure you choose wisely. The most emotional argument you’ve ever been in, the most significant conflict you’ve ever had, or the most satisfying win, doesn’t automatically make for the best essay. The key is to write about an occasion that gives a clear impression of your best qualities, which is not always the most intense one.

As you narrow down your choice, you’ll want to avoid some common pitfalls. First, choose a disagreement that has some substance. If you have a story that casts you in a great light, but is ultimately pretty trivial, Harvard admissions officers are unlikely to be impressed. They want to see that you’ll be able to navigate substantive differences with peers from drastically different backgrounds once you get to Cambridge.

Arguing with your brother about where to get dinner, for example, wouldn’t do much to help them envision how you’d conduct yourself in a heated classroom debate about, say, the continuing impacts of slavery on modern American society.

You’ll also want to lay out the contours of the disagreement relatively briefly, so don’t choose a situation that’s difficult to explain. Remember, you only have 150 words, and you want to spend as few of them as possible describing the argument itself. Rather, the majority of your supplement should focus on how you resolved (or not) the conflict, and what you learned from it.

Finally, though this essay is focused on a disagreement, you want to be careful of coming off as overly negative or confrontational, or as viewing yourself as superior. Don’t trash-talk the person you disagreed with, and don’t be condescending when you present their views.

Again, Harvard will be reading this essay closely to see how prepared you are to handle the differing perspectives you’re sure to encounter in college, so you want to come across as respectful and open-minded, not self-righteous or arrogant.

To get a concrete sense of the differences we’re describing here, consider the following examples of responses to this prompt.

“Don’t Fear the Reaper or As It Was? Lynyrd Skynyrd or Olivia Rodrigo? During my sophomore year, my school was planning the annual talent show, and I disagreed with my classmates about which song our group should perform. Some wanted to go with a popular pop song, while I preferred a classic rock hit that I thought would stand out more. We debated for days, and I tried to convince them that the rock song would be more memorable, while they argued that a pop song would be a crowd-pleaser. Eventually, we decided to blend both songs into a mashup. The performance was a huge success, and everyone enjoyed it. Seeing the crowd sing along to the lyrics they knew, keep dancing to the ones they didn’t, and give us a standing ovation at the end, drove home for me the benefits of collaboration, compromise, and creative problem solving.”

This example is well-written, includes a passion of the author’s, shows their capacity for reflection, and demonstrates several other good qualities, like compromise and creative problem solving. On the downside, it’s a relatively trivial argument – remember that the prompt asks for a story about a serious disagreement – but the execution is excellent. Now, compare it to this example.

“Give a man a fish, and he’s fed for a day. Teach a man to fish…Well, it was junior year, and I was constantly clashing with a stubborn classmate over our community service project. She was fixated on the idea of collecting canned goods, which I found unimaginative and ineffective. My classmate pointed out that the school had done canned drives for years, but I knew we could do better, so I proposed a healthy cooking workshop to make a real impact. We all know the old proverb – so let’s apply it! After much back and forth, she reluctantly agreed to combine efforts, and in the end, my idea was what made the project successful, as I knew it would be. I was proud of myself for trusting myself, sticking up for my idea, challenging my classmate to grow, and helping members of my community feed themselves.”

This essay describes a topic of appropriate seriousness and shows what the student has learned, but the tone towards the student’s classmate is unnecessarily dismissive and patronizing, which could easily turn off an admissions committee.

These examples each have their strengths, but also show that one bad element can really bring down the overall quality of the supplement. Let’s look at one more, really strong example, that ties all of this guidance together:

“During a heated debate in Model UN club, I argued with another delegate who proposed a resolution that, in my view, oversimplified the Syrian refugee crisis. While he focused solely on border security, I argued that we must address the root causes—like poverty and political instability—to create lasting change. I was surprised by how personal the resulting debate felt. Instead of escalating the conflict, I invited him to discuss our differences over coffee later. Through our conversation, I realized he was driven by personal experiences of insecurity, which deepened my empathy. I realized that though we had been in this club together for years, I really didn’t know much about him. This one revelation shed so much light on other policies he’d supported in the past that I’d never understood. Though we didn’t, in the end, find a satisfying compromise, I gained perspective that feels far more important.”

Briefly describe any of your extracurricular activities, employment experience, travel, or family responsibilities that have shaped who you are. (150 words)

This is a textbook example of the “Extracurricular” essay . As such, what you need to do is well-defined, although it’s easier said than done: select an extracurricular activity that has, as Harvard says, “shaped who you are,” and make sure you’re able to articulate how it’s been formative for you.

As you brainstorm which extracurricular you want to write about, note that the language of the prompt is pretty open-ended. You write about “any” activity, not just one you have a lot of accolades in, and you don’t even have to write about an activity—you can also write about a travel experience, or family responsibility.

If the thing that immediately jumps to mind is a club, sport, volunteer experience, or other “traditional” extracurricular, that’s great! Run with that. But if you’re thinking and nothing in that vein seems quite right, or, alternatively, you’re feeling bold and want to take a creative approach, don’t be afraid to get outside the box. Here are some examples of other topics you could write a strong essay about:

A more hobby-like extracurricular, like crocheting potholders and selling them on Etsy
Driving the Pacific Coast Highway on your own
Caring for your family’s two large, colorful macaws

These more creative topics can do a lot to showcase a different side of you, as college applications have, by their nature, a pretty restricted scope, and telling admissions officers about something that would never appear on your resume or transcript can teach them a lot about who you are. That being said, the most important thing is that the topic you pick has genuinely been formative for you. Whether it’s a conventional topic or not, as long as that personal connection is there, you’ll be able to write a strong essay about it.

The key to writing a strong response is focusing less on the activity itself, and more on what you’ve learned from your involvement in it. If you’re writing about a more conventional topic, remember that admissions officers already have your activities list. You don’t need to say “For the last five years, I’ve been involved in x,” because they already know that, and when you only have 150 words, wasting even 10 of them means you’ve wasted 5% of your space.

If you’re writing about something that doesn’t already show up elsewhere in your application, you want to provide enough details for your reader to understand what you did, but not more than that. For example, if you’re writing about your road trip, you don’t need to list every city you stopped in. Instead, just mention one or two that were particularly memorable.

Rather than focusing on the facts and figures of what you did, focus on what you learned from your experience. Admissions officers want to know why your involvement in this thing matters to who you’ll be in college. So, think about one or two bigger picture things you learned from it, and center your response around those things.

For example, maybe your Etsy shop taught you how easy it is to bring some positivity into someone else’s life, as crocheting is something you would do anyways, and the shop just allows you to share your creations with other people. Showcasing this uplifting, altruistic side of yourself will help admissions officers better envision what kind of Harvard student you’d be.

As always, you want to use specific examples to support your points, at least as much as you can in 150 words. Because you’re dealing with a low word count, you probably won’t have space to flex your creative writing muscles with vivid, immersive descriptions.

You can still incorporate anecdotes in a more economical way, however. For example, you could say “Every morning, our scarlet macaw ruffles her feathers and greets me with a prehistoric chirp.” You’re not going into detail about what her feathers look like, or where this scene is happening, but it’s still much more engaging than something like “My bird always says hello to me in her own way.”

The most common pitfall with an “Extracurricular” essay is describing your topic the way you would on your resume. Don’t worry about showing off some “marketable skill” you think admissions officers want to see, and instead highlight whatever it is you actually took away from this experience, whether it’s a skill, a realization, or a personality trait. The best college essays are genuine, as admissions officers feel that honesty, and know they’re truly getting to know the applicant as they are, rather than some polished-up version.

Additionally, keep in mind that, like with anything in your application, you want admissions officers to learn something new about you when reading this essay. So, if you’ve already written your common app essay about volunteering at your local animal shelter, you shouldn’t also write this essay about that experience. Your space in your application is already extremely limited, so don’t voluntarily limit yourself even further by repeating yourself when you’re given an opportunity to say something new.

How do you hope to use your Harvard education in the future? (150 words)

Although the packaging is a little different, this prompt has similarities to the classic “Why This College?” prompt . That means there are two main things you want to do while brainstorming.

First, identify one or two goals you have for the future—with just 150 words, you won’t have space to elaborate on any more than that. Ideally, these should be relatively concrete. You don’t have to have your whole life mapped out, but you do need to be a lot more specific than “Make a difference in the world.” A more zoomed-in version of that goal would be something like “Contribute to conservation efforts to help save endangered species,” which would work.

Second, hop onto Harvard’s website and do some research on opportunities the school offers that would help you reach your goals. Again, make sure these are specific enough. Rather than a particular major, which is likely offered at plenty of other schools around the country, identify specific courses within that major you would like to take, or a professor in the department you would like to do research with. For example, the student interested in conservation might mention the course “Conservation Biology” at Harvard.

You could also write about a club, or a study abroad program, or really anything that’s unique to Harvard, so long as you’re able to draw a clear connection between the opportunity and your goal. Just make sure that, like with your goals, you don’t get overeager. Since your space is quite limited, you should choose two, or maximum three, opportunities to focus on. Any more than that and your essay will start to feel rushed and bullet point-y.

If you do your brainstorming well, the actual writing process should be pretty straightforward: explain your goals, and how the Harvard-specific opportunities you’ve selected will help you reach them.

One thing you do want to keep in mind is that your goals should feel personal to you, and the best way to accomplish that is by providing some background context on why you have them. This doesn’t have to be extensive, as, again, your space is limited. But compare the following two examples, written about the hypothetical goal of helping conservation efforts from above, to get an idea of what we’re talking about:

Example 1: “As long as I can remember, I’ve loved all kinds of animals, and have been heartbroken by the fact that human destruction of natural resources could lead to certain species’ extinction.”

Example 2: “As a kid, I would sit in front of the aquarium’s walrus exhibit, admiring the animal’s girth and tusks, and dream about seeing one in the wild. Until my parents regretfully explained to me that, because of climate change, that was unlikely to ever happen.”

The second example is obviously longer, but not egregiously so: 45 words versus 31. And the image we get of this student sitting and fawning over a walrus is worth that extra space, as we feel a stronger personal connection to them, which in turn makes us more vicariously invested in their own goal of environmental advocacy.

As we’ve already described in the brainstorming section, the key to this essay is specificity. Admissions officers want you to paint them a picture of how Harvard fits into your broader life goals. As we noted earlier, that doesn’t mean you have to have everything figured out, but if you’re too vague about your goals, or how you see Harvard helping you reach them, admissions officers won’t see you as someone who’s prepared to contribute to their campus community.

Along similar lines, avoid flattery. Gushy lines like “At Harvard, every day I’ll feel inspired by walking the same halls that countless Nobel laureates, politicians, and CEOs once traversed” won’t get you anywhere, because Harvard admissions officers already know their school is one of the most prestigious and famous universities in the world. What they don’t know is what you are going to bring to Harvard that nobody else has. So, that’s what you want to focus on, not vague, surface-level attributes of Harvard related to its standing in the world of higher education.

Top 3 things your roommates might like to know about you. (150 words)

Like Prompt 2, this prompt tells you exactly what you need to brainstorm: three things a roommate would like to know about you. However, also like Prompt 2, while this prompt is direct, it’s also incredibly open-ended. What really are the top three things you’d like a complete stranger to know about you before you live together for nine months?

Questions this broad can be hard to answer, as you might not know where to start. Sometimes, you can help yourself out by asking yourself adjacent, but slightly more specific questions, like the following:

Do you have any interests that influence your regular routine? For example, do you always watch the Seahawks on Sunday, or are you going to be playing Taylor Swift’s discography on repeat while you study?
Look around your room—what items are most important to you? Do you keep your movie ticket stubs? Are you planning on taking your photos of your family cat with you to college?
Are there any activities you love and already know you’d want to do with your roommate, like weekly face masks or making Christmas cookies?

Hopefully, these narrower questions, and the example responses we’ve included, help get your gears turning. Keep in mind that this prompt is a great opportunity to showcase sides of your personality that don’t come across in your grades, activities list, or even your personal statement. Don’t worry about seeming impressive—admissions officers don’t expect you to read Shakespeare every night for two hours. What they want is an honest, informative picture of what you’re like “behind the scenes,” because college is much more than just academics.

Once you’ve selected three things to write about, the key to the actual essay is presenting them in a logical, cohesive, efficient way. That’s easier said than done, particularly if the three things you’ve picked are quite different from each other.

To ensure your essay feels like one, complete unit, rather than three smaller ones stuck together, strong transitions will be crucial. Note that “strong” doesn’t mean “lengthy.” Just a few words can go a long way towards helping your essay flow naturally. To see what we mean here, take the following two examples:

Example 1: “Just so you know, every Sunday I will be watching the Seahawks, draped in my dad’s Steve Largent jersey. They can be a frustrating team, but I’ll do my best to keep it down in case you’re studying. I also like to do face masks, though. You’re always welcome to any of the ones I have in my (pretty extensive) collection.”

Example 2: “Just so you know, every Sunday I will be watching the Seahawks, draped in my dad’s Steve Largent jersey. But if football’s not your thing, don’t worry—once the game’s over, I’ll need to unwind anyways, because win or lose the Hawks always find a way to make things stressful. So always feel free to join me in picking out a face mask from my (pretty extensive) collection, and we can gear up for the week together.”

The content in both examples is the same, but in the first one, the transition from football to facemasks is very abrupt. On the other hand, in the second example the simple line “But if football’s not your thing, don’t worry” keeps things flowing smoothly.

There’s no one right way to write a good transition, but as you’re polishing your essay a good way to see if you’re on the right track is by asking someone who hasn’t seen your essay before to read it over and tell you if there are any points that made them pause. If the answer is yes, your transitions probably still need more work.

Finally, you probably noticed that the above examples are both written in a “Dear roomie” style, as if you’re actually speaking directly to your roommate. You don’t have to take this exact approach, but your tone should ideally be light and fun. Living alone for the first time, with other people your age, is one of the best parts of college! Plus, college applications are, by their nature, pretty dry affairs for the most part. Lightening things up in this essay will give your reader a breath of fresh air, which will help them feel more engaged in your application as a whole.

Harvard is doing you a favor here by keeping the scope of the essay narrow—they ask for three things, not more. As we’ve noted many times with the other supplements, 150 words will be gone in a flash, so don’t try to cram in extra things. It’s not necessary to do that, because admissions officers have only asked for three, and trying to stuff more in will turn your essay into a list of bullet points, rather than an informative piece of writing about your personality.

Finally, as we’ve hinted at a few times above, the other thing you want to avoid is using this essay as another opportunity to impress admissions officers with your intellect and accomplishments. Remember, they have your grades, and your activities list, and all your other essays. Plus, they can ask you whatever questions they want—if they wanted to know about the most difficult book you’ve ever read, they would. So, loosen up, let your hair down, and show them you know how to have fun too!

Where to Get Your Harvard Essays Edited For Free

Do you want feedback on your Harvard essays? After rereading your essays countless times, it can be difficult to evaluate your writing objectively. That’s why we created our free Peer Essay Review tool , where you can get a free review of your essay from another student. You can also improve your own writing skills by reviewing other students’ essays.

Need feedback faster? Get a free, nearly-instantaneous essay review from Sage, our AI tutor and advisor. Sage will rate your essay, give you suggestions for improvement, and summarize what admissions officers would take away from your writing. Use these tools to improve your chances of acceptance to your dream school!

10 Successful Harvard Application Essays | 2023

With the top applicants from every high school applying to the best schools in the country, it's important to have an edge in your college application. Check out our list of 10 new Harvard application essays from students who made it in, and hear from expert college consultants about what made these work.

Marina's Essay

PrepScholar is the trusted source for college admissions and test prep guidance. Our proven strategies and extensive experience translate to real results: PrepScholar students are six times more likely to get into Ivy League and top 20 colleges. Our team of former admissions officers and experienced storytellers guide students through the college admissions process from start to finish to help them get into their dream schools. Learn more and schedule a free consultation today at www.prepscholar.com

Successful Harvard Essay

It's 8AM. Dew blankets the grass under my bare feet as my small hands grasp the metal of the backyard fence. I lift my heels, summoning enormous power in my tiny lungs as I blare out a daily wake-up call: ""GIRLS!"" Waiting with anticipation for those familiar faces to emerge from their homes, my mind bursts with ideas eager for exploration.

Years later, at the corner of our yards, gates magically appeared; an open invitation connecting the backyards of four mismatched homes. The birth of the ""Four Corners"" inevitably developed into lifelong friendships and became the North Star in the lives of absolute strangers who have become family. As parents bonded at the gates, discussing everything from diapers to first dates, the kids took advantage of overlooked bedtimes and late night movies. Today, I launch into adulthood with the imagination, leadership, and confidence born from adolescent adventures.

Endless playtime and conversations fueled the gene of curiosity which molded my creative thinking and imagination.

Behind corner #1 lived the Irish neighbors, where I embarked on a culinary exploration of corned beef and cabbage served during the annual St. Patty's celebrations. My taste buds awakened with the novelty of a peculiar dish that seemed to dismiss the health hazards of sodium chloride, an element that conjures up mental images of chemistry experiments. With U2 playing on the speaker, and parents enjoying a pint of Guinness, adolescents discussed inventions that could lead us to a pot of gold; from apps that would revolutionize the music industry, to building a keg cooler from a rubber trash can (and yes, we actually tried that). Endless playtime and conversations fueled the gene of curiosity which molded my creative thinking and imagination.

Behind corner #2, vibrant Italians cheered on the creation of zip lines and obstacle courses, which taught me a thing or two about Newton's Laws of Motion. Body aches from brutal stops provided lessons in physics that prompted modifications. This inventive spirit during backyard projects required testing, redesigning, and rebuilding. I wanted to conquer the yard and use every square inch of it. My swimming pool hosted ""Olympic Games"", where the makeshift springboard I built would have made Michael Phelps proud. I dove into projects, disregarding smashed fingers and small fires. Through persistence and sheer will, repeated failures became a source of progress for all to enjoy. These lessons served me well when diving into the Odyssey of the Mind Competitions.

Corners #3 and #4, where Cuban roots run deep, entertained countless activities opening a world of learning and exploration. 1AM backyard stargazing encouraged my curiosity; the night sky like a blank slate, ready to be lit up with discovery. Through the eye of the telescope, I traced stars that were millions of miles away, yet filled my tent like fairy lights. Questions merged in a combinatorial explosion that only led to more questions. Could a black hole really cause spaghettification? Do the whispered echoes of dead stars give a clue to how old our universe truly is? Years later, at the FPL Energy, Power, and Sustainability Lab, conversations about smart grids, electric vehicles, and a possible colonization of the moon would take me back to that backyard camping, propelling my desire for exploration.

In my little pocket of the world, I embrace the unexpected coincidence that struck 20 years ago, when four families collided at the same exact moment in space and time. My Four Corners family, with their steadfast presence and guidance, cultivated love, maturity, risk-taking, and teamwork. Through my adventures, I became a dreamer, an inventor, an innovator, and a leader. Now, fostering my love for learning, spirit of giving back, and drive for success, I seek new adventures. Just as I walked through the magical gates of my beloved Four Corners, I will now walk through transformational thresholds to continue on a journey that began as a girl, at a fence, with a heart full of hope and a head full of possibilities.

Professional Review by PrepScholar

Marina’s essay is an excellent solution to a worry that many college applicants have: that if you haven’t experienced dramatic upheaval or overcome incredible odds, you don’t have anything interesting to write about. Marina’s essay draws on a happy childhood in a friend-filled neighborhood to connect to readers through descriptive details and sensory language that allows people who do not know her a firsthand glimpse of the world that shaped her.

One of the strongest aspects of this essay is Marina’s immersive account, which appeals to all five senses: along with her, we can feel the wet, spiky lawn as “Dew blankets the grass under my bare feet”; hear young Marina’s voice inhaling “enormous power in my tiny lungs as I blare out a daily wake-up call”; smell and taste the salty cabbage that “seemed to dismiss the health hazards of sodium chloride”; see the faraway stars that “filled my tent like fairy lights.” The specificity of this language ensures that the essay doesn’t read as generic—it is clear that only Marina (or maybe one of her backyard friends) could have written this particular essay.

Marina’s work also accomplishes well one of the other goals of application essays: using small events from your life to show more broadly some core aspect of the person you are, showcasing a deeply-held belief, the formation of a life philosophy, or a personality trait that has becoming a defining quality. In this case, Marina shows how her backyard adventures revealed a love of STEM that is explored elsewhere in her application. Cooking lessons became “chemistry experiments,” building a zip line is a course in “Newton's Laws of Motion,” and philosophizing about the stars is a precursor for an internship at “FPL Energy, Power, and Sustainability Lab, conversations about smart grids, electric vehicles, and a possible colonization of the moon.” This successful expansion allows Marina both to assert that the roots of her academic passions run deep, and that she has parlayed youthful enthusiasms into significant and meaningful extracurricular activities.

Marina's essay is an excellent solution to a worry that many college applicants have: that if you haven't experienced dramatic upheaval or overcome incredible odds, you don't have anything interesting to write about.

There are still a few pitfalls that Marina could have avoided. One is the danger of stereotype: associating the Irish family with corned beef, St. Patrick’s Day, U2, Guinness, and pots of gold runs the risk of sounding culturally insensitive or dismissive, especially as neither of the other families get this litany of cliches. Another pitfall is using too many modifiers, such as adjectives and adverbs, which can sometimes make prose sound inauthentic. Here, the first sentence, in which every noun is accompanied by an adjective and each verb is a less-used synonym of a more common one, could come across as overwritten.

Simar's Essay

Prepory is a leading college admissions and career coaching company. Our college admissions team is made up of multi-degree academics, former university faculty, former admissions officers, Ivy League writing coaches, and graduates from the nation's most elite institutions. Prepory students are 93% more likely to be admitted to one of their top five college choices and 2.5 times more likely to get into schools with acceptance rates below 20%.

Successful Harvard Essay: Simar B.

June 2nd, 2019. The birth of the new me, or "Simar 2.0" as mom called me. However, I still felt like "Simar 1.0," perceiving nothing more than the odd new sensation of a liberating breeze fluttering through my hair.

At age seventeen, I got a haircut for the first time in my life.

As a Sikh, I inherited a tradition of unshorn, cloth-bound hair, and, for most of my life, I followed my community in wholeheartedly embracing our religion. Over time, however, I felt my hair weighing me down, both materially and metaphorically.

Sikhism teaches that God is one. I asked mom why then was God cleaved into different religions? If all paths were equal, I asked dad, then why not follow some other religion instead? My unease consistently dismissed by our Sikh community, I decided to follow the religion of God: no religion. My hair, though, remained; if I knew my heart, then cutting my hair served no purpose.

Nevertheless, that unshorn hair represented an unequivocal beacon for a now defunct identity. I visited my calculus teacher's office hours, only to be peppered by incessant questions about Sikhism. He pigeonholed me into being a spokesperson for something I no longer associated with. Flustered, I excused myself to the bathroom, examining this other me in the mirror.

Through the simple act of cutting my hair, I left the confines of intolerance, but my experience opened my eyes to those whose struggles cannot be resolved so easily.

Why this hair? This question kept coming back.

I ransacked my conscience, and it became painfully obvious. Fear. Fear of what my conservative grandparents might think. Fear of what my Sikh family friends might say. Fear of what my peers might ask. This hair had usurped my sense of self.

So off it came.

A few days after crossing my personal Rubicon, I flew to India to meet my grandparents.

Breezing through the airport, I perceived something remarkably different about my experience: the absence of the penetrating surveillance that had consistently accompanied me for seventeen years. It was uncanny; I felt as an anodyne presence.

Apprehensively entering my grandparents' New Delhi home some eighteen hours later, I found myself enveloped in hugs. Savoring the moment, I failed to probe why. I recognize now that, in spite of their intransigent religious views, they appreciated that I had made a decision about my identity based on belief, based on being true to my evolving sense of self. I think my grandparents found that admirable.

A few weeks later, dad confessed, "I regret that you did not cut your hair earlier."

I have no regrets.

My hair made me work harder than everyone else simply because I looked different. Sanctimonious people lecture us on having pride in our differences, rarely considering the difficulties which being different entails. For example, a fake Facebook page created by an unknown schoolmate with my birthday listed as September 11th, 2001. Dealing with attacks fueled by ignorance never becomes easier, but such aggressions bolster my courage to face what other people think. In standing up for myself, I become myself.

On some level, I know appearances should not matter. Yet, in many uncomfortable ways, they still do, and they give birth to many disparities. Through the simple act of cutting my hair, I left the confines of intolerance, but my experience opened my eyes to those whose struggles cannot be resolved so easily. This motivates me to never be a bystander, to always energetically take the side of the persecuted in the fight against the powerful.

Over my years of shadowing, I have seen a healthcare system where patients receive inferior care solely on the basis of perceived race. Exposure to this institutionalized injustice motivates me to volunteer with a free health clinic to provide glucose screenings to the underprivileged. We must lead with personal initiative first, starting on the individual level and building from there. Only then can we bring about systemic change to reform the institutions and practices that perpetuate prejudice within medicine and without.

Professional Review by Prepory

From the beginning of this essay, Simar pulls us into a meaningful coming-of-age narrative that, despite being so unique, is universally understandable. The chosen topic is ideal, in that it is not only reflective but enlightening; while not all readers must face the social and cultural responsibilities and implications of belonging to the Sikh religion, Simar brings this struggle to light with intense and moving clarity. Through their story, they delicately weave the unique challenges of their culture and religion into the powerful experience of reclaiming their identity and becoming who they truly are. In doing so, the student skillfully demonstrates that they have the self-understanding, internal strength, and aptitude for growth that are required to break away and reshape the confines which have defined us since our births.

Through their story, they delicately weave the unique challenges of their culture and religion into the powerful experience of reclaiming their identity and becoming who they truly are.

Simar accomplishes all of this with an unwavering, clearly-defined voice, actively resisting the common temptation to exaggerate their struggles with extreme word choice or a melodramatic tone that can come off poorly to admissions readers. Instead, the tone remains very real, always presenting as honest and matter-of-fact in the face of frustration and adversity, providing several instances of real-life experiences, such as airport surveillance, targeted bullying, and being misunderstood by a teacher because of the way they look. Even so, Simar leaves room for symbolism by emphasizing the state of, and their relationship with, their hair through the different stages of their journey, providing a concrete way to conceptualize their development.

Lastly, Simar's essay is a great example of how personal statements don’t need to universally feature “happy endings,” or central notes of light-heartedness and gratitude in order to demonstrate growth. This student does an excellent job of navigating what we generally consider to be a “heavy” topic in a way that is contemplative, considerate, and empowering. They end the personal statement by successfully tying this defining moment in their personal development to their extracurricular experience and even further, their goals and aspirations for the future — becoming an advocate for those who face similar prejudice in the U.S. medical system.

Una's Essay

The mission of Steele Street College Consulting is to educate students and families about the college admission process while making the process as enjoyable and as stress-free as possible. It concludes with the positive outcome of finding the “right fit” college for each client.

The principal factor at Steele Street College Consulting is to truly understand the student’s individual and educational goals. A successful college admissions experience is a team effort, and it is essential for the student to be engaged and “own” the entire process all with our unwavering support.

The ﬁrst word I ever spoke was my name. I was intrigued that my entire identity could be attached to and compressed into such a simple sound. I would tell everyone I met that my name meant “one,” that it made me special because it sounded like “unique.” When I learned to write, I covered sheets of paper with the letters U, N, and A. Eventually, I realized that paper was not enough—I needed to cover the world with my name, my graffiti tag.

This came to a screeching halt in kindergarten. One day in music class, I scratched UNA into the piano’s wood. Everyone was surprised that I tagged my name and not someone else’s. I didn’t want someone else to suffer for my misdeeds. I wanted to take something, to make it mine.

Kindergarten was also the year my parents signed me up for piano lessons, and every aspect of them was torture. I had to learn to read an entirely new language, stretch my ﬁngers to ﬁt challenging intervals, use my arms with enough force to sound chords but not topple over, grope around blindly while keeping my eyes on the music, and the brain-splitting feat of doing this with each hand separately. Hardest was the very act of sitting down to practice. The physical challenges were more or less surmountable, but tackling them felt lonely and pointless.

I only fell in love with music when I found myself in a sweaty church on the Upper West Side—my ﬁrst chamber music concert, the ﬁnal event of a two-week camp the summer before sixth grade. I was nervous. My group, playing a Shostakovich prelude, was the youngest, so we went ﬁrst. My legs shook uncontrollably before, during, and after I played. I nearly became sick afterward from shame and relief. I was so disappointed that I thought I could never face my new music friends again. From the front row, I plotted my escape route for when the concert ﬁnished. But I didn’t run. I watched the whole concert. I watched the big kids breathe in unison, occupying the same disconnected body. I fell in love with music through the way they belonged to each other, the way they saw each other without even looking.

I fell in love with music through the way they belonged to each other, the way they saw each other without even looking.

I stuck with that chamber camp. In the twenty chamber groups that have made up my last six years, I’ve performed in six-inch heels and nearly fallen off-stage during my bow. I’ve performed in sneakers and a sweatshirt, on pianos with half the keys broken and the other half wildly out of tune, in subway stations, nursing homes, international orchestras, Carnegie Hall, and on Zoom.

Chamber music doesn’t work when everyone aims to be a star; it works when everyone lets everyone else shine through. It’s more fun that way. A musical notation I rarely saw before playing chamber music is “una corda,” which says to put the soft pedal down and play on only “one string,” usually to highlight another player’s solo. I don’t need to be the loudest to breathe in unison with my friends, to create something beautiful. In that moment, I’m not just Una, I’m the pianist in the Dohnanyi sextet.

I started to love music only when I realized it doesn’t belong to me. I had to stop trying to make piano my own and take pleasure in sharing it. I learned that the rests in my part were as meaningful as the notes; that although my name means “one,” I’d rather not be the “only.” My favorite compliment I’ve received was that I made an audience member feel like they were sitting onstage next to me. This, to me, is the essence of chamber music. To pull your audience onto the stage, trusting your group isn’t enough—you have to fuse together, to forget you exist. For a few minutes, you have to surrender your name.

Professional Review by Steele Street Consulting

Una’s personal journey with her growth as a musician makes this essay work. She immediately captures the reader's attention with a powerful and introspective statement about her name. The desire to cover the world with her name and graffiti as a form of self-expression at a young age adds an element of curiosity and individuality. Una’s recognition of potential consequences and her ultimate desire to take responsibility demonstrates her integrity and self-awareness.

A strong essay incorporates vulnerability. Una shows hers comes as she explores her journey describing the physical and mental difficulties involved in playing the piano, along with the feeling of loneliness and pointlessness. She also creates a sense of perseverance and determination in the face of her obstacles.

The essay truly shines when Una describes her transformative experience at the chamber music concert. Her openness and profound realization about the power of music to connect people is truly moving.

Una’s essay further showcases her commitment to music through her diverse performances in various settings. Understanding the collaborative nature of chamber music and her willingness to let others shine through demonstrate Una’s growth as a musician and an appreciation for the beauty that can be created through teamwork.

Una concludes the essay with the realization that creating something beautiful in music doesn't require being the loudest or the star.

Una concludes the essay with the realization that creating something beautiful in music doesn't require being the loudest or the star. She embraces the idea of breathing in unison with her friends and finding joy in letting others shine through. This insight reflects her growth as a musician and her understanding of the importance of collaboration and shared experiences.

Overall, this essay successfully communicates Una’s personal journey, her love for music, and her understanding of the transformative power of collaboration and selflessness. The narrative structure, vivid descriptions, vulnerability, reflective tone, and incorporation of the readers senses, reflective tone make Una’s essay engaging, impactful, and memorable.

Georgina's Essay

Admission Science does things differently. Put simply, we’re here to cut through the BS and tell it how it is. Started by two Harvard grads who both got into every Ivy + Stanford, we've walked the walk ourselves. But more importantly, we've now helped thousands of other motivated students get into their dream schools. Come be our next success story. Click here to watch our free online workshop for crafting the perfect application (and download 58 more successful Harvard essays as a bonus).

Successful Harvard Essay: ‘When Life Doesn’t Gives You Lemons’

With the blazing morning sun beaming through the window, I had an inclination to make a stand to sell Lebanese laymounada - a light lemonade flavored with a splash of rosewater. Throughout my childhood, anytime the temperature spiked over seventy degrees, there would be laymounada waiting for me at my Teta’s (grandmother in Lebanese Arabic) house.

At that moment, I scoured the cabinets and secured the glass pitcher only to realize we did not have lemons. To my disappointment, I realized my days of being an entrepreneur and generating revenue from my laymounada stand were over before they could even begin. I sat at the kitchen table, wallowing in disappointment. I wanted everyone to be able to taste my Teta’s laymounada. Suddenly, I had an idea that would either prove to be inventive or a total failure. I would sell lemonade without the lemons. Revolutionary, right?

My six-year-old self would have seen this lack of continuity as a colossal failure, but instead, it instilled an intense curiosity in me.

I ripped off a rectangular sheet of paper towel and jotted down my business plan. I listed the key elements of the business plan: a drawing of a cup, a rose, and the price- “fifty scents”- to correlate with the rose-themed business. I sat outside of my childhood home located in a cul-de-sac of five houses and sold my neighbors a rose drink- a combination of filtered water, packets of sugar, and a dash of rosewater. Granted, I only made about $10 from a combination of my parents and generous neighbors who did not drink the “lemonade”, but the experience allowed me to realize regardless of the obstacle, if you are passionate, you can persevere. Teta’s laymounada was my introduction to entrepreneurship.

The entrepreneurial skills gained from my laymounada stand allowed me to establish A&G Jewelry, co-founded with my sister when I was twelve. This business focused on representing our Lebanese heritage. Using supplies we found around our house and from our local craft store, we created a variety of pieces that featured traditional Middle Eastern coins, beads, and clay baked into the shape of Lebanon. My sister and I collaborated to create marketing tools to promote our new business. Before we knew it, A&G Jewelry had earned a spot at my church’s annual Lebanese festival. After tirelessly marketing and selling our jewelry for three days straight, we had made over $900 in revenue, which we decided to donate to the church.

Entrepreneurship took a new form in high school when my sister and I founded our second partnership, The Model Brockton City Council. We saw a need to engage our peers in local government by designing a simulation of our city council. We had to collect signatures, present to many administrators, and market our new club. The initial goal to have more people try my lemonade resonated with me as I strived to have more people engage in their civic duties. Today, over twenty-five of my classmates frequently attend my meetings.

With my first business venture selling laymounada, I made $10; with A&G Jewelry, $900; with the Model Brockton City Council, the revenue amounted to $0. Although there was not a financial gain, I attained experience as a negotiator, problem solver, creative thinker, and most importantly, I became persistent.

Twelve years have passed since that summer day with my “laymounada,” and I have yet to maintain a long-lasting business. My six-year-old self would have seen this lack of continuity as a colossal failure, but instead, it instilled an intense curiosity in me. Little did I know the experience would remain so vivid after all these years. It has continued to push me, compelling me to challenge myself both academically and entrepreneurially. As I grow older, my intrinsic drive to have a lemonade stand, regardless of whatever obstacles come my way, persists as a deep-seated love of business.

When life doesn’t give you lemons, still make lemonade (or laymounada, as my Teta would say).

Professional Review by Admission Science

Many successful college essays follow a simple formula: Hook + Anchor + Story + Growth. While the specifics may vary, you’ll have a compelling essay if you can include each of these four elements.

Hook: The job of the “hook” is to draw the reader in. Admissions officers read hundreds of essays every day, so try to grab their attention right away. Start your essay with something intriguing or different.

Georgina’s hook is her “laymounada” stand. What’s so special about Lebanese laymounada? How’s it different from regular lemonade? Who’s Teta? Georgina piques the reader's curiosity with her cultural twist on the classic lemonade stand story.

Anchor: The “anchor” is an idea or theme that connects the entire essay, giving it meaning. A great anchor is thought-provoking, leaving readers feeling satisfied after finishing the piece.

Georgina nails all four of these key elements—hook, anchor, story, and growth—and that's why this essay succeeds.

Georgina’s anchor is the idea that life did not give her lemons. She couldn’t find a single lemon in her home, so she had to get creative and sell lemon-free laymounada. This experience taught her perseverance, leading to a string of other entrepreneurial ventures. Finally, the essay returns to this anchor to tie everything together: “When life doesn’t give you lemons, still make lemonade (or laymounada, as my Teta would say).”

Story: When it comes to telling a story, the golden rule is “show, don’t tell.” Don’t just tell admissions officers what a great person you are. Instead, try to show them your personality, character, and accomplishments through your story.

In Georgina’s story, she shares all the colorful details that made her lemonade stand experience memorable for her. For example, she sprinkles in fun details like pricing her drink as “fifty scents” to fit the rose theme. She also jokes that the $10 she made mostly came from supportive parents and generous neighbors who didn’t even bother drinking the “lemonade.”

These details paint Georgina as fun, creative, and enterprising, while also showing her humility. She also does a great job weaving in how she was driven to make an impact on her community: “After tirelessly marketing and selling our jewelry for three days straight, we had made over $900 in revenue, which we decided to donate to the church.”

Growth: All great college essays clearly show how you’ve grown from your experiences. Be sure to highlight what you’ve learned or gained from your experiences.

For example, Georgina learned that her lack of continuity in her business ventures was not a "colossal failure." Instead, it cultivated her curiosity, ability to persist, and love of business. By the end of the essay, it’s clear that Georgina is someone who’s passionate (about business), with a track record of carving out her own path. She’s able to take lessons from each experience and apply them in her next endeavors.

Georgina nails all four of these key elements—hook, anchor, story, and growth—and that’s why this essay succeeds.

Abby's Essay

JK Essays is run by me- Jacob Katz. I'm a recent Princeton graduate who helps students achieve admission into America's top universities. Each year, I provide concierge, one-on-one guidance to a handful of ambitious high school seniors. My students receive my personal phone number, and I never outsource their essays to be reviewed by others. I founded my consultancy because I love crafting stories and encouraging students to discover their voices. Above all, I love helping students turn their "reach" into their reality.

Barreling through the hallowed, mahogany double doors, I was on a mission. I made a beeline for the back. Behold, a panoply of new prospects, each beckoning me to read them.

Every weekend, my father, my sister, and I make the pilgrimage to Book Mecca. The sensations one meets upon entering Barnes and Noble are unmatched. The aroma of coffee mingles with the crisp perfume of unopened books, and the tinny music drifts from the ceiling speakers, coalescing with the clanking of the Cafe equipment, which is intermittently overcome by the barista's peppy voice on the PA system announcing the latest limited-edition dessert. Where else can one enjoy a triple-layer cheesecake among bookstacks? As Virginia Woolf says, "one cannot think well, love well, sleep well, if one has not dined well."

My family, however, dines on knowledge. To us, Barnes and Noble is an all-you-can-eat buffet for the mind. After we snag our favorite corner table, I sit, like metal to a magnet, immovable for hours.

I may delve into an Agatha Christie novel and attempt to outwit Detective Poirot; though I never win, I find the sleuthing remarkably similar to analyzing confounders the culprits of unexpected results-in my clinical research. Alternatively, I may crack open an atlas to test my memory from the summer when I memorized the entire world map. Or, I might read Animal Farm to better understand the system that ravaged Ethiopia in the late 20th century and forced my grandfather to flee his own village.

United by their good humor and love for Barnes and Noble, this unlikely group teaches me that a community can form around anything

Complimenting this mission to satisfy our voracious minds comes an equally important fulfillment: engaging with the coterie of miscellaneous characters we have befriended. After visiting the same Barnes and Noble for eleven years, we have forged friendships with several regulars, including a retired teacher couple, an octogenarian with a seven-year-old brother, and an eternally sunburned man named George who shelters feral cats at his pool company's office. After a dear Barnes and Noble-goer passed away, my heart was comforted when I read in her obituary that she, indeed, would be missed by "the old [bookstore] gang." United by their good humor and love for Barnes and Noble, this unlikely group teaches me that a community can form around anything, no matter how disparate the members are. They show me that, in Aristotle's words, "educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all."

While I have the luxury of Barnes and Noble, my father's reality growing up in rural Ethiopia bears a stark contrast and defines my legacy of education. He received a meager education in a laughable schoolhouse, using sunlight to study by day, and the moonlight by night. When he was nine, my grandfather opened a school so my father could continue beyond 4th grade, unlike many of his peers. My grandfather had no formal education, yet he knew the country's constitution by heart and exhorted nearby villages to educate their children.

My father's dedication to chauffeuring me to the bookstore and the library is an artifact of his father's same dedication. And I am the accumulation of this legacy. Behind me are all of the sacrifices and payoffs of my family's dedication to education, and before me is a lifetime of opportunity and fulfillment. Though I have never met my grandfather, I feel an incredibly palpable connection to him through our shared fervor to learn and teach. My father's and grandfather's stories remind me that education is not a commodity for many, but a privilege that I treat as such. I cherish all of my education's wonderful consequences: the obscure curiosities I have indulged in, the strong sense of identity I have developed, the discernment and morals I have bolstered, the respect I have gained for different viewpoints, and the ambition for excellence that I have inherited and extended. They are what fuel me, my college education, and my drive to pay it forward.

Professional Review by JK Essays

Abby's essay is excellent. Here's what she did and how you can do it too:

Abby utilizes a method which I call the "aisle essay." Imagine pushing a shopping cart through a grocery store, selecting your favorite foods and organizing them in your cart. The "aisle essay" is where the writer pushes a proverbial shopping cart through her past, present, and future, collecting her anecdotes, interests, and values, along the way. Think of the cart as the essay's setting. Abby's cart is Barnes & Noble. The steadfast setting grounds the essay in some easily-pictured world, allowing Abby to reach into different facets of her life without making the essay seem scattered.

As long as each subtopic in your essay is found in your cart, the essay will read as a unified, logical piece.

The aisle essay is where the writer pushes a proverbial shopping cart through her past, present, and future

In Abby's case, she uses the library's books and its Cafe to masterfully pivot towards her personal narrative. The detective novels recall her "clinical research." Mentioning Animal Farm allows her to bring up her grandfather's extraordinary story. By describing the quirky community she formed in the Cafe, Abby shows us that she is a people person, excited by connection and remembered by those she meets. So, while this essay took place in a Barnes & Noble, that's hardly what it's about. Barnes & Noble is only a staging ground to tell us about Abby.

Abby concludes the essay with what is clearly a core value: gratitude. She does not go overboard, dramatically claiming that she will change or save the world. Instead, she just gives a glimpse of who she really is: a fiercely curious girl who frequents a bookstore - someone who is inspired by her past and barreling through the mahogany doors of her future.

Can you think of a setting which is quintessentially you? Which interests and values will you grab off the shelves in your aisle essay?

Amy's Essay

Sponsored by MR. MBA® , a USA 501c3 Nonprofit- We Help Get Students Into Top Schools (College, MBA, Masters) & Careers. >2,000 Top School Acceptances, 99.9% Success Rate! We Help Make People’s Dreams Come True!

Please visit our website www.MrMBA.org for more info on our Nonprofit College / MBA / Masters / Careers advisory, our student impact, what our students say, and more!

MR. MBA® helps students worldwide who can afford to make a donation to us and those who cannot! Contact us to discuss: WhatsApp/(+1) 917- 331- 2633, LinkedIn , Instagram , Facebook .

Successful Harvard Essay: ‘The Color of Everything’

There’s a theory that even though each color has a specific wavelength that never changes, how people perceive a specific color may have subtle differences based on small differences in photoreceptors, and the color that one person might consider red might still be red in another’s mind but could look different— a little duller, softer, cooler. Furthermore, how a person’s brain processes the color may also be linked to that person’s environment. Some studies have suggested that color sensitivity could be linked to one’s native languages: for example, people who speak languages that have specific names for eleven colors are able to easily distinguish those eleven colors, but people who speak languages with fewer color specific words may have a harder time distinguishing them.

So it appears that even at the most elementary level of sight, the world is not an objective thing. Instead, what we know and what we remember can influence what and how we see. The color blue may just be the color blue to a three year old, perhaps her favorite color even, but an adult might connect it to so much more—the lake by his childhood home or the eye color of a loved one.

Knowledge is color; it is depth, and it is seeing a whole new world without having to move an inch.

I first consciously became aware of the power that our experiences have to change perception when I went to turn on a light in my house after learning about photons in class. What had previously been a mundane light suddenly became a fascinating application of atomic structure, and I thought that I could almost perceive the electrons jumping up and down from energy level to energy level to produce the photons that I saw. I then realized that my world had steadily been changing throughout my years in school as I learned more and more. I now see oligopolies in the soda aisles of the supermarkets. I see the charges warring with each other in every strike of lightning, and the patterns of old American politics still swaying things today. Knowledge and making connections with that knowledge is the difference between seeing the seven oceans glittering in the sun and merely seeing the color blue. It’s the difference between just seeing red and seeing the scarlet of roses blooming, the burgundy of blood pumping through veins, and crimson of anger so fierce that you could burst. Knowledge is color; it is depth, and it is seeing a whole new world without having to move an inch.

It is knowledge, too, that can bring people together. I love listening to people’s stories and hearing about what they know and love, because if I learn about what they know, I can learn how they see the world; consequently, since behavior is often based upon perception, I can understand why a person behaves the way they do. On a road trip during the summer, my mom kept looking up at the streetlights lining the highways. When I asked why, she told me that whenever she saw lights by a highway she would wonder if her company had made them. She would guess how tall they were, how wide, and what style they were. She told me that ever since she started working for her company, lights no longer were just lights to her. They were a story of people who first had to measure the wind speed to figure out what dimension the lights had to be, and then of engineers, of money passing hands—possibly even under her own supervision as an accountant—and then of transportation, and of the people who had to install them. I might never perceive lights the exact way my mother does or see her “red” but by hearing her describe what she knows, I can understand her world and realize her role in ours.

Beauty and color are in the world, but it is seeking the unknown and making new connections that unlocks them from their greyscale cage.

Professional Review by MR. MBA®, Val Misra

Amy crafts a standout, thought-provoking essay centered on ‘intellectual curiosity’ using vivid, descriptive language to connect intriguing scientific theories, studies on colors and sight to showcase how our limited or expansive knowledge can shape our reality and experiences. Evident throughout the essay is Amy’s continuing passion and growth to learn and connect her knowledge to her surroundings to find hidden truths. That one can seek to understand another’s behavior or perception by learning their knowledge or story is a simple yet deeply profound, macro theme- the curiosity for knowledge, truth, sharing ideas and experiences can undeniably bring many people together. I am reminded of the discoverer of special and general relativity Albert Einstein’s famous self-quote: “I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious.”

The essay is very well-structured; each paragraph further illuminates Amy's thirst for new information and connection.

The essay is very well-structured; each paragraph further illuminates Amy’s thirst for new information and connection. In paragraphs 1-2, she begins with a fascinating scientific backdrop of how colors, despite having a particular wavelength, can be visually different to two people based on the number of languages they know. This is captivating; I want to read more! She seamlessly ties theories and studies on colors to deduce that our world is not a one-size-fits-all journey and our individual education, experiences can change what we see and how.

In paragraph 3, Amy exemplifies her first ‘A-ha’ moment, realizing and visualizing her classroom learning of the true scientific process of photon particles emanating from her “mundane light”! Her sponge-like mind, soaking in new streams of data within her growing world, begins connecting everyday activities to big-picture ideas- economics, natural phenomenon, and politics. This is very well explicated!

Paragraph 4 is a gamechanger. Her education-to-social-understanding mantra further enlightens us: education, open-mindedness and learning about others’ stories, experiences can indeed create bridges between seemingly different worlds. Amy provides a final example using her own mother’s awareness of highway streetlights to show that anyone can connect their knowledge, experiences with their environment. Amy closes superbly imparting wisdom from her own life and clear introspection for “seeking the unknown and making connections.”

Overall, Amy builds to a potent conclusion: Education, empathy, listening, understanding, and connecting, all drive her intellectual passion for life. Citing her desire to understand all things, especially people, Amy portrays herself as a passionately curious and likable student- an ideal addition to a vibrant academic community.

Samantha's Essay

Artie Smith is a former advising and admissions dean who also coached Division I track at Duke and Cornell for 23 years. Through his company, Arthur Smith Advising , he now helps high school students and their families navigate the college admissions and application process. Artie earned his BA from Cornell University and his MA and PhD from Duke University.

Artie worked in undergraduate admissions at Cornell for 15 years. As an assistant dean, he chaired admissions committees for the College of Arts and Sciences, and had a number of other university-wide admissions duties.

His career in higher education has also been defined by a highly successful 23 years of coaching track and field and cross country at the Division I level. A nationally recognized distance coach who worked with 3 Olympians, 19 All-Americans, 31 Ivy League champions, and 12 Eastern champions while coaching 19 Ivy League Championship teams, Artie was Cornell’s head women’s track and field and cross country coach.

During his time in the Ivy League, Artie chaired admissions committees and evaluated over 20,000 applications; served as a faculty advisor and advising dean; managed the TransAtlantic Series, an exchange between Cornell University and Oxford and Cambridge Universities in the United Kingdom; and mentored hundreds of student-athletes.

Successful Harvard Essay: Samantha C.

I’ve always been a storyteller, but I’ve only been an alleged fish killer since age five. As a child, my head was so filled up with stories that I might have forgotten to feed Bubbles the class pet just one time too often. Once I pulverized an entire pencil, because I was daydreaming instead of taking it out of the sharpener.

More than anything else, I became an obsessive list-maker. I memorized and wrote down long lists of my stuffed animals, cities around the world, and my favorite historical time periods. I created itineraries and packing lists for my Build-A-Bears, then arranged them in rows on a pretend airplane. I drew family trees for a made-up family during the Industrial Revolution. I wrote lists until the spine of my notebook cracked under the weight of graphite.

For a long time, I thought this was something that I alone did, and that I did alone. Lying on the floor of my bedroom, I spun fantastical stories of mundane events. Each story opened and closed in my head, untold and unsung.

Now, stories connect me to the world, creating communities instead of pulling me away from them.

Years later, though—to my amazement—I discovered other people who were interested in the same things I was. Wandering into fanfiction websites and online forums, I was welcomed into a vibrant community of writers—serious, silly, passionate people who wrote hundreds of thousands of words analyzing character dynamics and exploring endless plot threads. When I finally started posting my own thoughts, I didn’t feel like I was taking a risk or venturing into new territory. I had been speaking these words to myself since I was five, preparing myself to finally shout them into the real world. And people responded.

Spurred on by this excitement, I started writing stories for other people to read. I had fallen in love with the community writing had given me, and with writing itself. I wanted to contribute my own small piece to a world much bigger than me. I shouted my stories up to the WiFi signals that caught and carried them, waiting to be found by someone else writing lists in her bedroom alone.

In high school, I also found joy in editing. I loved analyzing, polishing, and curating my classmates’ short stories, poems, and artwork to make them shine for my school’s literary magazine. I spent hours with other editors, passionately arguing the merits and weaknesses of dozens of writing pieces. Editing the school newspaper, meanwhile, became a way to spotlight members of the school community, from profiling new staff and faculty to polling the student body about the stigma surrounding menstruation.

I’ve now had my poems published in a national literary journal and have joined the editorial staff of an international literary magazine for teens. I feel like I’m discovering my power, and with it my ability to create change. Last year, I founded SPEAK, a creative writing program for elementary school students. I wanted to assist younger writers so they could create their own communities. During SPEAK sessions, I taught a group of students how to draw a map of a fantasy wolf kingdom they had designed, helped a girl edit her classmate’s poem about hula hoops, and listened to a third-grader talk faster and faster as we discussed the meaning of soup in The Tale of Despereaux.

I’ve now turned SPEAK into a self-sustaining club at my school, and I’m expanding the program onto an online platform. Writing changed my life, but it only happened when I started sharing my work, putting it out there, and starting conversations—not just responding. Alone, stories used to abstract me from the outside world. Now, stories connect me to the world, creating communities instead of pulling me away from them. For too many of us, our stories are born in our heads, and they die there. I’m going to change that, for myself and for as many people as I can bring with me.

Professional Review by Arthur Smith

I love this essay! After the first sentence, I wanted to read more. By the end of the third sentence, I was already eager to meet this student!

But above all there is a narrative thread of growth.

This essay succeeds because we not only get insight into their innate curiosity and imagination but we get a sense of their personal growth. We see the student becoming more confident and finding their place in the larger community. The pop culture and historical allusions are a nice touch which humanize the writing while making it eminently readable. But above all there is a narrative thread of growth. The student sprinkles in occasional accomplishments that are milestones of that growth, but it doesn't feel like a resume or contrived list… it all fits together at the end as we get a sense of their creative process and the importance of story in their life.

Curious, creative, concerned about others... and a sense of personal growth. Lots of great themes and personal attributes that make the reader not only like this student but want to meet them.

Connor's Essay

As an admission essay specialist , Dan Lichterman has been empowering students to find their voice since 2004. He helps students stand out on paper, eliminating the unnecessary so the necessary may speak. Drawing upon his storytelling background, Dan guides applicants to craft authentic essays that leap off the page. He is available for online writing support within the US and internationally. To learn more and schedule a brief complimentary consultation visit danlichterman.com.

Successful Harvard Essay: Waking Up Early

Getting out of bed in the middle of a long, New Hampshire winter was never easy, but some mornings were especially difficult. On those particularly tough mornings, when the temperature could no longer be measured in the comfortable world of positive numbers, my dad would be up before the sun. He would turn on the gas fireplace in his bedroom, carry milk, cereal, bowls and spoons upstairs, and then wake up me and my siblings. We would wrap ourselves in blankets as we ate our breakfast by the fire. I would complain about having to wake up early, never considering that my dad had been up long before.

Every morning for years he woke me up, packed my lunch, and drove me to school. He helped me with homework, coached my soccer team and taught me how to ski. Even as I’ve gotten older and started to pour my own cereal, my dad hasn’t stopped waking up early. He gets up long before my alarm clock even thinks about waking me, walks to his office (a desk, chair and laptop situated above our garage) and starts to work. He works nearly every day, only taking the occasional break to engage in such leisure activities as splitting wood and mowing the lawn. As I’ve grown older I’ve looked up to him more and more.

There have been times in the past four years when I’ve come home with seemingly unbearable amounts of homework and I’ve thought, “I could settle for a B on this essay” or “How important really are the laws of thermodynamics?” On those late nights, when I’m on the verge of trading my notebooks in for a tv remote, I think about my dad. I think about how hard he’s worked to make my life easier, and I realize that mediocrity isn’t a viable option. I go downstairs, pour myself a glass of ice water, turn on some music, and get back to my work.

On those late nights, when I'm on the verge of trading my notebooks in for a tv remote, I think about my dad.

Sometimes it’s hard to imagine my dad being young, but twenty-nine years ago, my dad was entering his senior year at Gilford High School. He had won a soccer championship under head coach Dave Pinkham, and was on track for another title that year. He was doing lawn care with his brother to make some extra money, and dreading the speech he would have to make at graduation.

I am now entering my senior year at Gilford High School. I won a soccer championship under the same Dave Pinkham as a sophomore, and hopefully I’m heading toward another this year. I’m running Leggett Lawn Care (which, despite its two unofficial part-time employees, has not yet gone public) and denying the inevitability of the speech I have to make this June. I’m keeping up my grades and trying to emulate my dad by putting others first. I teach Sunday School at my church, support the freshmen and sophomores on my soccer team, and give up countless hours of sleep helping my classmates with calculus. It’s now my turn to go out into the world and figure out what I want to do and who I want to become. I don’t know exactly where I see myself in five years; I don’t even know which state I’ll be living in next fall. I do know though that if I’m half the man my father is, (which genetically I am) I’ll have the strength and humility that I need to selflessly contribute to the world around me.

Professional Review by Dan Lichterman

In an attempt to break through admission readers’ attention economy, many candidates reach for an unusual topic. Yet an essay can have impact even when the topic itself is more universal. Applicants who address familiar topics must find ways to bring specificity and self- insight to their narrative, enabling the particularity of their experiences to resonate anew.

It is no small feat that Connor has been able to take a story about finding inspiration in a parent’s example and make it thoroughly his own. His essay evokes a rustic upbringing rooted in grit and humility. Connor paints a visceral and unforgettable image of a sub-zero New England morning in which his father has brought breakfast upstairs so that Connor and his siblings can eat, wrapped in blankets, alongside a gas fireplace in the father’s bedroom. The vignette powerfully encapsulates both the cozy warmth within Connor’s home life and the father’s inspiring stoicism, “I would complain about waking up early, never considering my dad had been up long before.”

The essay goes on to illustrate the father’s selfless dedication to his family (“only taking the occasional break to engage in such leisure activities as splitting wood and mowing the lawn”). While many students may admire their parents’ sacrifices, Connor’s recounting of his dad’s work ethic and values feels genuine because of its conversational style. By the time Connor tells us that he’s grown to look up to his father’s inexhaustible spirit more and more, we know precisely what he means.

Connor's recounting of his dad's work ethic and values feels genuine because of its conversational style.

Personal statements that address the topic of role models often risk taking the spotlight away from the actual candidate seeking admission. Connor avoids this pitfall by redirecting the focus entirely back to himself halfway through his word count. He credits his own academic tenacity to his father’s example, “when I’m on the verge of trading my notebooks in for a tv remote, I think about my dad.” There is power within such simple phrasing and we recognize that Connor is writing from the heart, rather than from the thesaurus. He then draws parallels between his father’s Gilford High School years and his own–from successful soccer championships, to part-time lawn care, to graduation speeches. Connor’s playful aside about Legget Lawn Care remaining a privately owned company perfectly suits his theme of an intergenerational legacy grounded in small town community life.

The unconditional acts of service Connor admires in his father are paid forward in Connor’s own church teaching, soccer support, and Calculus tutoring. This connection feels understated rather than resume grandstanding, particularly when paired with Connor’s earnestness about the uncertainties of leaving Gilford behind. This essay’s success makes a clear case for the value of not overselling yourself and for the capacity of a single well-told anecdote to evoke an entire childhood.

Tony's Essay

Successful harvard essay: beauty in complexity.

Gazing up at the starry sky, I see Cygnus, Hercules, and Pisces, remnants of past cultures. I listen to waves crash on the beach, the forces of nature at work. Isn’t it odd how stars are flaming spheres and electrical impulses make beings sentient? The very existence of our world is a wonder; what are the odds that this particular planet developed all the necessary components, parts that all work in unison, to support life? How do they interact? How did they come to be? I thought back to how my previously simplistic mind-set evolved this past year.

The very existence of our world is a wonder; what are the odds that this particular planet developed all the necessary components, parts that all work in unison, to support life?

At Balboa, juniors and seniors join one of five small learning communities, which are integrated into the curriculum. Near the end of sophomore year, I ranked my choices: Law Academy first—it seemed the most prestigious—and WALC, the Wilderness Arts and Literacy Collaborative, fourth. So when I was sorted into WALC, I felt disappointed at the inflexibility of my schedule and bitter toward my classes. However, since students are required to wait at least a semester before switching pathways, I stayed in WALC. My experiences that semester began shifting my ambition-oriented paradigm to an interest-oriented one. I didn’t switch out.

Beyond its integrated classes, WALC takes its students on trips to natural areas not only to build community among its students, but also to explore complex natural processes and humanity’s role in them. Piecing these lessons together, I create an image of our universe. I can visualize the carving of glacial valleys, the creation and gradation of mountains by uplift and weathering, and the transportation of nutrients to and from ecosystems by rivers and salmon. I see these forces on the surface of a tiny planet rotating on its axis and orbiting the sun, a gem in this vast universe. Through WALC, I have gained an intimate understanding of natural systems and an addiction to understanding the deep interconnections embedded in our cosmos.

Understanding a system’s complex mechanics not only satisfies my curiosity, but also adds beauty to my world; my understanding of tectonic and gradational forces allows me to appreciate mountains and coastlines beyond aesthetics. By physically going to the place described in WALC’s lessons, I have not only gained the tools to admire these systems, but have also learned to actually appreciate them. This creates a thirst to see more beauty in a world that’s filled with poverty and violence, and a hunger for knowledge to satisfy that thirst. There are so many different systems to examine and dissect—science alone has universal, planetary, molecular, atomic, and subatomic scales to investigate. I hope to be able to find my interests by taking a variety of courses in college, and further humanity’s understanding through research, so that all can derive a deeper appreciation for the complex systems that govern this universe.

Tony’s essay opens with stargazing at the ocean’s edge where we experience his boundless curiosity towards the natural world, sentience, and life itself. This wide-eyed wonderment is rendered artfully, yet what actually enables this essay to succeed is its ability to ponder deep concepts without getting lost in the clouds.

The story itself revolves around an event that seems far removed from the incomprehensibility of the universe: a randomized selection has assigned Tony to study wilderness arts when he preferred the path of law. He is bitter that a decision impacting his studies has been determined by chance. We see vulnerability in his admission that he was beholden to an “ambition oriented paradigm,” rather than studying what interested him most. However, what we discover through the rest of the essay is that Tony’s decision to remain in wilderness arts is one that has transformed him completely, changing his perspective from a “simplistic mindset” to one that is addicted to “understanding the deep interconnections embedded in our cosmos.”

The strength of Tony's language helps us appreciate the breadth and excitement of his unforseen awakening.

The strength of Tony’s language helps us appreciate the breadth and excitement of his unforseen awakening. From visualizing the “carving of glacial valleys” to reveling in the complex mechanics of natural systems, the essay showcases how much more Tony appreciates our world thanks to an event that had once seemed unfairly arbitrary. Observing Tony’s thirst for life’s interconnectedness, we grow confident that his evolving perspective will guide his studies into exciting unexpected realms.

Sean's Essay

HS2 Academy is a premier college counseling company that has helped thousands of students gain admission into Ivy League-level universities across the world. With a counseling team of passionate educators with over 100 years of combined experience, we pride ourselves in helping high schoolers achieve their college dreams. Since results matter most, entrust your future to the leader in college admissions with a consistent track record of success.

I have always envied the butterfly.

Its graceful poise as it glides through the air; the blissful flutter of its wings as it courageously embarks upon life’s journeys. Its ambitious and adaptive nature — a change-maker and discoverer, a trendsetter in the animal world, a leader amongst other species. Charles Darwin said, “it is not the strongest of species that survives, nor the most intelligent. It is the one most adaptable to change.” I envy the butterfly’s adaptive approach to change, making them the silent leaders of the animal kingdom.

It was at age nine, on a family trip to the Boston Museum of Science, that I was first drawn to the breathtaking butterfly. As I stepped into the butterfly’s endless capsule of nature, the flamboyant and audacious nature of the butterfly was captivating — their vibrant colors flaunted proud and shame-free, central to their persona but not defining of their personality. Their extraordinary courage in self-expression brought a little boy great inspiration. As someone who has questioned and struggled with my identity and accepting my queerness throughout life, the butterfly exemplified what it meant to be bold, courageous, and proud to a young boy who was lacking in all of those.

The butterfly exemplified what it meant to be bold, courageous, and proud to a young boy who was lacking in all of those.

I vividly recall one butterfly standing out among its comrades. Being an uncreative third-grader, I named my new friend Bloo due to his radiant cerulean shades descending from darkness to light as they progressed from the wing’s base. I watched Bloo soar, using his wings to glide far above the dainty and fragile stereotypes placed on him by society. I admire the profound growth Bloo must have achieved to get here, at one point a timid and powerless inchworm evolved into a carefully-crafted canvas of power. Bloo exemplified the strength and pride that I needed to begin accepting my identity. Looking back on this brief encounter with Bloo, I recall how he taught an insecure child self-acceptance. From here, I began to internalize the butterfly’s power. I began to molt into a new skin with fledgling wings.

As I progressed through life with these newly-discovered wings, I became increasingly drawn to observing butterflies in nature. They have proven much more than just precious gems found amongst clouds or prize trophies for kindergarteners to catch in their nets. The butterfly has shown itself as the hidden alpha of the animal kingdom — a leader and trendsetter amongst organisms both small and large, a fearless change-maker enabling them to outsurvive the rest for the past fifty-six million years.

With the wings and strength of the butterfly latched to my shoulders, I proudly embraced the challenge posed by this delicate yet powerful creature — to be a leader and a change-maker. Recognizing many social injustices in my community, I was inspired by the butterfly to become a voice of change. Driven by the butterfly’s creativity, I developed a social justice discussion program to take place at my high school, and became a local leader and fighter against corrupt politics in the 2020 election cycle. Bloo reminds me that time moves quickly and I must never settle nor lose focus in the crusade for justice. I hope to use this fragile time to advocate for equality in medicine, combining my passion for science with advocacy to leave a lasting legacy.

Today, the lessons taught by the butterfly are never far from my mind, whether I'm sitting in my English classroom discussing Beowulf, dreading the prospect of my upcoming integral exam, or even studying Darwin in Biology.

All these years later, as I ponder my defining characteristics and core values, I recognize that it is my time to become the butterfly — to embody Darwin’s words and face life with the courage to create change as I break free from my cocoon and enter the long-awaited adult world.

Professional Review by HS2 Academy

This piece is quite touching, as it deftly crafts a delicate and nuanced picture of Sean’s lifelong connection with the butterfly. It is playful (“my new friend Bloo”) while also profoundly introspective. It starts out effectively with a thought-provoking hook. After all, how many people would think to envy a butterfly? But the essay quickly picks up pace and shows how the butterfly truly is a perfect symbol for Sean’s own metamorphosis into a true leader and agent of change.

The essay works on so many levels because it utilizes an extended metaphor that aptly describes many parallels with Sean's life.

The essay works on so many levels because it utilizes an extended metaphor that aptly describes many parallels with Sean’s life. Oftentimes, many college essays utilize figurative language, but the connection with the narrative of that student’s life tends to be rather superficial. The idea of a butterfly emerging from a cocoon may seem a bit cliche as an image of a student’s transformation, but Sean’s essay goes deeper, in part because of a parallel with Sean’s own struggles with their queer identity. Phrases like using his wings to “glide far above the dainty and fragile stereotypes placed on him by society” powerfully capture Sean’s own journey from an insecure child to an advocate for social justice and equality in medicine.

We learn that Sean has truly found inspiration in the butterfly, rising above struggles with self-identity to become a principled leader with a genuine desire to fight injustice. The qualities Sean demonstrates—determination over adversity, passion for equality and justice—would be a welcome addition to any college community.

Login to your account

Remember Me

Register for a Free Account

Access sample lessons, a free LSAT PrepTest, and 100 question explanations today!

Password (twice) * password strength indicator

Analytics Identifier

Six Law School Personal Statements That Got Into Harvard By David Busis Published Feb 10, 2021 Updated Feb 10, 2021

The essays below, which were all part of successful applications to Harvard Law, rely on humble reckonings followed by reflections. Some reckonings are political: an applicant grapples with the 2008 financial crisis; another grapples with her political party’s embrace of populism. Others are personal: a student struggles to sprint up a hill; another struggles to speak clearly. The writers have different ideologies, different ambitions, and different levels of engagement with the law. Yet all of them come across as thoughtful, open to change, and ready to serve.

Jump to a personal statement:

Essay 1: Sea Turtles

I stood over the dead loggerhead, blood crusting my surgical gloves and dark green streaks of bile from its punctured gallbladder drying on my khaki shorts. It was the fifth day of a five-week summer scholarship at the University of Chicago’s Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL), and as I shuffled downwind of the massive creature, the pungent scent of its decomposition wafted toward me in the hot summer breeze. Aggressive flies buzzed around my head, occasionally pausing to land on the wad of plastic we had extracted from the loggerhead’s stomach. The plastic had likely caused a blockage somewhere, and the sea turtle had died of malnutrition. When the necropsy was finished, we discarded the remains in a shallow hole under a thicket of trees, and with the last shovel of sand over its permanent resting place, its death became just another data point among myriad others. Would it make a difference in the long, arduous battle against environmental pollution? Probably not. But that dead loggerhead was something of a personal tipping point for me.

I have always loved the clean, carefully objective nature of scientific research, but when I returned to the US from my native XXXX to study biology, I began to understand that because of this objectivity, scientific data rarely produces an emotional effect. It is difficult to initiate change based on such a passive approach. My ecology professor used to lament that it was not science that would determine the fate of the environment, but politics. The deeper I delved into research, the more I agreed with her. Almost every day, I came across pieces of published research that were incorrectly cited as evidence for exaggerated conclusions and used, for example, as a rebuttal against climate change. Reality meant nothing when pitted against a provocative narrative. It was rather disillusioning at first, but I was never one to favor passivity. In an effort to better understand the issues, I began to look into the policy side of biological conservation. The opportunity at the MBL came at this juncture in my academic journey, and it was there that I received my final push to the path of law.

After weeks of sea turtle biology and policy debates at the MBL, we held a mock symposium on fishing and bycatch regulations. Participants were exclusively STEM majors, so before the debate even began, everyone in the room was already heavily in favor of reducing commercial fishing. I was assigned the role of the Chair of the New Bedford Division of Marine Fisheries, and my objective was clear: to represent the wishes of my constituents, and my constituents wanted more time out on the sea. However, that meant an increase in accidental bycatch, which could hurt endangered marine populations and fill up the bycatch quota for commercial fishermen before the season ended.

There were hundreds of pages of research data on novel technological innovations for bycatch reduction that I had to wade through, but with the help of my group, I was able to piece together a net replacement plan that just barely satisfied my constituents, the scientists, and the industry reps. Although the issue of widespread net replacement incentives for the commercial fishermen remained, there was no doubt that I enjoyed the mental stimulus of tackling this hypothetical challenge. I was able to use my science background to aid in brokering a compromise that would reduce the amount of damage done to the environment without endangering the livelihood of the people involved in the industry.

By the end of the symposium, I knew that I wanted to bridge the gap between presenting scientific data correctly and effecting change in the policy world. Although there are many ways for me to advocate for change, I believe that only legal and legislative enforcements will have a widespread and lasting effect on the heavy polluters of the world. I want to combine my legal education and a solid foundation in the biological sciences to tackle the ever-growing slew of environmental challenges facing us in the twenty-first century.

The night the symposium ended, we patrolled the beach for nesting females. As I walked beneath the stars, I thought of that sea turtle and of the repeating migration of my own life, from my birthplace in XXXX to my childhood in the US, back to XXXX and now the US again. With the guidance of the Earth’s magnetic fields, sea turtles are able to accurately return to their birthplace no matter how far they deviate, but I like to imagine that they, like me, do need to occasionally chart another course to get there. Standing on a beach in Woods Hole, thousands of miles from home, I knew that I was on the right path and ready to embark on a career in law.

Essay 2: Joining the Arsonists To Become a Fireman

On the morning of the 2004 presidential election, my sixth-grade teacher told me to watch out for John Kerry voters in the hallways because our school was a polling station. I nodded and went to the water fountain, thinking to myself that my parents were voting for John Kerry, and that as far as I could tell, they posed no risk to students. It was a familiar juxtaposition—the ideas at my dinner table in conflict with the dogmas I encountered elsewhere in my conservative Missourian community. This dissonance fostered my curiosity about issues of policy and politics. I wanted to figure out why the adults in my life couldn’t seem to agree.

Earlier in 2004, Barack Obama’s now famous DNC keynote had inspired me to turn my interests into actions. Even at age twelve, I was moved by his ideas and motivated to work in public service. When Obama ran for president four years later, I heeded his call to get involved. I gave money I had made mowing lawns to my parents to donate to his campaign and taped Obama-Biden yard signs to my old Corolla, which earned it an egging and a run-in with silly string in my high school parking lot.

While I knew in high school that I wanted to involve myself in public service, I wasn’t sure what shape that involvement would take until signs of the financial crisis—deserted strip malls and foreclosed homes—cropped up in my hometown. I was amazed by the disaster and shaken by the toll it took on my community. As I saw it, the crisis wasn’t about Wall Street, but about people losing their jobs, homes, and savings. I didn’t understand what Lehman Brothers had to do with the fact that my neighbor’s appliance store had to lay off most of its employees.

Intent on understanding what had happened, I started reading up, inhaling books about financial crises and articles on mortgage-backed securities and rating agencies. Along the way, I also developed an affinity for the policymakers fighting the crisis. I admired how time and again these unknown bureaucrats struggled to choose the best among bad options, served as Congressional piñatas on Capitol Hill, and went back across the street to face the next disaster. I decided that I too wanted to work in financial regulation. I thought then and believe today that if I can help protect consumers and mitigate the downturns that force people from their jobs and homes, I will have done something worthwhile.

Strange though it may seem, this decision led me to join Barclays as an investment banking analyst after college. While in a sense I was “joining the arsonists to become a fireman,” as one skeptical friend put it, banking gave me immediate experience working with the firms and people who had played key roles in the response to the financial crisis years before. I was initially worried that I would discover financial rules and regulations to be impotent platitudes, without the power to change the financial system, but my experience taught me the opposite. New regulations catalyzed many of the transactions on which I worked, from bank capital raises to divestitures aimed at de-risking. Ironically, becoming a banker made me even more of an idealist about the power of policy.

I envisioned spending years in the industry before moving to a government role, and I left banking for private equity investing with that track in mind. When I began making get-out-the-vote calls on behalf of the Clinton presidential campaign, however, I realized that I needed to change my plans. I cared more about contacting voters, about the result of the election, and about its policy implications than anything I did at work. Although I’m grateful for what I’ve learned in the private sector, I don’t want to spend more time on the sidelines of the policy debates and decisions that matter to me.

That’s why I am pursuing a J.D. I want to help shape the policies that will make the financial system more resilient and equitable, and to do so effectively, I need to understand the foundation upon which the financial system is built: the law. The post-crisis regulatory landscape is already in need of recalibration; large banks still pose systemic risks, and regulation lags even further behind in the non-bank world. Advances in financial technology, from online lending platforms to blockchain technology, are raising new questions about everything from capital and liquidity to smart contracts and financial privacy. Policymakers need to confront these issues proactively and pursue legal and regulatory frameworks that foster public trust while encouraging innovation. A J.D. will give me the training I need to be involved in this process. I don’t claim to have a revolutionary theory of financial crisis, but I do hope to be a part of preventing the next one.

Essay 3: Populism

Growing up, I felt that I existed in two different worlds. At home, I was influenced by my large, conservative Arizonan family, who shaped my values and understanding of the world. During middle school, my family moved, and I enrolled in a small, left-leaning school with an intense focus on globalism and diversity. I enjoyed being surrounded by people who challenged my beliefs, and I prided myself on my ability to dwell comfortably in both spaces.

In 2015, American political reality disrupted the happy balance between my two worlds. The Republican presidential primary, in a gust of populism, was proposing ideas that I didn’t recognize and wouldn’t condone, like a hardline immigration stance, opposition to free trade, and a tolerance for harassment. I resented this populist wave for hijacking the party, and the voters who created it. I didn’t understand them, and I didn’t think I could.

Despite my skepticism, I decided to make an attempt. As the founder of the Bowdoin College Political Union, a program that promotes substantive, inclusive conversations about policy and politics among students, I brought speakers with diverse ideologies to campus and hosted small group discussions with members of the College Democrats, the College Republicans, and students somewhere in between. In the winter of my senior year, I helped organize a summit that brought together students with a broad spectrum of views from dozens of universities throughout the eastern United States.

As a resident assistant during the 2016 presidential election, I held open-door discussions for individuals from across the political spectrum and around the globe. Facilitating these discussions felt like a natural extension of my role on campus, and I learned not only that having space for open dialogue can ease tensions, but also that the absence of that space does not erase political difference. Instead, it creates feelings of isolation and fosters ignorance.

But it was the death of a family member in early 2016 that helped me understand another perspective, namely the populist views beginning to overwhelm the Republican Party. After the death of my mother’s cousin from cancer, I called my second cousins, all three of whom are around my age, to offer my condolences. I was surprised to learn that none of them had finished high school. Instead, they had worked to help pay for their mother’s treatment. While I had been worrying about which summer internships to apply for, they were worried about maintaining their family home. In the past, I’d thought that their views on economic policy and immigration came from a place of ignorance or spite. I realized over the course of our conversation that I had no idea what it was like to not have a high school degree and compete for employment in a rural area where wages are low. For the first time, I was engaging with people in the demographic that was generating the populist wave that was sweeping the country. This conversation led me to expand my studies in politics and to think beyond the left-right spectrum to consider class and urban-rural divides within my own party. Ultimately, reconnecting with my extended family informed my decision to write my senior thesis on populist movements and why economics drives them. It also changed the way I thought about politics and its effect on people like my second cousins.

After my college graduation, I took a job with a political and opposition research firm called XYZ in Washington, because I felt that my understanding of 2016’s populism was still lacking. XYZ gave me the opportunity to work with people from different parts of the Republican Party: both establishment operatives and grassroots operations. This enabled me to work within the framework of Republican politics that resembles my own, while being exposed to the perspectives of people working to represent people like my second cousins. My time at XYZ helped me see the power of the populist movement, but also understand the limitations of its proposed solutions, like a resurgence of manufacturing. Now that I have interacted with populist groups, I see that ultimately, the valid frustrations of many working-class Americans need to be addressed by empathetic leadership and challenging but necessary evaluations of policy in the areas of economics, education, and culture.

I want to apply my passion for political discourse in law school and in my career as a lawyer. My passion for engaging with others will serve me well in the classroom and in a career at the intersection of law and politics. I hope to continue to make connections between people of diverse backgrounds and viewpoints and to engage in meaningful, bipartisan discourse.

Essay 4: Pop Warner

One summer, when I was eight years old, I signed up to play Pop Warner Football for my hometown. After the calisthenics, scrimmages, and the rest of practice concluded in the midst of the sweltering early August sun, I would sprint thirty yards up a hill steep enough to go sledding down. I had to lose nine pounds in order to make weight for my junior pee-wee football team. I wanted nothing more than to be on the team, so it didn’t faze me that I was the only one running up and down the hill. A dirt path marked the grassy knoll from my countless trips up and down. I usually managed to hold back the tears just long enough until I got home. As an eight-year-old, this was the most difficult challenge I had ever been tasked with. But the next day, I would get down in a three-point stance and sprint up the hill under the red sky of the setting sun.

When I finally made the team, I was elated; I had achieved a goal I often felt impossible in those moments of sweat and tears. The excitement was, nonetheless, short-lived. The other kids still called me “Corey the Cupcake,” a nickname I thought I’d left behind with the extra pounds. In every game of the season, my first playing football, I received my eight minimum plays and rode the bench the rest of the game. It was an unusually wet September, and I caught a cold a few times from standing there for two and a half hours in the nippy morning rain. I hated it, but I kept playing.

I continued to play every fall through high school. My freshman year, during a varsity practice, I broke both the radius and ulna bones in my left arm and simultaneously dislocated my wrist, which required a plate and four screws to repair. To this day, I can’t help but flash back to that frigid November afternoon when I look at the five-inch scar on my left arm or when the breaking point is hit precisely. Sophomore year, I was introduced to a coach who frequently criticized me for “not being black enough,” or sometimes, contradictorily, for acting “too black.” I was even benched for my entire junior year for being unable to attend football camp over the summer.

Why did I play football for eleven years? It might have been for the Friday nights in front of the school, as there was nothing more thrilling than making a crucial catch and hearing the whole town cheer. It might have been because I wanted to fit in with my athletic classmates. It might have been because I felt that I was improving after each catch, each hit, and each drill. But I believe, above all else, it was because I just don’t like to give up.

My first job as a project assistant at a large law firm was somewhat similar to my experiences as a young football player; both required grit and determination to push through difficult circumstances. Late one evening, two days before Thanksgiving, my supervisor asked me to complete and organize the service of eighteen subpoenas for the following day. The partners and associates were so busy with internal politics—one of the head partners was leaving the firm—that no one was available to walk me through the process. I felt ridiculous when I Googled “How to fill out and serve a subpoena,” but it was important to me that I complete the project properly.

I am appreciative of the challenges that I faced as a project assistant. If it weren’t for those experiences, it is unlikely that I would have been fortunate enough to be hired by the Delaware Office of the Attorney General, where I work today. My job here has confirmed that law is exactly what I want to do. I realized this through several opportunities to draft written discovery. I loved fashioning objections to each individual request in a given set. Developing legitimate grounds for disputing discovery on its merits and intent was inspiring to me. I can’t wait to do this more and on a larger scale as an attorney.

The steadfastness that I obtained as a young athlete defines who I am. I couldn’t see it at the time, but every day on which I gave something my best effort, whether it was on the practice field or in my tiny office on the twenty-seventh floor, I became a little bit stronger, a little bit wiser. I am confident that my perseverance and dedication will facilitate my future success, both in law school and afterwards.

Essay 5: Speech Therapy

When I was very young, I was diagnosed with a severe phonological disorder that hindered my ability to verbalize the most basic sounds that make up words. It didn’t take my parents long to notice that as other children my age began speaking and communicating with each other, I remained quiet. When I did speak, my words were mostly incomprehensible and seemed to lack any repetition. I was taken to numerous speech therapists, many of whom believed that I would never be able to communicate effectively with others.

From the age of three until I was in seventh grade, I went to speech therapy twice a week. I also regularly practiced my speech outside of therapy, eventually improving to such an extent that I thought I was done with therapy forever. This, however, was short-lived. By tenth grade, I realized my impediment was back and was once again severely limiting my ability to articulate words. That was also the year my family moved from Vancouver, Canada to Little Rock, Arkansas, which complicated matters for me.

I knew that my speech was preventing me from making new friends and participating in classroom discussions, but I resisted going back into therapy. I thought that a renewal of speech therapy would be like accepting defeat. It was a part of my life that had long passed. With college approaching, though, I was desperate not to continue stuttering words and slurring sentences. I knew that I would have to become more confident about my speech to make friends and to be the student I wanted to be. During the summer before my freshman year, I reluctantly decided to reenter speech therapy.

I see now that this decision was anything but an acceptance of defeat. In fact, refusing to reenter therapy would have been a defeat. With my new therapist, I made significant strides and the quality of my speech improved greatly. Using the confidence that I built in therapy that summer, I pushed myself to meet new people and join extracurricular organizations when I entered college. In particular, I applied to and was accepted into a competitive freshman service leadership organization called Forward.

The other members of Forward were incredibly outgoing, and many of them had been highly involved in their high school communities—two things I was not. I made a concerted effort to learn from those who were different from me. I was an active participant in discussions during meetings, utilizing my unique background to provide a different perspective. My peers not only understood me, but also cared about what I had to say. I even began taking on leadership roles in the program, such as directing a community service project to help the elderly. My time in Forward made it clear to me that my speech disorder wouldn’t be what held me back in college; as long as I made the effort, I could succeed. The confidence I gained led me to continue to push past the boundaries I had set for myself in high school, and has guided the bold approach I have taken to new challenges in college.

When I first finished therapy in seventh grade, I pretended that I had never had a speech disorder in the first place. Having recently finished therapy again, I can accept that my speech disorder has shaped the person I am today. In many ways, it has had a positive effect on me. My struggle to communicate, for example, has made me a better listener. My inability to ask questions has forced me to engage with problems on a deeper level, which has led me to develop a methodical approach to reasoning. I believe these skills will help me succeed in law school, and they are part of what motivates me to apply in the first place. Having struggled for so long to speak up for myself, I look forward to the day when I can speak up for others.

Essay 6: Ting Hua

“Ting hua!” I heard it when I scalded my fingers reaching above the kitchen counter to grab at a steaming slice of pork belly before it was served; I heard it when I hid little Twix bars underneath the bags of Chinese broccoli in the grocery store shopping cart; I heard it when I brought sticks back home to swing perilously close to the ceiling fan. Literally translated, “ting hua” means “hear my words.” Its true meaning, though, is closer to “listen to what I mean.” Although the phrase was nearly ubiquitous in my childhood, that distinction—between hearing and listening—did not become clear for me until much later in life.

That childhood began in Shanghai, where I was born, and continued in Southern California, where we moved shortly after I turned four. Some things stayed the same in the US. We still ate my mom’s chive dumplings at the dinner table. On New Year’s, I could still look forward to a red envelope with a few dollars’ worth of pocket money. But other things changed. I stopped learning Chinese, and my parents never became proficient in English. Slowly, so slowly I almost didn’t realize, it became harder and harder for me to communicate with them.

Because I didn’t feel like I could talk to them, I could never resist opening my mouth with others. I talked to good friends about Yu-Gi-Oh, to not-so-good friends about Pokemon, and to absolute strangers about PB&J, the Simpsons, and why golden retriever puppies were the best dogs ever. Even alone, I talked to my pet turtle Snorkel and tried out different war cries—you know, in case I woke up one morning as a mouse in Brian Jacques’s Redwall .

The way I communicated with my parents didn’t change until I came back for Thanksgiving my freshman year of college. I was writing for the school newspaper—a weekly column on politics. I had written an article in support of gay marriage. My parents had asked me about it, and in the way I was wont to do, I answered briefly before moving on to talk about my friends and my floor and my classes.

While I was brushing my teeth that night, my dad came into the restroom. He stood in the doorway and said, “Hey. I read the article you wrote about gay marriage… you should be careful saying things like that.”

His words—you should be careful saying things like that— sounded to me like homophobia. I knew that in China, same-sex relationships were illegal, stigmatized, banned, so I thought I understood where my dad was coming from, even though I also thought it was bigotry. I was about to brush him off, to accept that we had different views, but when I looked up, I didn’t see the judgment I was expecting. In the way he stood slightly hunched in the doorway, in the way he touched his chin, in the way his eyebrows drew together, I saw love. So I swallowed down “don’t worry about it” and asked what he meant. He told me about a cousin of his, someone I would have called Uncle, who was expelled from his school and sent to the countryside for his political comments. In that moment, I realized that my dad wasn’t concerned about my politics—he was concerned about me. Had I not stopped to listen , rather than just to hear, I would not have understood that. I would not have known why he told me to be careful.

Although I still enjoy talking to other people about PB&J sandwiches, I have learned to listen, to actively engage with my parents when we communicate. More importantly, whether I’m interviewing witnesses on the stand in mock trial, resolving disagreements between friends, or sitting in a chair while teachers and professors give me advice, I’ve made an effort to remember those words my mom has spoken since I was a toddler: “ting hua.”

📌 Check out our full, free admissions course .

Join our newsletter

Which program are you applying to?

Accepted Admissions Blog

Everything you need to know to get Accepted

October 14, 2018

How I Wrote a Personal Statement That Got Me into Harvard Law School

The Personal Statement That Got Me Into Harvard Law School. For more law school personal statement advice, get your copy of 5 Fatal Flaws to Avoid in Your Law School Personal Statement!

When I was applying to law school , the advisor at my college told me to intern for a lawyer. Sound advice, and one I might give, but unfortunately my experience was miserable. I was even told by my employer that I was “not law school material.”

So, how did I even get into law school, never mind Harvard Law? There are the general requirements: grades, LSAT scores, recommendation letters, and the elusive element of luck. But, I also managed to write a personal statement that said something about who I was and why I wanted to go to law school, a statement that had nothing to do with my terrible intern experience.

People think that law schools want to hear how much you know about the law or how you’re going to hang your own shingle, go into politics, or become General Counsel at a large corporation. But, law schools actually want to know how your mind works. They are looking for deep thinkers who look at the world around them and are able to establish some critical distance to evaluate both their own experience and the experiences of others. This is the heart of what legal thinking is.

Luckily, I was able to convey the moment when I decided I wanted to go to law school and why I came to that decision in a way that both told a story and gave the admissions committee a good idea of the thinking process that went with it. It’s not enough to give someone a great story – although that’s vital, too. It’s equally important to explain why that story meant something to you. Schools look for the way you process an experience and what unique insight you can write about it. That kind of writing, an articulate explanation of thought, is the same kind of skill that law schools want in their classrooms studying civil procedure.

Need another set of eyes to review your personal statement? In the early stages and want to brainstorm ideas? Accepted consultants would be delighted to help. Learn more about our comprehensive services here , and let us help you get accepted!”

Related Resources:

• The Law School Admissions Guide: 8 Tips for Success • 5 Qualities that Law Schools Want to See • Sample Law School Personal Statements

About Us Press Room Contact Us Podcast Accepted Blog Privacy Policy Website Terms of Use Disclaimer Client Terms of Service

Harvard Supplemental Essays 2023-24

Harvard supplemental essays 2023-2024.

If you’re applying to Harvard , you might be wondering how to approach the Harvard supplemental essays. Harvard is one of the most prestigious schools in the United States and the world, and as such is ultra-competitive. As an applicant, you’ll want to take every opportunity to distinguish yourself, starting with the Harvard essay prompts. This may feel daunting, but writing stellar Harvard application essays is guaranteed to make your application shine.

In this guide, we’ll cover everything you need to know about writing your Harvard supplemental essays. This includes understanding the Harvard essay requirements and showing you where to find Harvard essay examples. We’ll also go over general Harvard application requirements that you should know, including the Harvard acceptance rate and application deadline.

Want some advice on how to get into Harvard? You’ve come to the right place. Now, let’s go over some quick facts about the Harvard supplemental essays.

Harvard Supplemental Essays: Quick Facts

Harvard university essay quick facts.

Harvard acceptance rate: 4% – U.S. News rates Harvard a highly competitive school.
5 short-answer questions (200-word limit)
Restrictive Early Action: November 1st
Regular Decision: January 1st
Harvard application note: The Harvard supplemental essays for the 2023-2024 cycle have changed from past years. All five Harvard supplemental essays are required for all applicants.
#1 Harvard Essay Tip: Your essays are your opportunity to show Harvard how you’ve interacted with the world. This includes how your experiences have shaped you into who you are and the kind of impact you hope to make.

Please note that essay requirements are subject to change each admissions cycle, and portions of this article may have been written before the final publication of the most recent guidelines. For the most up-to-date information on essay requirements, check the university’s admissions website.

Now that you know the basics about the Harvard application, let’s dive into more information about the Harvard supplemental essays.

What are the Harvard Essay Prompts?

The Harvard essay prompts for the 2023-2024 have changed dramatically from past years. Previously , Harvard only required a short extracurricular essay. Students then had the opportunity to write an additional essay, choosing between a few Harvard application essay questions. These included topics such as how you hope to use your college education and unusual circumstances in your life.

Now the Harvard supplemental essays are different. According to the latest information for first-year applicants, Harvard requires 5 short-answer essays of 200 words or less.

Here are the Harvard essay prompts for this year :

Harvard University Essay Prompts

1. harvard has long recognized the importance of enrolling a diverse student body. how will the life experiences that shape who you are today enable you to contribute to harvard, 2. briefly describe an intellectual experience that was important to you. , 3. briefly describe any of your extracurricular activities, employment experience, travel, or family responsibilities that have shaped who you are., 4. how do you hope to use your harvard education in the future, 5. top 3 things your roommates might like to know about you. .

If you’ve read the Harvard supplemental essay prompts for their optional essay in years past, these questions may look familiar. Before, students might write one long Harvard application essay that only touched on one of these questions. Now, Harvard is requiring their applicants to succinctly respond to multiple prompts.

You might find writing multiple Harvard application essays is more intimidating than writing just one. And that’s okay! Even though this is the first year the Harvard supplemental essays are structured this way, these prompts are nothing new. We’ve still got all the information you need to successfully tackle the Harvard supplemental essays..

But before we dive into the Harvard supplemental essay prompts, let’s first talk about your Harvard personal statement.

Harvard Personal Statement

When you apply to Harvard, your Harvard application must include a personal statement. Both the Common App and Coalition App require you to write a personal statement, choosing from a selection of prompts. This essay is also what the Harvard admissions committee considers your Harvard personal statement. Unlike your Harvard supplemental essays, your personal statement is not school-specific. That means it can be submitted to any school you are applying to.

The 2023-24 Common App prompts are broad, and intentionally so! The prompts are meant to give students the space and opportunity to write about something they care about.

You can write about:

Your background
A lesson you have learned
A time that you challenged a belief
Something you’re grateful for
An accomplishment, a topic that fascinates you
Any topic of your choosing!

Harvard encourages students to write about something they’re passionate about, not something they think would impress the Harvard admissions committee. According to this list of tips about the Harvard personal statement, “The point of the personal statement is for you to have the chance to share whatever you would like with us. Remember, your topic does not have to be exotic to be compelling.”

Whatever you write your personal statement about, it should stand apart from your Harvard supplemental essays. Each one of your Harvard application essays should tell the Harvard admissions committee something new about you. Or, it should elaborate and build upon something that you haven’t had enough time to discuss elsewhere in your application.

What should I write my Harvard essay about?

There is no one perfect essay topic that will automatically earn you admission to Harvard. The best Harvard supplemental essays will communicate something unique about you, giving the admissions committee a window into who you are.

One way to come up with ideas for your Harvard supplemental essays is to read successful application essays! In this list of Ivy League essays that worked, you’ll see essays about everything. From AP Biology to Adventure Time to a family member’s hospitalization for schizophrenia. The quality of your writing, and whether the topic is important to you, is more important than the topic itself.

Harvard personal statement examples

In this guide to past Harvard personal statement examples, you can read essays from previous years. These essays answered many of the same questions Harvard asks today—except using far more words. Not all of these Harvard personal statement examples align with the current Harvard prompts, but they’re still examples of great writing.

Additionally, these Harvard personal statement examples still show the diversity of topics, as well as styles, that Harvard looks for. Though the Harvard essay requirements are different this year, there are many overlapping topics covered in the Harvard personal statement examples.

Choosing a topic

If you’re still stuck coming up with a topic for your Harvard application essay questions, try a brainstorm! Brainstorming or free writing about the different short answer questions is a great way to generate potential essay ideas.

Strong essays often focus around moments of change or personal growth. Think about an experience you grew from, or maybe one that demonstrates your values and what matters to you. You can also look to your application for inspiration. What aspects of who you are do you feel like your extracurriculars, grades, or potentially test scores leave out?

Harvard Short Answer Questions

In the next sections, we’ll go over each of the Harvard supplemental essays individually. For each of the Harvard essay prompts, we’ll discuss what the prompt is asking for and how you might approach it. And we’ll give you tips on what to include in your Harvard supplemental essays to make them stand out.

This year, the Harvard supplemental essays consist of 5 separate short-answer questions. The Harvard supplemental essays are called “short-answer” because of the word limit. You only have 200 words to provide a strong, detailed, and specific answer to the Harvard essay prompts. Limiting your Harvard supplemental essays to only 200 words can be tricky. So, it’s important you choose your topic wisely, consider the important details, and make every word count.

You can look up the Harvard supplemental essays with the Common App’s search tool . By searching for Harvard, or any other college, you can go over their school-specific writing requirements for that college. On Harvard’s website you can find guidelines for your Harvard application, including requirements for the Harvard supplemental essays.

Now, let’s go over each of the Harvard essay prompts in more detail.

Harvard Essay #1 – Contributing to Harvard

The first of the Harvard supplemental essays is about contributing to Harvard.

Harvard has long recognized the importance of enrolling a diverse student body. How will the life experiences that shape who you are today enable you to contribute to Harvard?

This question is a bit misleading. Although it’s phrased as a single sentence, there are really two parts to this prompt. What in your life has shaped you into the person you are today? Then, how does that affect what you’ll contribute to Harvard’s community?

For the first of your Harvard supplemental essays, think about what “diversity” means to you. Maybe it’s where you grew up, your race, your gender or sexuality. Or maybe you’ve had a unique upbringing that falls outside of those identity categories. Once you have identified the piece of your upbringing you would like to share, think about how it’s shaped you. What value has that brought into your life, and how can that part of you enrich Harvard’s community?

For example, maybe you went to school in a really homogeneous suburb. Think of a place where everyone was the same race and from the same socioeconomic class. Once you recognized that, you tried to do everything you could to learn about different perspectives. Maybe you volunteered outside your community to try and understand the experiences of people outside of that bubble. This intellectual curiosity and open-mindedness is a product of your upbringing that impacts how you’d interact with others at Harvard.

Harvard Short Essay #2 – Intellectual Experience

For the second of your Harvard supplemental essays, you’re asked to focus on the intellectual.

Briefly describe an intellectual experience that was important to you.

This Harvard application essay should speak to your academic interests and your intended concentration— Harvard’s version of a major . Even if you don’t know what you want to concentrate in, that’s okay! You don’t have to worry about your Harvard supplemental essays defining what you will eventually go on to study. All you need to do is focus on a moment in your education, or in your life, that stimulated you intellectually.

Each of the Harvard supplemental essays are trying to learn something specific about you. In this one, Harvard is trying to see if you are intellectually curious and passionate about learning. As a prestigious university, Harvard puts a huge value on its students having a desire to learn. If you are applying to Harvard, this should be a pretty easy question to answer!

If something doesn’t immediately come to mind, try asking yourself these questions. What moment made you love English, or Math, or Science? Was it inside or outside of the classroom? Was it a political debate, or a conversation with a family member? An essay topic you didn’t expect to enjoy but ended up adoring? As long as you explain an intellectual passion, there’s no wrong answer.

Harvard Essay Prompt #3 – Extracurricular Activities Essay

If the first two Harvard supplemental essays focused on identity and curiosity, you can think of the third as focusing on action. The next of our Harvard supplemental essays centers around the things you do outside of the classroom.

Briefly describe any of your extracurricular activities, employment experience, travel, or family responsibilities that have shaped who you are.

You may have already gone into detail about one of your extracurricular activities or other experiences in your Common App. If so, you should consider selecting a different one to speak about here. Having all of these individual Harvard supplemental essays allows you to share so many facets of who you are. Don’t limit yourself by describing the same thing multiple times!

This question is very open-ended. Since you only have 200 words, focus on answering this question succinctly and honestly. Don’t overthink it — simply pick one of these experiences and describe how it has shaped who you are.

You could talk about grocery shopping with your mom, working at a summer camp, or being the captain of the swim team. What matters most is that you pick an experience that really impacted you. This could be something that inspired a change in your perspective, or helped you develop a new skill. The most important part of question 3 of your Harvard supplemental essays is not which activity you pick. It’s in showing how it has shaped you.

Harvard Essay #4 – Education and the future

For #4 of your Harvard supplemental essays, Harvard tasks you with envisioning your future.

How do you hope to use your Harvard education in the future?

A Harvard education can get you a lot of places. Harvard knows that it’s a renowned institution—there’s a reason that the Harvard acceptance rate is so low. However, you don’t need to inflate its ego by discussing Harvard’s prestige. Instead, think about how a Harvard education will prepare you to make a positive impact in the world.

Also be wary of writing your Harvard supplemental essays in a way that inflates your own ego. Don’t just say you think you’ll be the next Elon Musk or the President of the U.S. Focus less on who you’ll be and more on what you’ll do. Think about what technology you could create to make peoples’ lives easier or policies you could enact to reduce poverty. Many Harvard students go on to achieve amazing things. However, make sure you’re focused on why those things are important and not the achievement itself.

You can also use the 4th of your Harvard supplemental essays to sneak in some “why Harvard” details. Consider mentioning a specific Harvard class or professor that you wish to study under. Maybe five years after graduating, you want to be writing a book with Professor X. And five years after that, you want to be teaching at Harvard on the same topic.

Harvard Essay #5 – Roommate Essay

This final question for the Harvard supplemental essays gives you an opportunity to chat with an imaginary future roommate.

Top 3 things your roommates might like to know about you.

In the last of your Harvard supplemental essays, you can get a little creative. Since this question gives you complete freedom over what you include, it can be helpful to save it for last. Then you can look back at your other Harvard supplemental essays and brainstorm what the admissions committee hasn’t heard yet. If you could only describe three things about yourself, in 200 words, what would you say?

Since you’re hypothetically talking to a roommate, don’t be afraid to be more joking or casual—let your personality shine through! But, keep in mind that an admissions officer will still be reading your essay. So long as you’re being appropriate and true to yourself, you get to decide what to share and how to share it!

That being said, don’t mention only things that are superficial. Remember, this is still part of your application, and your reader is deciding whether you belong at Harvard. “I leave my clothes all over my bedroom floor, but I promise to never leave them in the common room,” may be the truth. However, opt for the personal over the mundane! What do you geek out about? How do you like to spend your free time? What Harvard experiences are you most looking forward to?

How to write the Harvard supplemental essays

So, we’ve gone over the individual Harvard application essays. Now let’s talk about some general tips that you could use to answer any of the Harvard essays.

Be specific

Whether you’re writing about your extracurriculars, your upbringing, or Harvard itself, be specific. Generalizations can feel like they let you say more in fewer words. But, they don’t say as much about who you are or your experiences.

Instead of saying “I’ve always been passionate about history,” get specific! There are lots of people who like history—what exactly about history interests you? A specific time period? A social movement? Is it something about the discipline itself? Did you always feel this way about this subject? The more specific you are, the more the Harvard Admissions team can learn from your Harvard supplemental essays.

This tip also applies to when you’re talking about Harvard. At some point in your Harvard application essays, you’ll want to mention something about why you want to attend Harvard. There are a whopping five Harvard essay prompts, after all! Avoid the obvious, like that Harvard has good academics and is prestigious. Be specific — you can list clubs, professors, majors like Sociology or Economics , or anything else that’s specific to the school. This shows that you’ve done your research and you want to come for a reason, not just the Harvard degree.

Be yourself

At the end of the day, your Harvard application essays are for Admissions to get to know you better. The more introspective you can be before writing them, the more you can use the essays to demonstrate your values. Since the Harvard acceptance rate is so low, you’re competing against many incredibly qualified applicants. Sure, you might have stellar grades—but so does the average Harvard applicant. Your answers to the Harvard essay prompts are a way to set yourself apart. And the best way to do that is by being yourself.

When you’re writing your Harvard application essays, it can feel intimidating to try and be “unique.” It can feel like you’ve never had a truly unique experience. But no one is exactly like you, so the more true to yourself you can be, the better! In your Harvard application essays, you don’t need to perform anything that you think Harvard wants to hear. Just be honest and speak about yourself and your experiences.

Show, don’t tell

This tip on perfecting your Harvard application essays is a classic: show, don’t tell. Instead of simply stating the facts or your feelings, you put the reader into the experience using dialogue, imagery, and storytelling.

For example, you might start your Harvard application essay by saying, “I was the most excited I had ever been.” Instead, could you describe how that excitement felt? Were your palms sweaty? Was your heart racing? Paint the reader a picture so they can imagine what it must have felt like to be there with you.

We know you do only have 200 words for these Harvard essay prompts. However, that leaves more than enough room for an evocative anecdote. Many students place this type of anecdote at the beginning of their Harvard application essays as a “hook.” A hook is something that grabs the reader’s attention, and pulls them into the essay. It makes them want to keep reading. Since the admissions committee will be reading so many essays, using a hook like this can make your essay stand out.

Grammar and spelling

It’s not super exciting, but it is non-negotiable: your Harvard application essays must have perfect grammar and spelling. The Harvard acceptance rate is 4%. You don’t want to let a typo or a run-on sentence be the distinguishing factor between you and another applicant.

Use spell check, use an online grammar checker, or give your Harvard application essay to a parent or friend. Reading the essay out loud is also a great way to catch typos and grammatical errors. If something sounds wrong when it’s read out loud, you know that you have to go in and fix it. Reading out loud also forces you to look at each word. So, it’s less likely that a copy-paste error like having two “and’s” in a row would slip by.

Get creative

Don’t be afraid to have fun with your Harvard application essays! The Harvard essay prompts might seem pretty straightforward. But that doesn’t mean that you can’t take them in a more fun direction.

One way to stand out is to get a little creative. Sure, there’s probably such a thing as being too creative. You don’t want to be so quirky that you forget to answer the question, or come off smug. But adding a little natural humor or excitement into your essays is a totally acceptable way to get the admissions committee’s attention.

If after reading these tips you’re still in doubt, consider reading some Harvard personal statement examples. Keep in mind our Harvard personal statement examples are from before changes were made to the Harvard essay requirements. However, they cover many similar topics as the current Harvard essays. Even though the Harvard essay prompts aren’t exactly the same, and the word count is certainly different, they’re still valuable. Our Harvard personal statement examples can show you how many different ways there are to answer the same questions. And how to write an essay that stands out.

Does Harvard like risky essays?

Judging from personal experience, yes! When I wrote my Harvard application essay in 2015, they were still asking for the optional extended personal essay. I chose to answer the prompt that asks what your roommate should know about you—similar to the current prompt.

Instead of writing an essay, I wrote a play/screenplay where I meet my roommate for the first time. It was formatted like a play, with dialogue and stage directions, and set in the Harvard dorms. I researched specific things about Harvard and Harvard Square, and incorporated different places in the dialogue to make it feel more specific. I also shared a lot about myself: my values, quirks, extracurriculars, and more. And I guess they liked it, since I was admitted in the class of 2020!

In general, Harvard is looking for students who aren’t afraid to stand out. This includes students who are intellectually curious and passionate about what they believe in. It might feel harder to get creative in only 200 words. But, since you have five questions, you can always pick one of them and take a risk! Write a poem, use a quote or song lyrics, write with a specific audience in mind. As long as you’re using correct spelling and grammar, and you’re answering the question, the world is your oyster!

What does Harvard look for in applicants?

So what does Harvard look for in applicants? If you want to know how to get into Harvard, you’ll need some idea of what Harvard is looking for.

First and foremost, you need to make sure you’re answering all of the Harvard essay prompts. And, be sure you’ve fulfilled all of the Harvard application requirements. That means:

Including your Harvard personal statement
Answering the Harvard application essay questions
Meeting all of the Harvard essay requirements
Submitting all of the required materials.

You also need to carefully observe the Harvard application deadlines, and pick which deadline works best for you.

Outside of these Harvard application requirements, what else do you need to think about to know how to get into Harvard? Start by thinking about why you want to go to Harvard. It can seem like a simple question, but why Harvard specifically? Why are you a good fit? Why would you excel there? And why do you need to be there, specifically, to reach your highest potential?

Looking for more concrete answers to how to get into Harvard? On Harvard’s website, they provide admissions criteria . Stellar academics are understandably important, but Harvard also considers factors like leadership, character, and community involvement. One way to show Harvard that you embody these factors is through your answers to the Harvard application essay questions.

When is my Harvard application due?

There are two Harvard application deadlines. Regardless of which deadline you choose to submit by, you’ll need to submit a complete application. This includes:

Your answers to the Harvard application essay questions
Your (optional) SAT scores
Letters of recommendation
Extracurricular list
Any other Harvard essay requirements or supplements

One Harvard application deadline is Restrictive Early Action, and the other Harvard application deadline is Regular Decision.

Harvard Restrictive Early Action

The Harvard application deadline for Restrictive Early Action is November 1 . Restrive Early Action means that you can only submit your application early to one institution. Unlike Early Decision, it’s not a binding acceptance. So if you get into Harvard early, you can still apply to other schools Regular Decision.

You should only apply to Harvard early if you’re confident that you’ve satisfied the Harvard essay requirements. You’ll also want to make sure you’ve answered all of the Harvard application essay questions to the best of your ability. When writing your answers to the Harvard supplemental essays, give yourself enough time to draft and brainstorm. Don’t write your answers the night before the deadline. If you haven’t filled the Harvard essay requirements or answered the Harvard application essay questions, don’t rush! Rather than hurry to submit Early Action, give yourself until the Regular Decision deadline.

Harvard Regular Decision

The Regular Decision deadline is January 1 . This gives you plenty of time to fulfill the Harvard essay requirements, including answers to all five Harvard essay prompts. This might make for a busy Winter Break, but it’s worth it to make sure that you’ve confidently satisfied all of the Harvard application requirements.

Additional Harvard Resources from CollegeAdvisor

Hopefully by this point you’re feeling more confident about answering the Harvard essay prompts. Although the Harvard application essay questions are different this cycle, you’ve still got plenty of resources to depend on.

If you’re still looking for advice on how to get into Harvard, check out our guide that covers every step of the Harvard admissions process. We also have webinars like this one where you can hear from Harvard students about their college journeys.

Don’t forget that if you’re still struggling with answering the Harvard essay questions, you can read these Harvard essay examples: Harvard personal statement examples from years past. Even though these Harvard essay examples are a little out of date, Harvard personal statement examples can give you a feeling for what kind of essay Harvard is looking for—regardless of the Harvard application essay questions.

Harvard Essays – Takeaways

Now that you’ve reached the end of our guide to the Harvard supplemental essays, you’re ready to write your own. Here are some key takeaways to keep in mind:

Harvard University Essay Key Takeaways

The Harvard application essay questions are different this year. Be sure to check Harvard’s website for the most up to date Harvard application requirements.
This year, there are 5 Harvard supplemental essays. Each essay has a word limit of 200 words.
When writing your essays: Be specific. Be true to yourself. Show and not tell. Always check your spelling and grammar. Don’t be afraid to get creative!
Be mindful of the two Harvard deadlines: November 1st (Restrictive Early Action) and January 1st (Regular Decision).
Wherever you are in your college journey, CollegeAdvisor is here to support you. From guides to Harvard’s extracurriculars , to Harvard personal statement examples and what to expect after you apply, we’ve got you covered. Even though the Harvard personal statement examples aren’t answering the same prompts as this year, they can still be educational. Give them a read and see for yourself!

Thanks for reading our guide to Harvard’s supplemental essays—now go forth and write!

This essay guide was written by advisor, Rachel Kahn . Looking for more admissions support? Click here to schedule a free meeting with one of our Admissions Specialists. During your meeting, our team will discuss your profile and help you find targeted ways to increase your admissions odds at top schools. We’ll also answer any questions and discuss how CollegeAdvisor.com can support you in the college application process.

Personalized and effective college advising for high school students.

Advisor Application
Popular Colleges
Privacy Policy and Cookie Notice
Student Login
California Privacy Notice
Terms and Conditions
Your Privacy Choices

By using the College Advisor site and/or working with College Advisor, you agree to our updated Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy , including an arbitration clause that covers any disputes relating to our policies and your use of our products and services.

SUGGESTED TOPICS
The Magazine
Newsletters
Managing Yourself
Managing Teams
Work-life Balance
The Big Idea
Data & Visuals
Reading Lists
Case Selections
HBR Learning
Topic Feeds
Account Settings
Email Preferences

How to Write a Strong Personal Statement

Ruth Gotian
Ushma S. Neill

A few adjustments can get your application noticed.

Whether applying for a summer internship, a professional development opportunity, such as a Fulbright, an executive MBA program, or a senior leadership development course, a personal statement threads the ideas of your CV, and is longer and has a different tone and purpose than a traditional cover letter. A few adjustments to your personal statement can get your application noticed by the reviewer.

Make sure you’re writing what they want to hear. Most organizations that offer a fellowship or internship are using the experience as a pipeline: It’s smart to spend 10 weeks and $15,000 on someone before committing five years and $300,000. Rarely are the organizations being charitable or altruistic, so align your stated goals with theirs
Know when to bury the lead, and when to get to the point. It’s hard to paint a picture and explain your motivations in 200 words, but if you have two pages, give the reader a story arc or ease into your point by setting the scene.
Recognize that the reviewer will be reading your statement subjectively, meaning you’re being assessed on unknowable criteria. Most people on evaluation committees are reading for whether or not you’re interesting. Stated differently, do they want to go out to dinner with you to hear more? Write it so that the person reading it wants to hear more.
Address the elephant in the room (if there is one). Maybe your grades weren’t great in core courses, or perhaps you’ve never worked in the field you’re applying to. Make sure to address the deficiency rather than hoping the reader ignores it because they won’t. A few sentences suffice. Deficiencies do not need to be the cornerstone of the application.

At multiple points in your life, you will need to take action to transition from where you are to where you want to be. This process is layered and time-consuming, and getting yourself to stand out among the masses is an arduous but not impossible task. Having a polished resume that explains what you’ve done is the common first step. But, when an application asks for it, a personal statement can add color and depth to your list of accomplishments. It moves you from a one-dimensional indistinguishable candidate to someone with drive, interest, and nuance.

Ruth Gotian is the chief learning officer and associate professor of education in anesthesiology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, and the author of The Success Factor and Financial Times Guide to Mentoring . She was named the #1 emerging management thinker by Thinkers50. You can access her free list of conversation starters and test your mentoring impact . RuthGotian
Ushma S. Neill is the Vice President, Scientific Education & Training at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. She runs several summer internships and is involved with the NYC Marshall Scholar Selection Committee. ushmaneill

Writing a Personal Statement

Preparing to Write

Brainstorming, don't forget, sample prompts.

A personal statement is a narrative essay that connects your background, experiences, and goals to the mission, requirements, and desired outcomes of the specific opportunity you are seeking. It is a critical component in the selection process, whether the essay is for a competitive internship, a graduate fellowship, or admittance to a graduate school program. It gives the selection committee the best opportunity to get to know you, how you think and make decisions, ways in which past experiences have been significant or formative, and how you envision your future. Personal statements can be varied in form; some are given a specific prompt, while others are less structured. However, in general a personal statement should answer the following questions:

Who are you?
What are your goals?
How does this specific program/opportunity help you achieve your goals?
What is in the future?

A personal statement is not:

A variation of your college admissions essay
An academic/research paper
A narrative version of your resume
A creative writing piece (it can be creative, though)
An essay about somebody else

Keep in mind that your statement is only a portion of the application and should be written with this in mind. Your entire application package will include some, possibly all, of the materials listed below. You will want to consider what these pieces of the application communicate about you. Your personal statement should aim to tie everything together and fill in or address any gaps. There will likely be some overlap but be sure not to be too repetitive.

Personal Statement(s)
Transcripts
Letters of recommendations
Sample of written work
Research proposal

For a quick overview of personal statements, you might begin by watching this "5 Minute Fellowships" video!

If you are writing your first personal statement or working to improve upon an existing personal statement, the video below is a helpful, in-depth resource.

A large portion of your work towards completing a personal statement begins well before your first draft or even an outline. It is incredibly important to be sure you understand all of the rules and regulations around the statement. Things to consider before you begin writing:

How many prompts? And what are they? It is important to know the basics so you can get your ideas in order. Some programs will require a general statement of interest and a focused supplementary or secondary statement closely aligned with the institution's goals.
Are there formatting guidelines? Single or double spaced, margins, fonts, text sizes, etc. Our general guideline is to keep it simple.
How do I submit my statement(s)? If uploading a document we highly suggest using a PDF as it will minimize the chances of accidental changes to formatting. Some programs may event ask you to copy and paste into a text box.
When do I have to submit my statement(s)? Most are due at the time of application but some programs, especially medical schools, will ask for secondary statements a few months after you apply. In these instances be sure to complete them within two weeks, any longer is an indication that you aren't that interested in the institution.

Below is a second 5 Minute Fellowships video that can help you get started!

Before you start writing, take some time to reflect on your experiences and motivations as they relate to the programs to which you are applying. This will offer you a chance to organize your thoughts which will make the writing process much easier. Below are a list of questions to help you get started:

What individuals, experiences or events have shaped your interest in this particular field?
What has influenced your decision to apply to graduate school?
How does this field align with your interests, strengths, and values?
What distinguishes you from other applicants?
What would you bring to this program/profession?
What has prepared you for graduate study in this field? Consider your classes at Wellesley, research and work experience, including internships, summer jobs and volunteer work.
Why are you interested in this particular institution or degree program?
How is this program distinct from others?
What do you hope to gain?
What is motivating you to seek an advanced degree now?
Where do you see yourself headed and how will this degree program help you get there?

For those applying to Medical School, if you need a committee letter for your application and are using the Medical Professions Advisory Committee you have already done a lot of heavy lifting through the 2017-2018 Applicant Information Form . Even if you aren't using MPAC the applicant information form is a great place to start.

Another great place to start is through talking out your ideas. You have a number of options both on and off campus, such as: Career Education advisors and mentors ( you can set up an appointment here ), major advisor, family, friends. If you are applying to a graduate program it is especially important to talk with a faculty member in the field. Remember to take good notes so you can refer to them later.

When you begin writing keep in mind that your essay is one of many in the application pool. This is not to say you should exaggerate your experiences to “stand out” but that you should focus on clear, concise writing. Also keep in mind that the readers are considering you not just as a potential student but a future colleague. Be sure to show them examples and experiences which demonstrate you are ready to begin their program.

It is important to remember that your personal statement will take time and energy to complete, so plan accordingly. Every application and statement should be seen as different from one another, even if they are all the same type of program. Each institution may teach you the same material but their delivery or focus will be slightly different.

In addition, remember:

Be yourself: You aren’t good at being someone else
Tragedy is not a requirement, reflection and depth are
Research the institution or organization
Proofread, proofread, proofread
How to have your personal statement reviewed

The prompts below are from actual applications to a several types of programs. As you will notice many of them are VERY general in nature. This is why it is so important to do your research and reflect on your motivations. Although the prompts are similar in nature the resulting statements would be very different depending on the discipline and type of program, as well as your particular background and reasons for wanting to pursue this graduate degree.

This statement should illustrate your academic background and experiences and explain why you would excel in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (UMass Amherst - M.S. in Civil Engineering).
Describe your academic and career objectives and how the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies can help you achieve them. Include other considerations that explain why you seek admissions to the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and your interests in the environmental field (Yale - Master of Environmental Management).
Please discuss your academic interests and goals. Include your current professional and research interests, as well as your long-range professional objectives. Please be as specific as possible about how your objectives can be met at Clark and do not exceed 800 words (Clark University - M.A. in International Development and Social Change).
Write a 500- to 700-word statement that describes your work or research. Discuss how you came to focus on the medium, body of work, or academic area you wish to pursue at the graduate level. Also discuss future directions or goals for your work, and describe how the Master of Fine Arts in Studio (Printmedia) is particularly suited to your professional goals (School of the Art Institute of Chicago - MFA in Studio, Printmaking).
Your statement should explain why you want to study economics at the graduate level. The statement is particularly important if there is something unusual about your background and preparation that you would like us to know about you (University of Texas at Austin - Ph.D in Economics).
Your personal goal statement is an important part of the review process for our faculty members as they consider your application. They want to know about your background, work experience, plans for graduate study and professional career, qualifications that make you a strong candidate for the program, and any other relevant information (Indiana University Bloomington - M.S.Ed. in Secondary Education).
Your autobiographical essay/personal statement is a narrative that outlines significant experiences in your life, including childhood experiences, study and work, your strengths and aspirations in the field of architecture, and why you want to come to the University of Oregon (University of Oregon - Master of Architecture).
Personal history and diversity statement, in which you describe how your personal background informs your decision to pursue a graduate degree. You may refer to any educational, familial, cultural, economic or social experiences, challenges, community service, outreach activities, residency and citizenship, first-generation college status, or opportunities relevant to your academic journey; how your life experiences contribute to the social, intellectual or cultural diversity within a campus community and your chosen field; or how you might serve educationally underrepresented and underserved segments of society with your graduate education (U.C. Davis - M.A. in Linguistics).
A Personal Statement specifying your past experiences, reasons for applying, and your areas of interest. It should explain your intellectual and personal goals, why you are interested in pursuing an interdisciplinary degree rather than a more traditional disciplinary one, and how this degree fits into your intellectual and personal future (Rutgers University - Ph.D in Women’s and Gender Studies).
Your application requires a written statement to uploaded into your application and is a critical component of your application for admission. This is your opportunity to tell us what excites you about the field of library and information science, and what problems you want to help solve in this field. Please also tell us how your prior experiences have prepared you for this next step toward your career goals and how this program will help you achieve them (University of North Carolina Chapel Hill - Master of Science in Library Science).
After watching the video, please describe what strengths and preferences as a learner you have that will facilitate your success in this innovative curriculum. What challenges in our curriculum do you anticipate and what strategies might you use to address these challenges? (MGH Institute of Health Professions PT - They recently redesigned their curriculum)
Your personal goal statement should briefly describe how you view the future of the field, what your goals are to be part of that future, and what brought you to pursue an advanced education degree in your chosen field. You may include any other information that you feel might be useful. (Northeastern PT)
Personal Statement: In 500 words or less, describe a meaningful educational experience that affected your professional goals and growth and explain how it impacted you. The educational experience does not need to be related to this degree. Focus on the educational experience and not why you think you would be a good professional in this field. (Simmons PT)
Personal Statement (500 word minimum): State your reasons for seeking admission to this program at this institution. Include your professional goals, why you want to pursue a career in this field and how admission to this program will assist you in accomplishing those goals. (Regis College Nursing)
“Use the space provided to explain why you want to go to this type of program.” (AMCAS)
Address the following three questions(Though there is no set limit, most statements are 1–2 pages, single-spaced.): What are your reasons for pursuing this degree? Why do you wish to pursue your degree at this institution? How do you intend to leverage your degree in a career of this field? (Boston University MPH)
Please submit a personal statement/statement of purpose of no more than 500 words for the department/degree of choice. Professional degree essays require a clear understanding of the _______ field and how you hope to work within the field. Be sure to proofread your personal statement carefully for spelling and grammar. In your statement, be sure to address the following: what interests you in the field of _____ what interests you in a specific degree program and department at this institution and what interests you in a particular certificate (if applicable). Please also describe how you hope to use your ________ training to help you achieve your career goals. (Columbia PhD in Public Health - Epidemiology)
Because each Home Program requires significant original research activities in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, we are interested in obtaining as much information as possible about your previous research experiences. Those who already have such experience are in a better position to know whether they are truly interested in performing ______ research as part of a graduate program. Please include specific information about your research experience in your Statement of Purpose. You may also use the Statement to amplify your comments about your choice of Home Program(s), and how your past experiences and current interests are related to your choice. Personal Statements should not exceed two pages in length (single spaced). Make sure to set your computer to Western European or other English-language setting. We cannot guarantee the ability to access your statement if it is submitted in other fonts. (Stanford Biosciences PhD)
Your statement of purpose should describe succinctly your reasons for applying to the Department of ____ at ___ University. It would be helpful to include what you have done to prepare for this degree program. Please describe your research interests, past research experience, future career plans and other details of your background and interests that will allow us to evaluate your ability to thrive in our program. If you have interests that align with a specific faculty member, you may state this in your application. Your statement of purpose should not exceed two pages in length (single spaced). (Stanford Bioengineering PhD)
Statement of purpose (Up to one page or 1,000 words): Rather than a research proposal, you should provide a statement of purpose. Your statement should be written in English and explain your motivation for applying for the course at this institution and your relevant experience and education. Please provide an indication of the area of your proposed research and supervisor(s) in your statement. This will be assessed for the coherence of the statement; evidence of motivation for and understanding of the proposed area of study; the ability to present a reasoned case in English; and commitment to the subject. (Oxford Inorganic Chemistry - DPhil)

Related resources

Environment
Science & Technology
Business & Industry
Health & Public Welfare
Topics (CFR Indexing Terms)
Public Inspection
Presidential Documents
Document Search
Advanced Document Search
Public Inspection Search
Reader Aids Home
Office of the Federal Register Announcements
Using FederalRegister.Gov
Understanding the Federal Register
Recent Site Updates
Federal Register & CFR Statistics
Videos & Tutorials
Developer Resources
Government Policy and OFR Procedures
Congressional Review
My Clipboard
My Comments
My Subscriptions
Sign In / Sign Up
Site Feedback
Search the Federal Register

This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.

The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status. For complete information about, and access to, our official publications and services, go to About the Federal Register on NARA's archives.gov.

The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with the official SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for legal research should verify their results against an official edition of the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.

Design Updates: As part of our ongoing effort to make FederalRegister.gov more accessible and easier to use we've enlarged the space available to the document content and moved all document related data into the utility bar on the left of the document. Read more in our feature announcement .

Trade Regulation Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials

A Rule by the Federal Trade Commission on 08/22/2024

This document has been published in the Federal Register . Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Document Details Published Content - Document Details Agency Federal Trade Commission CFR 16 CFR 465 Document Citation 89 FR 68034 Document Number 2024-18519 Document Type Rule Pages 68034-68079 (46 pages) Publication Date 08/22/2024 RIN 3084-AB76 Published Content - Document Details
View printed version (PDF)
Document Dates Published Content - Document Dates Effective Date 10/21/2024 Dates Text This rule is effective October 21, 2024. Published Content - Document Dates

This table of contents is a navigational tool, processed from the headings within the legal text of Federal Register documents. This repetition of headings to form internal navigation links has no substantive legal effect.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Supplementary information:, table of contents, i. background, a. advance notice of proposed rulemaking, b. notice of proposed rulemaking, c. notice of informal public hearing, ii. the legal standard for promulgating the rule, a. prevalence of acts or practices addressed by the rule, b. manner and context in which the acts or practices are deceptive or unfair, c. the economic effect of the rule, iii. overview of the comments 52, a. furthering the commission's goal, b. adoption of the proposed rule as a final rule, iv. section-by-section analysis, a. § 465.1—definitions, 1. overview, 2. definition-by-definition analysis, a. business, b. celebrity testimonial, c. clear and conspicuous, d. consumer review, e. consumer testimonial, f. indicators of social media influence, g. officers, h. purchase a consumer review, i. reviewer, j. substantially different product, k. testimonialist, l. unjustified legal threat, 3. proposed additional definitions, a. dissemination, c. relative, d. purchase or procure fake indicators, e. review hosting, b. § 465.2—fake or false consumer reviews, consumer testimonials, or celebrity testimonials, 1. common language in § 465.2(a), (b), and (c), 2. § 465.2(a), 3. § 465.2(b), 4. § 465.2(c), 5. § 465.2(d), 6. knowledge standard, 7. other proposals, c. § 465.3—consumer review or testimonial reuse or repurposing, d. § 465.4—buying positive or negative consumer reviews, e. § 465.5—insider consumer reviews and consumer testimonials, 1. material connections, 2. relatives, 5. knowledge standard, 6. other suggestions, f. § 465.6—company-controlled review websites or entities, g. § 465.7—review suppression, 1. § 465.7(a), 2. § 465.7(b), h. § 465.8—misuse of fake indicators of social media influence, i. § 465.9—severability, v. final rule, vi. final regulatory analysis under section 22 of the ftc act, a. need for, and objectives of the final rule, b. anticipated costs and benefits of the final rule, 1. estimated benefits of the final rule, a. consumer welfare benefits from better-informed purchase decisions, b. consumer time savings from increased reliability of summary ratings, c. benefits related to competition, 2. estimated costs of the final rule, a. compliance costs, b. other impacts of the rule, c. reasonable alternatives and explanation of why particular alternative chosen, vii. paperwork reduction act, viii. regulatory flexibility act—final regulatory flexibility analysis, a. reasons for the rule, b. statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the rule, c. issues raised by comments, the commission's assessment and response, and any changes made as a result, d. comments by the chief counsel for advocacy of the sba, the commission's assessment and response, and any changes made as a result, e. description and estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply, f. description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements, g. description of steps taken to minimize impact of the rule on small entities, ix. congressional review act, list of subjects in 16 cfr part 465, part 465—rule on the use of consumer reviews and testimonials.

This feature is not available for this document.

FederalRegister.gov retrieves relevant information about this document from Regulations.gov to provide users with additional context. This information is not part of the official Federal Register document.

Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials

Sharing Enhanced Content - Sharing Shorter Document URL https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-18519 Email Email this document to a friend Enhanced Content - Sharing
Print this document

Document page views are updated periodically throughout the day and are cumulative counts for this document. Counts are subject to sampling, reprocessing and revision (up or down) throughout the day.

This document is also available in the following formats:

More information and documentation can be found in our developer tools pages .

This PDF is the current document as it appeared on Public Inspection on 08/21/2024 at 8:45 am.

It was viewed 0 times while on Public Inspection.

If you are using public inspection listings for legal research, you should verify the contents of the documents against a final, official edition of the Federal Register. Only official editions of the Federal Register provide legal notice of publication to the public and judicial notice to the courts under 44 U.S.C. 1503 & 1507 . Learn more here .

Document headings vary by document type but may contain the following:

the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions

See the Document Drafting Handbook for more details.

Federal Trade Commission

16 CFR Part 465
RIN 3084-AB76

Federal Trade Commission.

Final rule.

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) is issuing this final rule and Statement of Basis and Purpose (“SBP”) relating to certain specified unfair or deceptive acts or practices involving consumer reviews or testimonials. This final rule, among other things, prohibits selling or purchasing fake consumer reviews or testimonials, buying positive or negative consumer reviews, certain insiders creating consumer reviews or testimonials without clearly disclosing their relationships, creating a company-controlled review website that falsely purports to provide independent reviews, certain review suppression practices, and selling or purchasing fake indicators of social media influence.

This rule is effective October 21, 2024.

Michael Ostheimer, (202) 326-2699, Attorney, Division of Advertising Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Room CC-6316, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.

III. Overview of the Comments

b. Other Impacts of the Final Rule

B. Issues Raised by Comments, the Commission's Assessment and Response, and Any Changes Made as a Result

C. Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA, the Commission's Assessment and Response, and Any Changes Made as a Result

D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply

E. Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

F. Description of Steps Taken To Minimize Impact of the Rule on Small Entities

On November 8, 2022, the Federal Trade Commission (“Commission” or “FTC”) published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANPR”) to address certain deceptive or unfair acts or practices involving consumer reviews or testimonials. [ 1 ] Specifically, the ANPR discussed: (1) reviews or endorsements by people who do not exist, who did not actually use or test the product or service, or who were misrepresenting their experience with it; (2) review hijacking, where a seller steals or repurposes reviews of another product; (3) marketers offering compensation or other incentives in exchange for, or conditioned on, the writing of positive or negative consumer reviews; (4) owners, officers, or managers of a company (a) writing reviews or testimonials of their own products or services, or publishing testimonials by their employees or family members, which fail to provide clear and conspicuous disclosures of those relationships, or (b) soliciting reviews from employees or relatives without instructing them to disclose their relationships; (5) the creation or operation of websites, organizations, or entities that purportedly provide independent reviews or opinions of products or services but are, in fact, created and controlled by the companies offering the products or services; (6) misrepresenting that the consumer reviews displayed represent most or all of the reviews submitted when, in fact, reviews are being suppressed based upon their negativity; (7) the suppression of customer reviews by physical threat or unjustified legal threat; and (8) selling, distributing, or buying followers, subscribers, views, and other indicators of social media influence. As part of the ANPR, the Commission solicited public comment on, among other things, whether such practices are prevalent and, if so, whether and how to proceed with a notice of proposed rulemaking ( print page 68035) (“NPRM”). [ 2 ] The ANPR provided for a 60-day comment period, and the Commission received 42 responsive comments [ 3 ] from review platforms and other businesses, trade associations, consumer advocacy organizations, entities dedicated to fighting fake reviews, a public interest research center, a think tank, academic researchers, and individual consumers. [ 4 ] Most commenters expressed support for the Commission proceeding with the rulemaking. Five comments expressed the view that a rulemaking was unnecessary, was premature, or should not apply to the commenter's constituents, or expressed skepticism about the utility of a rulemaking.

Based on an extensive review of the comments received in response to the ANPR, the Commission's own history of enforcement, and other sources of information, the Commission published the NPRM on July 31, 2023. [ 5 ] In the NPRM, the Commission stated that it has reason to believe that certain unfair or deceptive acts or practices involving consumer reviews or testimonials are prevalent, including: (1) fake consumer reviews and testimonials, as well as reviews and testimonials that otherwise misrepresent the experiences of the reviewers and testimonialists; (2) the unfair or deceptive reuse or repurposing of consumer reviews; (3) the giving of incentives for reviews conditioned on the sentiment of the reviews; (4) the use of consumer reviews and testimonials written by company insiders without disclosure of their relationships to the company; (5) marketers setting up purportedly independent websites, organizations, or entities to review or endorse their own products; (6) seller websites representing that the consumer reviews displayed represent most or all of the reviews submitted when, in fact, reviews are being suppressed based upon their negativity; (7) review suppression by unjustified legal threat or physical threat; and (8) the sale and misuse of fake indicators of social media influence for commercial purposes. [ 6 ] The Commission identified no disputed issues of material fact; explained its considerations in developing the proposed rule; solicited additional public comment thereon, including specific questions designed to assist the public in submitting comments; and provided interested parties the opportunity to request to present their position orally at an informal hearing. [ 7 ] Finally, the NPRM set out the Commission's proposed regulatory text. [ 8 ]

In response to the NPRM, the Commission received 100 responsive and non-duplicative comments [ 9 ] from entities and individuals interested in the proposed rule, [ 10 ] which are discussed in sections III and IV. Although some commenters raised concerns and recommended specific modifications or additions to the Commission's proposal, the majority of commenters generally supported the Commission's proposal. Three commenters submitted timely requests to make oral statements at an informal hearing (“the hearing requesters”). [ 11 ]

On January 16, 2024, the Commission published an Initial Notice of Informal Hearing, which also served as the Final Notice of Informal Hearing. [ 12 ] The Notice designated the Honorable Carol Fox Foelak, an Administrative Law Judge for the Securities and Exchange Commission, to serve as the presiding officer for the informal hearing and stated that the hearing requesters could speak at the informal hearing, make documentary submissions to be placed on the public rulemaking record, or both. Written submissions were due on or before January 30, 2024. In response to the Notice of Informal Hearing, the Commission received seven comments. [ 13 ] The Notice also stated that the Commission had decided not to proceed with proposed § 465.3, [ 14 ] which pertained to the unfair or deceptive reuse or repurposing of a consumer review written or created for one product so that it appears to have been written or created for a substantially different product.

As announced in the Notice of Informal Hearing, the informal hearing began as scheduled on February 13, 2024. [ 15 ] Because the Commission had not designated disputed issues of material fact, the February 13 hearing session included no cross-examination or rebuttal submissions but did include oral statements from the three hearing requesters. [ 16 ] One of the hearing requesters, the Interactive Advertising Bureau (“IAB”), a trade association, argued that there were two disputed issues of material fact. [ 17 ] The other two hearing requesters discussed their comments submitted pursuant to the NPRM. At the conclusion of this hearing session, the presiding officer issued an order inviting further submissions, including specific evidence, concerning whether there were disputed issues of material fact. [ 18 ] IAB submitted a letter that described the results from a survey directed to its members—to which eighteen unidentified members responded [ 19 ] —regarding the impact of the proposed rule, including their estimated compliance costs. [ 20 ]

On February 23, 2024, the presiding officer issued an order finding one disputed issue of material fact, namely, “[w]hether the compliance costs for businesses will be minimal.” [ 21 ] However, the February 23 order stated that “[i]t can be argued that . . . even ( print page 68036) if the actual costs are more than double what the FTC assumed, it would not change the outcome of the rule, and therefore, it is not a `disputed issue[ ] of material fact necessary to be resolved.' ” [ 22 ] The order provided that the presiding officer was nevertheless scheduling an additional hearing session for March 5, 2024, because “an expert witness or proposed testimony from affected firms' compliance officers or legal counsel” might “shed light on what would be involved with compliance review and implementation” and “could give the FTC a way of better quantifying cost.” [ 23 ] The March 5 hearing session was subsequently moved to March 6, 2024 at the trade association's request. [ 24 ]

At the March 6 hearing session, the trade association put on one witness: its Executive Vice President for Public Policy, an attorney, who testified about the results of two limited surveys of its members. [ 25 ] FTC staff conducted cross examination. The attorney's testimony about the surveys [ 26 ] did not call the Commission's cost estimates into legitimate question. Only a small number of unidentified trade association members completed the surveys, and no evidence was submitted to indicate that they were representative of any group, much less all affected businesses. [ 27 ] Further, only a few of the survey respondents gave compliance cost estimates, none of which were accompanied by explanation or evidence of their factual bases, and all of which could have been influenced by the trade association's misconceptions about the law and the proposed rule. [ 28 ]

The presiding officer issued a recommended decision on May 8, 2024, stating that based on the evidence, “it cannot be found whether or not the proposed rule will have compliance costs that will be minimal.” [ 29 ] Later in the decision, the presiding officer explained that the evidence “falls short as the basis for a finding that compliance costs would not be minimal” because “a minute sample of businesses that would be affected by the proposed rule responded to the surveys, and there is insufficient information about the nature of those businesses, how they calculated potential compliance costs, and the methodology of the surveys.” [ 30 ]

In crafting the final rule, the Commission has carefully considered the comments received and the rulemaking record as a whole, which includes the oral statements made at and documents submitted for the informal hearing. As a result, the final rule contains some changes from the proposed rule. These modifications, mostly clarifications and limitations, discussed in detail in section IV of this document, are based upon input from commenters and careful consideration of relevant law. Section IV also discusses commenters' recommendations that the Commission declined to adopt, along with the Commission's reasons for rejecting them. Accordingly, the Commission adopts the proposed rule with limited modifications as discussed below. The rule will take effect October 21, 2024.

The Commission is promulgating 16 CFR part 465 pursuant to section 18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a , which authorizes the Commission to promulgate, modify, and repeal trade regulation rules that define with specificity acts or practices in or affecting commerce that are unfair or deceptive within the meaning of section 5(a)(1) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1) . [ 31 ]

Whenever the Commission promulgates a rule under section 18(a)(1)(B), the rule must also include a Statement of Basis and Purpose (“SBP”) that addresses: (1) the prevalence of the acts or practices addressed by the rule; (2) the manner and context in which the acts or practices are unfair or deceptive; and (3) the economic effect of the rule, taking into account the effect on small businesses and consumers. [ 32 ] In this section of the preamble, the Commission summarizes its findings regarding each of these requirements.

In its ANPR, the Commission described its enforcement record, demonstrating the pervasiveness of the deceptive or unfair commercial acts or practices involving reviews or other endorsements it was examining. [ 33 ] In the NPRM, the Commission cited additional enforcement evidence, including actions brought by State Attorneys General (“AGs”) and private lawsuits, as well as international evidence, and also took notice of additional indications of prevalence that came from commenters. [ 34 ]

In support of the finding that fake reviews are prevalent, the NPRM cited to (1) FTC, State, and private cases; (2) statistics from review platforms, a platform insider, academic and other researchers, consumer surveys, investigative journalists, and others about the incidence of fake reviews; (3) information about the pervasiveness of consumer review rings that facilitate the buying, selling, or exchange of fake reviews; (4) the experiences of regulators in other countries and of international bodies; and (5) reporting regarding the use of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) tools that make it easier for bad actors to write fake reviews. [ 35 ] In support of the finding that fake testimonials are prevalent, the NPRM discussed relevant FTC cases, an in-depth Better Business Bureau investigative study that examined fake celebrity endorsements, a celebrity lawsuit involving the fraudulent use of the celebrities' names, and an FTC consumer alert about fake Shark Tank celebrity testimonials. [ 36 ] In support of the finding that misrepresentations of endorsers' experiences are prevalent, the NPRM cited to FTC cases and a ( print page 68037) comment by the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (“NAIMA”) asserting that testimonials by those misrepresenting their experiences with insulation products are plentiful. [ 37 ] The Commission concluded that the unfair or deceptive reuse or repurposing of consumer reviews is prevalent, relying upon a prior Commission case and numerous news articles. [ 38 ] To show how commonly incentives are given in exchange for reviews with the incentives conditioned on the sentiment of the reviews, the NPRM pointed to FTC and private cases, analyses by researchers of markets for procuring reviews, and the experience of a small business employee commenter who said a competitor was providing incentives for 5-star reviews. [ 39 ] The Commission found prevalence of unfair or deceptive insider reviews and testimonials based on its prior cases; a State AG action; statistics from a review platform commenter about how many reviews of businesses were written by their owners, officers, or employees, or their family members; and an individual commenter who relied upon insider reviews in selecting an auto repair shop. [ 40 ] The NPRM cited prior cases regarding the prevalent practice of marketers setting up purportedly independent websites, organizations, or entities to review or endorse their own products. [ 41 ] The Commission found prevalence of suppression of negative reviews on retailer or business websites based on a platform's comment, a recent FTC case, and what it learned in another investigation about more than 4,500 merchants that were automatically publishing only 4- or 5-star consumer reviews. [ 42 ] The NPRM relied upon reports by platform and other commenters, as well as FTC and State AG cases, regarding review suppression by unjustified legal threat or physical threat. [ 43 ] Finally, with respect to the prevalence of sales and misuse of fake indicators of social media influence for commercial purposes, the NPRM discussed cases brought by the FTC, a State AG, and private parties, and published reports on social media bots and fake social media accounts. [ 44 ]

The rule is intended to curb certain unfair or deceptive uses of consumer reviews and testimonials. It contains several provisions to promote accuracy and truthfulness in reviews and testimonials and, thus, will allow American consumers to make better-informed purchase decisions. The key provisions of the rule prohibit conduct that is inherently deceptive or unfair, including creating, selling, and buying fake or false reviews or testimonials; buying reviews in exchange for, or conditioned on, their sentiment; and using reviews and testimonials from company insiders that hide their relationships to the company. The rule also includes prohibitions against misleading, company-controlled review websites or entities; unfair or deceptive review suppression practices; and the misuse of fake indicators of social media influence.

As part of the rulemaking proceeding, the Commission solicited public comment and data (both qualitative and quantitative) on the economic impact of the proposed rule and its costs and benefits. [ 45 ] In issuing the final rule, the Commission has carefully considered the comments received and the costs and benefits of each provision, taking into account the effect on small businesses and consumers, as discussed in more detail in sections VI and VIII of this document. The record demonstrates that the most significant anticipated benefit of the final rule is increased deterrence of clearly unfair or deceptive acts or practices involving consumer reviews or testimonials. Another significant benefit is the expansion of the remedies available to the Commission, including the ability to more effectively obtain monetary relief. This is particularly critical given the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC, which held that equitable monetary relief, including consumer redress, is not available under section 13(b) of the FTC Act. [ 46 ] Post- AMG, the Commission's primary means for obtaining redress is section 19 of the FTC Act. By issuing the final rule, the Commission can obtain such redress based on violations of the rule in one proceeding under section 19(a)(1), which will be significantly faster than the two-step process for obtaining redress under section 19(a)(2). [ 47 ] By allowing the Commission to secure redress more quickly and efficiently, this rule will also allow the Commission to preserve enforcement resources for other mission priorities. [ 48 ] As an additional benefit, the rule will enable the Commission to seek civil penalties against violators. [ 49 ] Without an efficient way to seek civil penalties, bad actors have little fear of being penalized for using fraud and deception in connection with reviews and endorsements. Increased deterrence will have consumer welfare benefits and will benefit honest competition. [ 50 ] Moreover, the final rule is likely to impose relatively small compliance costs on honest businesses. [ 51 ]

The Commission received 100 responsive and non-duplicative comments in response to the NPRM from a diverse group of individuals (including consumers and law students), industry groups and trade associations, review platforms, retailers, and other businesses, consumer advocacy organizations, and government entities.

In the NPRM, the Commission invited the public to comment on any issues or concerns the public believed were relevant or appropriate to the Commission's consideration of the ( print page 68038) proposed rule. [ 53 ] The NPRM also posed twenty-three specific questions for the public. [ 54 ] The first two are broad questions addressed in this section III, which also discusses several issues or concerns that commenters raised generally without reference to particular sections of the rule. Responses to the more specific questions in the NPRM are discussed in section IV of this document, a section-by-section analysis of the final rule. Questions relating to the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) and Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) and are addressed in sections VII and VIII of this document, respectively. [ 55 ]

In Question 1 of the NPRM, the Commission asked whether its proposal would further the Commission's goal of protecting consumers from clearly unfair or deceptive acts or practices involving consumer reviews and testimonials. [ 56 ]

Several commenters expressly addressed this question. A review platform and a business that specializes in identifying fake online reviews submitted comments stating that the proposed rule would further the Commission's goal of protecting consumers from clearly unfair or deceptive acts or practices involving consumer reviews. [ 57 ] Another review platform commenter answered that there are “numerous advantages of the FTC's proposed new Rule,” that it is “generally supportive of this intervention overall,” and that the proposed rule “will be helpful to set out clear rules that expressly prohibit practices like writing or purchasing fake reviews, providing compensation or incentives in exchange for reviews, and certain acts of unfair review suppression.” [ 58 ] A business commenter similarly answered that the “Proposed Rule addresses many concerns about unfair or deceptive acts or practices involving consumer reviews and testimonials, such as false and biased reviews.” [ 59 ] Both of these commenters also noted areas in which they thought certain provisions of the proposed rule should be adjusted or clarified; those issues are addressed below. [ 60 ] A consumer organization said that “[i]n general, . . . the proposed Rule will reduce the incentives for businesses to purchase, disseminate, or sell fake consumer reviews or testimonials,” but thought that the proposed rule should have placed explicit restrictions on third-party review platforms. [ 61 ] The Commission notes that this topic is beyond the scope of the rulemaking, which focuses instead on those responsible for inarguably unfair or deceptive acts or practices regarding reviews and testimonials.

In Question 2 of the NPRM, the Commission inquired whether it should finalize the proposed rule, the reasons for why commenters were in favor of or against the finalization of the proposed rule, and whether the Commission should make any changes to its original proposal. [ 62 ]

Only two commenters directly addressed this question. A business commenter agreed that the Commission should finalize the proposed rule. [ 63 ] A review platform commenter said it “supports this Rule and would support the Commission finalizing the Rule. [ 64 ] It also suggested adjustments to the Commission's proposal, which are addressed below in this document.

Numerous individual commenters, [ 65 ] trade associations, [ 66 ] and consumer organizations [ 67 ] expressed general support for the proposed rule. For example, an individual commenter wrote, “I completely agree with the proposal. . . . Because review sections have become so untrustworthy (being impossible to tell whether a company has paid for positive reviews of its own product, or for negative reviews on a rival's product), review sections have become functionally useless for me. This makes it difficult to purchase any products online, since real consumer feedback is one of the few ways to determine whether I should buy the product or service without first examining it in person.” [ 68 ] Another individual stated, “I support the rules as specified, and applaud the FTC's action in this regard. It is extremely difficult for the consumer to determine the validity of online reviews—even within specific retailers such as amazon. There is little benefit for large online retailers to ensure that reviews are accurate, and this fact is evident in the large number of bogus reviews found on amazon, newegg, youtube and other sites.” [ 69 ] A third individual wrote, “I strongly support the rules against fake review ( print page 68039) and testimonials and fines for businesses and people who write them. As a consumer, I often use reviews to help determine whether a product or service is reliable; the prevalence of fake reviews makes this impossible.” [ 70 ] A trade association commented, “The NPRM proposes rules that are appropriately scoped to target the bad actors [who are] intent on committing fraud through fake or deceptive reviews. . . . The NPRM strikes the appropriate balance between enhancing the Commission's tools to target bad actors and preserving industry flexibility to develop innovative and effective solutions to maintain consumer confidence in reviews.” [ 71 ] A consumer organization stated, “The Commission absolutely should finalize the proposed rule to better protect shoppers and hold businesses accountable.” [ 72 ]

A number of individual consumers, [ 73 ] a review platform, [ 74 ] other industry members, [ 75 ] and consumer organizations [ 76 ] supported the Commission's proposal, but urged the Commission to go further and impose additional requirements, such as by adding provisions that would apply to third-party review platforms. As noted above, such provisions would be beyond the scope of the rulemaking. Similarly beyond the scope of the rulemaking is an individual's suggestion that the Commission should restrict the highlighting of testimonials on websites and prohibit payments for reviews.” [ 77 ] A review platform's comment “applaud[ed] . . . the Commission . . . for its extensive efforts to address the problem of deceptive review practices, as reflected in the Commission's notice of proposed rulemaking, and . . . fully support[ed] and endorse[d] the Commission's proposed Rule.” [ 78 ] Its suggestions for several provisions are discussed below. A consumer group stated that the proposed rule “is needed” and “addresses an urgent problem: fabricated and otherwise deceptive reviews and ratings of products and services,” but asked for numerous modifications to strengthen it. [ 79 ] These proposals are discussed below.

A few individual commenters [ 80 ] and industry commenters [ 81 ] were supportive of a rule but expressed the need for clarifications or modifications. An individual commenter wrote that “[a]ll of the rules proposed . . . make (common) sense” but identified “a few scenarios that highlight that the language in the proposed rules is a bit ambiguous” and that with “steep penalties like this, guidelines need to be clear, concrete, AND simple so businesses can understand.” [ 82 ] Another individual commenter said that the proposed rule “takes great strides,” but that two proposed sections, 465.4 and 465.6, are too restrictive. [ 83 ] A retailer wrote, “On the whole, . . . the Proposed Rule contains provisions that are reasonable and would provide additional protection to consumers” but “there are a few provisions . . . that are not well drafted or that need additional language.” [ 84 ] Another retailer said that it “supports a tailored rule that focuses on the bad actors that harm consumers,” but that the proposed rule “sweeps more broadly, extending to the activities of legitimate businesses that do not uncover abuses that they `should have' identified, regardless of their good faith efforts” and that “[s]uch an overbroad rule would have significant unintended negative consequences on legitimate conduct.” [ 85 ] An industry organization commented that the proposed rule “is an important step, and we share the Commission's goal of improving consumer confidence in reviews and testimonials” but “strongly urge[d] the Commission to reexamine . . . [four] provisions” to address what it viewed as First Amendment concerns and for other reasons. [ 86 ] The specific suggestions or concerns raised by these and other commenters are addressed below. In particular, whether in the text of the final rule or in the discussion below, the Commission is clarifying the scope or meaning of various rule provisions to cover the specific activities or conduct that harm consumers and avoid ambiguity or overbreadth.

Only four commenters, two individual commenters [ 87 ] and two trade associations, [ 88 ] said that the proposed rule was unnecessary or unwarranted. One of the individuals, wrote that “the rule seems to be unnecessary as it is unlikely to actually provide the benefit to consumers of removing falsified reviews” because it is difficult to identify and trace fake reviews and “punish[ ] an offender” and that the proposed rule “also has potential to penalize non-offenders” when competitors purchase “review bombs.” [ 89 ] The commenter asserted that the FTC's estimated benefits are based on faulty assumptions such as that “the entirety of the loss” from false reviews “would be eliminated simply because the rule is enacted. [ 90 ] The commenter said that the FTC should either maintain the status quo or require websites with consumer reviews to include a disclosure that “some reviews may have not been made by genuine customers, may potentially have been paid ( print page 68040) testimonials, etc.” [ 91 ] The other individual commenter said that the “proposed rule is unnecessary because all of the practices considered by the rule `are already unlawful under Section 5 of the FTC Act,' it has potentially massive compliance costs for American businesses” (citing the FTC's estimated cost), “and the better salutation [sic] is to work with States and review platforms to resolve the issue.” [ 92 ] One of the trade associations stated that the “Proposed Rule is [u]nnecessary,” that “current FTC enforcement authority has been effective in addressing such clearly deceptive practices, and there is no indication how or why a trade regulation rule is needed, or how such a rule would more effectively address concerns about such deceptive practices,” and that “a need to alleviate the `difficulty' of obtaining monetary relief under the FTC Act where such authority has never existed, does not provide an adequate basis for the issuance of a Magnuson-Moss rulemaking.” [ 93 ] The other trade association asserted that (1) it “does not believe that rulemaking is warranted, wise, or a balanced approach, in part because it raises serious First Amendment concerns;” (2) “a well-designed rule would focus on a defined trade” but the “record to date does not establish that customer reviews, the use of those reviews, or the dissemination of those reviews by commercial platforms is itself a defined trade;” (3) the “FTC should not promulgate a rule solely because the augmented penalties attendant to a rule violation could ostensibly advance a Commission goal generally;” and (4) “the FTC fail[ed] to show how enforcement actions, many of which were settled by consent order, translate into `prevalence.' ” [ 94 ]

The Commission disagrees with the four commenters who said that the proposed rule was unnecessary or unwarranted. The Commission believes that the status quo is inadequate to address consumer harm and that the rule will add deterrence and aid enforcement even though the practices covered by the rule are already unlawful under section 5 of the FTC Act. Greater deterrence and more effective enforcement are legitimate reasons to engage in a rulemaking, whereas difficulties in enforcing a rule against some violators are no reason to eschew it. [ 95 ] Further, the compliance costs estimated by the Commission are greatly outweighed by the estimated benefits to consumers and honest competition. The Commission notes that the harm caused by the acts and practices addressed cut across multiple trades. The Commission addresses potential First Amendment concerns and arguments regarding prevalence below.

The following discussion provides a section-by-section analysis of the provisions proposed in the NPRM, and discusses the comments received, the Commission's responses to the comments, and the provisions adopted in the final rule. [ 96 ]

The proposed rule included definitions for the following terms: “business”; “celebrity testimonial”; “clear and conspicuous”; “consumer review”; “consumer testimonial”; “indicators of social media influence”; “officers”; “purchase a consumer review”; “reviewer”; “substantially different product”; “testimonialist”; and “unjustified legal threat.” In Question 6 of the NPRM, the Commission asked whether the proposed definitions are clear and what changes should be made to any definitions. In Questions 11 and 21 of the NPRM, the Commission asked specifically about the definitions of “substantially different product” and “unjustified legal threat,” respectively. In the following definition-by-definition analysis, the Commission discusses each definition proposed in the NPRM, relevant comments not otherwise addressed in the discussion of the corresponding substantive provisions of the final rule, and the definitions that the Commission is finalizing. [ 97 ]

The proposed rule defined “business” as “an individual, partnership, corporation, or any other commercial entity that sells products or services.” This term appeared in the proposed definitions of “celebrity testimonial,” “consumer review,” “consumer testimonial,” and “officers,” and in every substantive section of the proposed rule. For the following reasons, the Commission adopts the definition of “business” largely as proposed, with a minor, non-substantive clarification as described below.

A trade association commenter noted correctly that the Commission's rulemaking authority is limited to acts or practices “in or affecting commerce.” [ 98 ] It recommended that the Commission insert “in or affecting commerce as defined in section 4 of the Federal Trade Commission Act ( 15 U.S.C. 44 )” in the definition of a “business.” [ 99 ] The Commission declines to make this modification. An entity that is selling products or services is engaging in commerce and, even without the commenter's proposed addition, the acts and practices covered by the final rule are limited to commercial practices.

A consumer advocacy organization commenter argued that the definition of a business potentially liable under the proposed rule was unduly narrow and should be expanded to include “advertisers,” “endorsers,” and “[a]dvertising agencies, public relations firms, review brokers, reputation management companies, and other similar intermediaries.” [ 100 ] However, advertisers, advertising agencies, public relations firms, review brokers, reputation management companies, and other similar intermediaries all sell products or services and are covered by the Commission's definition of “business.” To the extent that an endorser is in the business of selling reviews or testimonials, the endorser is covered by the definition. The Commission is therefore not making the proposed change.

A review platform commenter suggested that, to avoid ambiguity, the Commission clarify that “sells products or services” in the definition of “business” applies to each of the types of entities listed in the definition, not just to “any other commercial ( print page 68041) entity.” [ 101 ] The Commission is adopting this recommendation to clarify the intended scope of the definition.

For the reasons explained in this section, the Commission is finalizing the definition of “business” to mean an individual who sells products or services, a partnership that sells products or services, a corporation that sells products or services, or any other commercial entity that sells products or services.

The proposed rule defined “celebrity testimonial” as “an advertising or promotional message (including verbal statements, demonstrations, or depictions of the name, signature, likeness, or other identifying personal characteristics of an individual) that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, or experiences of a well-known person who purchased, used, or otherwise had experience with a product, service, or business.” The Commission is finalizing the definition of this term—which is used in § 465.2, Fake or False Consumer Reviews, Consumer Testimonials, or Celebrity Testimonials—with one modification.

A trade association commenter said that the definition of a celebrity endorsement should be clarified to exclude “a situation where a celebrity or celebrity likeness appears or is used by a business as a promotion, without any specific advertising or opinions presented.” [ 102 ] The commenter gave the example of an athlete who appears at a business to sign autographs or simply appears, without making any statements or representations about the business. [ 103 ] Such situations should not be excluded from the scope of the definition because a business's use in advertising or promotion of a celebrity or a celebrity's image can, even without any additional statements, imply that the celebrity has a positive opinion of the business or its products or services and therefore constitute a celebrity testimonial. However, if consumers would not interpret the celebrity's appearance to reflect the celebrity's opinions of, beliefs about, or experiences with, a business or its products or services, then the appearance is not a testimonial. That issue is thus highly dependent on specific facts. Further, to take the commenter's example, it is highly unlikely that a celebrity who does nothing more than sign autographs or appear at a business could violate § 465.2, because such signings or appearances alone would likely not communicate anything to consumers about the celebrity's use or experience with a product, service, or business.

A second trade association asserted that the definition of a “celebrity testimonial” does not give advertisers adequate notice as to when a testimonial is a “celebrity” testimonial or a “consumer” testimonial. [ 104 ] The commenter requested that the Commission provide further guidance on what constitutes a “well-known” individual. [ 105 ] Based upon common usage, well-known individuals include those famous in the areas of entertainment, such as film, music, writing, or sport, and those known to the public for their positions or successes in business, government, politics, or religion. Individuals who earn money through their work as “influencers” are also well known, as are those who have been featured in the news or media. More important, whether someone is well known does not matter for purposes of rule interpretation and enforcement because any provisions that apply to celebrity testimonials also apply to consumer testimonials.

A business commenter suggested replacing “a well-known person” in the definition with a “widely known all-purpose public figure” or “widely known public figure” for the purpose of “clarity.” [ 106 ] It said that Black's Law Dictionary defines the term “all-purpose public figure” to mean “[s]omeone who achieves such pervasive fame or notoriety that he or she becomes a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts.” [ 107 ] To be “well known,” one need not have such pervasive fame as to be a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts. For example, an influencer may be well known to a subset of individuals interested in a particular subject. The commenter gave no justification for narrowing the definition of a “celebrity testimonial,” and the Commission declines to do so.

A public interest research center commenter said that the definitions of “celebrity testimonials” and “consumer testimonials” should “be broadened to explicitly include non-natural persons, such as businesses and public sector entities.” [ 108 ] Although endorsements by such organizations are addressed in the Commission's Endorsement Guides, [ 109 ] the Commission did not intend for any provision using the term “testimonials” to apply to endorsements by entities. To clarify that the Commission does not intend for any provision using the term “testimonials” to apply to endorsements by entities, the Commission is substituting the word “individual” for the word “person” wherever the word appeared in the Commission's original proposal. [ 110 ] The only section of the rule that applies to endorsements by entities or purported entities is § 465.6, which addresses company-controlled review websites or entities. However, § 465.6 does not apply to consumer or celebrity testimonials.

The proposed rule defined “clear and conspicuous” to mean “that a required disclosure is easily noticeable ( i.e., difficult to miss) and easily understandable,” including in eight enumerated ways, listing proposed requirements for “any communication that is solely visual or solely audible,” “[a] visual disclosure,” “[a]n audible disclosure,” and “any communication using an interactive electronic medium,” and providing, inter alia, that such disclosures “must use diction and syntax understandable to ordinary consumers,” “must appear in each language in which the representation that requires the disclosure appears,” and “must not be contradicted or mitigated by, or inconsistent with, anything else in the communication.” Based on the following, the Commission is finalizing the definition of this term—which is used in § 465.5, Insider Consumer Reviews and Consumer Testimonials—with one modification.

A trade association commenter suggested not using the terms “diction” and “syntax” in the definition because many of those subject to the rule “may not know the meaning of th[os]e words.” [ 111 ] The commenter suggested replacing them with “words” and ( print page 68042) “grammar.” [ 112 ] “Diction” means the choice and use of words. [ 113 ] “Syntax” involves the arrangement of words and phrases and is a subset of grammar. [ 114 ] The Commission believes that the meaning of “diction” and “syntax” are sufficiently clear.

One trade association commenter asserted that it is unnecessary to have a definition of “clear and conspicuous” because the “phrase . . . has a meaning under FTC jurisprudence.” [ 115 ] The definition is based on that jurisprudence and decades of Commission experience policing deceptive and unfair conduct. The Commission believes it is both helpful and necessary that the rule provides more explicit guidance on what does and does not constitute a clear and conspicuous disclosure.

Several commenters asserted that the proposed definition was overly prescriptive and not sufficiently flexible. [ 116 ] The Commission disagrees and reiterates that the definition contains basic, common-sense principles, such as requiring visual disclosures in a size consumers can see and audible disclosures at a volume they can hear. The definition merely provides a baseline and provides a great deal of flexibility in what a disclosure should say and how it appears. The basic, enumerated requirements are necessary for a disclosure to be effective.

Two commenters objected to the requirement that internet disclosures be “unavoidable,” an objective standard that depends on whether consumers could have avoided the disclosure, which, per the definition is the case when “a consumer must take any action, such as clicking on a hyperlink or hovering over an icon, to see” the disclosure. [ 117 ] The commenters do not believe that a disclosure has to be unavoidable for it to be effective; they noted that a staff business guidance document, issued in 2000 and updated in 2013, allowed for the possibility that avoidable disclosures, e.g., those available through a hyperlink, could be clear and conspicuous. [ 118 ] The Commission believes that a disclosure is not effective when it is not seen or heard, including when the reason for it not being seen or heard is its avoidability. The staff guidance said that “[d]isclosures that are an integral part of a claim or inseparable from it should not be communicated through a hyperlink,” and the purported independence and objectivity of a reviewer or testimonialist is often integral. [ 119 ] Further, some readers misunderstood the staff guidance about the necessity of properly labeling hyperlinks to convey the “importance, nature, and relevance of the information” to which the hyperlinks lead. The staff guidance said that, to be effective, the label of the hyperlink might need to give the essence of the disclosure, with the hyperlink leading to the details. [ 120 ] Even had these qualifications been absent, the Commission is not bound by the 2013 staff business guidance, which is currently under review in light of an evolution of views over time regarding online disclosures and avoidability. [ 121 ]

One commenter asked whether a disclosure in the first line of a product review would be considered unavoidable. [ 122 ] For the purposes of this rule, the Commission would consider such a disclosure to be unavoidable. A different commenter expressed concern that the requirement that a disclosure “stand out” would require new formatting techniques for companies hosting reviews and preclude a disclosure from being in the review itself. [ 123 ] For the purposes of this rule, the Commission would consider a disclosure at the beginning of a text-only consumer review to “stand out.”

A trade association said that “the average social media user is familiar with where text is found in any given social media post, and social media platforms already make text visible against a variety of backgrounds” so “[r]equiring the endorsement-disclosure text to differ from other text is not only impractical, but it could actually create confusion for social media users who have grown accustomed to viewing all text related to a post in a certain manner.” [ 124 ] The Commission recognizes that, on a social media platform that allows only uniform text, it is not possible to have the text of a disclosure appear in different text. As with a text-only consumer review, the Commission would consider a disclosure at the beginning of such a text-only testimonial to “stand out.” On visual platforms with superimposed text, it is quite possible and reasonable to require that the text of a disclosure “stand out.”

One commenter asserted that being “unavoidable” and being “easily noticed” are ambiguous concepts. [ 125 ] The Commission disagrees. “Unavoidable” means that a consumer cannot avoid a disclosure such as by failing to click on a link or by failing to scroll. “Easily noticeable” is a simple and objective standard evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable consumer.

Two commenters asserted that it would be difficult to make clear and conspicuous disclosures required by the proposed rule on a small screen. [ 126 ] They did not explain why that would be the case, and the Commission does not believe that compliance with the rule's disclosure requirement should be difficult on handheld devices.

One commenter asserted that, because of the proposed definition of clear and conspicuous, “[t]here is no need for the FTC to determine whether the resulting speech is rendered deceptive, untrue, or inaccurate.” [ 127 ] The Commission disagrees. The only substantive provision for which the definition is relevant is § 465.5. A business would not violate that provision merely by having a disclosure that is not clear and conspicuous. Rather, the business would have to engage in conduct that would be unfair or deceptive in the absence of a clear and conspicuous disclosure ( e.g., a corporate officer ( print page 68043) giving a consumer endorsement without disclosing that they are an insider). As discussed below, the Commission is finalizing proposed § 465.5 with a modification to clarify to clarify that the provision is limited to conduct that would violate section 5 of the FTC Act. [ 128 ] The same commenter also surmised, based on the similarity of the definition of “clear and conspicuous” to the definition of the same phrase in the Endorsement Guides, that the Commission intends that the examples used in the Endorsement Guides would also be examples of violative behavior under the rule. [ 129 ] That is not the case. The Endorsement Guides address a broader range of conduct than the rule. Of the three examples in the Endorsement Guides that illustrate whether disclosures are clear and conspicuous, two of them address issues—the payment of influencers and implied typicality—not covered by the rule. [ 130 ] The third example involves a disclosure that individuals appearing in a television ad and giving testimonials are paid actors. [ 131 ] Such conduct would not be covered by the rule unless the underlying testimonials were fake or false.

One commenter, a trade association, stated that it was “unclear if the Commission has considered any social media platform constraints with respect to the length of posts ( e.g., character and time limits),” and asked (1) whether and how hashtags can meet the “clear and conspicuous” requirement, (2) whether “`#Ad' is a sufficient visual disclosure of a material relationship,” and (3) that the Commission “provide more examples, including appropriate use of hashtags in disclosures, in its final rule.” [ 132 ] Another trade association requested in its comment that the Commission provide “visual examples of `insider' endorsement disclosures that the Commission finds acceptable.” [ 133 ] The Commission believes it is not difficult to comply with the rule's disclosure requirements in the social media context. Depending upon their wording and appearance, hashtags can be clear and conspicuous for purposes of the rule. In a social media post promoting a brand, it might be sufficient to prominently disclose an employee relationship via a hashtag beginning with the brand name and followed by the word “employee.” Whether “#ad” would be an adequate disclosure would depend on the specific context. It could be adequate at the beginning of a social media post by the testimonialist, but it would likely be inadequate in a television ad or magazine ad featuring the testimonialist. Because the only provision for which the definition is relevant is § 465.5, which addresses the failure to disclose insider relationships, the disclosure could be as simple as the testimonialist describing a product as “my company's” or “my wife's company's.”

A commenter asserted that disclosures “utilizing a social media platform's built-in disclosure tool should be . . . at least sufficient enough to avoid the risk of penalties under the FTC's rulemaking authority.” [ 134 ] As it has previously said, the Commission supports development of effective, built-in disclosure tools but is concerned that some of the existing tools lead to inadequate disclosures that are too poorly contrasting, fleeting, or small, or may be placed in locations where they do not catch the user's attention. [ 135 ] Whether a business could be subject to civil penalties for social media posts by insiders who utilized a social media platform's built-in disclosure tool would depend on whether a court would find that the business met the knowledge standard of section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act.

A trade association's comment expressed concerns about the proposed requirement that “[i]n any communication made through both visual and audible means, such as a television advertisement, the disclosure must be presented simultaneously in both the visual and audible portions of the communication even if the representation requiring the disclosure is made in only one means.” [ 136 ] The commenter said that “it is unnecessary and duplicative to require video endorsements that include visual and audio components to include both visual and audio disclaimers,” and “requiring an additional visual disclaimer, on top of a disclaimer that an endorser may easily include via audio, is cumbersome, and restricts companies' marketing capabilities.” [ 137 ] On reflection, in the context of this rulemaking and as to the relationships of company insiders, if a communication makes an endorsement in only its visual or audio portion, then it should be sufficient for a disclosure to appear in the same format as the claim that requires the disclosure. On the other hand, if an endorsement is conveyed in both the audio and visual portions of a communication, then the disclosure should be made in both the audio and visual portions. Consumers can watch a video with the sound off or listen to it without looking at the screen. The Commission is changing the relevant language to, “[i]n any communication made through both visual and audible means, such as a television advertisement, the disclosure must be presented in at least the same means as the representation(s) requiring the disclosure.” This change makes the rule less restrictive while still accomplishing the Commission's goal of ensuring that consumers are fully informed. A different trade association noted that the “simultaneous disclosure requirement is confusing and would benefit from examples of sufficient simultaneous disclosure.” [ 138 ] Because the Commission is not finalizing the simultaneous disclosure requirement contained in the proposed rule, it is not providing further guidance on the meaning of simultaneous.

The second trade association also asked “if a social media influencer posts a video and discloses verbally in the video that they have a brand ambassador relationship with the retailer/brand, is it sufficient to display in the text accompanying the posted video some written disclosure” or would the disclosure “need to be embedded or flash across the video itself.” [ 139 ] The rule does not address or apply to an influencer's disclosure of a brand ambassador relationship. The rule's only disclosure requirements are in § 465.5 and apply to company insiders. Whether a testimonial in a social media post by a company insider requires a superimposed textual disclosure depends on whether there is an endorsement communicated by the visual portion of the post. If there is an endorsement in the visual portion, there would need to be a disclosure in the visual portion. If the endorsement is communicated only in the audio portion of the post, there would not need to be a disclosure in the visual portion.

The proposed rule defined “consumer review” as “a consumer's evaluation, or a purported consumer's evaluation, of a product, service, or business that is ( print page 68044) submitted by the consumer or purported consumer and that is published to a website or platform dedicated in whole or in part to receiving and displaying such evaluations.” The proposed definition also noted that, for the purposes of the rule, consumer reviews include consumer ratings regardless of whether they include any text or narrative. The Commission has determined to finalize the definition of this term—which is used in §§ 465.2 through 465.6—with a minor, technical change.

A comment from a review platform supported the proposed definition, calling it “particularly clear and holistic.” [ 140 ]

A comment from an individual asserted that the “definition of `consumer' implies an individual who purchased the product for their own use” and that when a “product is provided by the company seeking a review, for the purposes of it being reviewed, the reviewer is arguably not a consumer.” [ 141 ] The Commission disagrees that a “consumer” is necessarily a purchaser. For purposes of the rule, a consumer is a person who purchased, used, or otherwise had experience with a product, service, or business.

A trade association commenter suggested deleting the definition's element that a consumer review be “published.” [ 142 ] It said that a “consumer review should still be considered a `review' before it is publicly displayed by a website or platform.” [ 143 ] Although that may be true for some purposes, the Commission declines to make that change. A consumer review that is submitted to a website or platform but never published does not in and of itself deceive consumers, although the failure to publish a review may be deceptive pursuant to paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) of § 465.7. Paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) of § 465.7 are worded in a way that does not limit their application to published reviews, because they relate to suppressed reviews.

A comment from a consumer advocacy organization suggested deleting the portion of the definition that refers to publication to a website or platform “dedicated in whole or in part to receiving and displaying such evaluations.” [ 144 ] It asked whether the definition would “only apply to reviews on a website `dedicated' to posting reviews, such as Yelp” and whether “it include[s] any website where reviews are possibly posted, like Reddit?” [ 145 ] The commenter continued, “Would a website be excluded if only a very small portion of the website contained consumer evaluations?” [ 146 ] The commenter asserted that “[a]ll fake reviews and ratings that are used to market a product or service should be captured in the . . . Rule—no matter where they are posted.” [ 147 ] The definition is not limited to consumer reviews on websites that are dedicated entirely to posting such reviews. It would also cover reviews on a portion of a website, no matter how small a portion, that is dedicated to receiving and displaying such reviews, such as a reviews page or the review sections of product pages on a retailer's website. The definition would not, however, cover consumer statements about products or services on a website or portion of a website, such as Reddit, that is not dedicated to receiving and displaying reviews. Such free-floating consumer statements are outside of the generally understood context in which content is submitted and published as reviews. Under some circumstances, such statements might be considered “consumer testimonials,” such as when an advertiser has paid for them.

A comment from a review platform raised two issues with the “consumer review” definition. [ 148 ] It said that “[b]are ratings provide no context, making them virtually useless for other consumers or to businesses that might use consumer feedback to improve their services” and suggested that “the Commission differentiate between reviews and ratings.” [ 149 ] The fact that bare ratings do not provide context does not mean that consumers do not rely on them or on aggregate ratings that include bare ratings. The Commission does not see a reason to distinguish between reviews and ratings for the purposes of the rule, and the commenter did not provide such a reason. The same commenter also expressed “concern[ ] with the definition's use of the word `purported[,]' . . . which has a negative connotation that feeds into the false narrative that consumer reviews are inherently unreliable” and suggested replacing “purported” with different language. [ 150 ] The definition simply recognizes and accounts for the undisputed fact that some reviews are fake. Just because some reviews are unreliable does not suggest that reviews are generally unreliable. The Commission declines to adopt this recommendation.

To conform with the Office of the Federal Register's drafting requirements, the Commission is changing a reference to “this Rule” to “this part.” [ 151 ]

The proposed rule defined “consumer testimonial” as “an advertising or promotional message (including verbal statements, demonstrations, or depictions of the name, signature, likeness, or other identifying personal characteristics of an individual) that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, or experiences of a consumer who has purchased, used, or otherwise had experience with a product, service, or business.” The Commission is finalizing the definition of the term—which is used in §§ 465.2 and 465.5—as originally proposed.

A trade association commenter expressed concern that consumers seeing a clearly dramatized television commercial might unreasonably believe that the actors' scripted lines actually reflected their opinions, beliefs, or experiences and could therefore be considered consumer testimonials. [ 152 ] It suggested clarifying the definition by inserting “reasonably in the circumstances” after “that consumers are likely to believe.” [ 153 ] The Commission agrees that it would not be reasonable for viewers to consider “an obviously fictional dramatization” to be an endorsement. [ 154 ] The Commission does not, however, believe it is necessary to modify the definition. The concept of “reasonable consumers” from FTC jurisprudence [ 155 ] is incorporated into the concept of consumers being likely to believe something.

The same public interest research center that commented, as discussed above, that the Commission should broaden the definition of “celebrity testimonials” to explicitly include non-natural persons (such as businesses and ( print page 68045) public sector entities) [ 156 ] made the same comment with respect to the definition of “consumer testimonials.” [ 157 ] The Commission declines to make that change in the latter definition for the same reason it declined to make it in the former definition.

The proposed rule defined “indicators of social media influence” as “any metrics used by the public to make assessments of an individual's or entity's social media influence, such as followers, friends, connections, subscribers, views, plays, likes, reposts, and comments.” For the following reasons, the Commission adopts the definition of “indicators of social media influence”—a term which is used in § 465.8, Misuse of Fake Indicators of Social Media Influence—largely as proposed, with one modification described below.

A comment from a consumer advocacy organization suggested explicitly including “Saves” and “Shares” within the definition of indicators of social media influence.” [ 158 ] The commenter explained that the number of times that social media posts are saved or shared serves as indicators of social media influence and that both “Saves” and “Shares” are offered for sale on the internet. [ 159 ] Because the NPRM proposed to define the term as “any metrics used by the public to make assessments of an individual's or entity's social media influence,” “Saves” and “Shares” were already covered by the definition as originally proposed. However, merely for the purpose of clarification, the Commission is adding them to the listed examples of indicators. The same commenter also suggested that the Commission expand the definition to include engagement metrics that are not publicly visible but that are used to gain an algorithmic advantage. [ 160 ] Such non-visible indicators are outside the scope of this rulemaking, and the Commission chooses not to address them at this time.

One review platform commenter suggested that the Commission “simplify the definition to exhaustively list the current metrics that are such indicators.” [ 161 ] The commenter continued that “whether a given metric is `used by the public to make assessments of an individual's or entity's social media influence' may become the subject of substantial dispute in future cases . . . in the absence of an exhaustive, disjunctive list of indicators.” [ 162 ] The Commission intends the listed indicators to be examples and non-exhaustive, a flexible and efficient approach that avoids having to modify the rule when such metrics change. The Commission has no reason to believe that its approach will result in substantial disputes in its cases.

For the reasons explained in this section, the Commission is finalizing the definition of “indicators of social media influence” to mean any metrics used by the public to make assessments of an individual's or entity's social media influence, such as followers, friends, connections, subscribers, views, plays, likes, saves, shares, reposts, and comments.

The proposed rule defined “officers” as “including owners, executives, and managing members of a business.” The Commission is finalizing the definition of this term—which is used in §§ 465.2 and 465.5.

A review platform commenter said that including “managing members” in the definition of “officers” “could suggest that managers are officers.” [ 163 ] The commenter also suggested that the definition of “officers” “should be refined to only include `senior management members' of a business,” thereby creating “a clearer distinction between those in a position of leadership versus lower-level employees, or staff that may have the title `manager' without any practical level of control and power to exert influence over others.” [ 164 ]

Because a “managing member” is a commonly understood term referring to an owner and senior manager of a limited liability company, and because the term does not refer to all “managers” of a business, the Commission declines to remove “managing members” from the definition of “officer.” As discussed below, the Commission continues to believe it appropriate that §§ 465.2 and 465.5 apply to both officers and managers and is therefore not limiting the definition of “officers” to “senior management members.” A new definition of “managers” is discussed below. [ 165 ]

The proposed rule defined “purchase a consumer review” as “provid[ing] something of value, such as money, goods, or another review, in exchange for a consumer review.” For the following reasons, the Commission adopts the definition of “purchase a consumer review”—a term which is used in § 465.2, Fake or False Consumer Reviews, Consumer Testimonials, or Celebrity Testimonials—largely as proposed, with two modifications described below.

An individual commenter wrote, “[r]egarding payment for reviews, the use of . . . discounts on future purchases from the business should be specifically prohibited as well.” [ 166 ] A review platform commenter suggested “that the Commission list additional examples of . . . what the Commission considers `value.' ” [ 167 ] Specifically, it suggested adding “gift certificates,” “services,” “discounts,” “coupons,” and “contest entries.” [ 168 ] Such examples of value were covered by the proposed definition, which applies to “something of value” provided in exchange for a consumer review” but, for purposes of clarification, the Commission is adding these examples of value in the final definition. The review platform commenter also suggested adding “other incentives,” [ 169 ] which the Commission thinks is unnecessary, given that the list is only exemplary and preceded by the words “such as.”

Another review platform commenter suggested using language explicitly stating that the listed examples of “value” are not exhaustive. [ 170 ] The Commission believes that, because the phrase “such as” precedes the list of examples, this is already sufficiently clear from the language of the definition.

The proposed definition used the term “goods.” To ensure that terminology is used consistently throughout the rule, the Commission is replacing the term “goods” with the synonymous word “products” in the final definition. [ 171 ]

For the reasons explained in this section, the Commission is finalizing the definition of “purchase a consumer review” to mean to provide something ( print page 68046) of value, such as money, gift certificates, products, services, discounts, coupons, contest entries, or another review, in exchange for a consumer review.

The proposed rule defined “reviewer” as “the author or purported author of a consumer review.” The Commission is finalizing the definition of the term—which is used in §§ 465.2 and 465.5—as originally proposed.

One review platform commenter objected to the use of the word “purported” in the definition of “reviewer,” just as it objected to that word's inclusion in the definition of “consumer review.” [ 172 ] The commenter asserted that “purported” feeds into the false narrative that consumer reviews are inherently unreliable. As discussed above, the use of the word “purported” simply recognizes and accounts for the undisputed fact that some reviews are fake. [ 173 ] The Commission declines to modify the definition of “reviewer.”

The proposed rule defined “substantially different product” as a product that differs from another product in one or more material attributes other than color, size, count, or flavor. The defined term appeared in proposed § 465.3, Consumer Review or Testimonial Reuse or Repurposing, which the Commission is no longer planning on finalizing. [ 174 ] Given that the Commission has decided not to proceed with proposed § 465.3 at this time, it is not including a definition of “substantially different product” in the final rule.

The proposed rule defined “testimonialist” as “the person giving or purportedly giving a consumer testimonial or celebrity testimonial.” None of the comments received addressed the definition of testimonialist. As already discussed in section IV.A.2.b of this document, the Commission is substituting the word “individual” for the word “person” wherever the word appeared in the Commission's original proposal. Aside from this minor, clarifying modification, the Commission has determined that it will finalize the definition of the term—which is used in §§ 465.2 and 465.5—as originally proposed.

The proposed rule defined “unjustified legal threat” as “a threat to initiate or file a baseless legal action, such as an action for defamation that challenges truthful speech or matters of opinion.” For the following reasons, the Commission adopts the definition—a term which is used in § 465.7, Review Suppression—largely as proposed, with two modifications described below.

The NPRM asked whether “the definition of `unjustified legal threat' is sufficiently clear.” One company's comment said that the proposed definition was clear. [ 175 ] A trade association said “the term `unjustified' is a vague standard that leaves unclear what legal support a business must have for its legal position before it warns the creator of a review of possible legal proceedings.” [ 176 ] A comment from State Attorneys General suggested changing “unjustified” to “unfounded, groundless, or unreasonable” in order to provide a more objective legal standard for evaluating the types of legal threats that are not permitted. [ 177 ] The Commission agrees in part with this recommendation. As a clarification of what it intended, the Commission is changing “unjustified” to “unfounded or groundless.” Specifically, this change avoids the unintended, potentially broader scope of the term “unjustified,” which is also freighted with subjective considerations, in favor of terms that reflect objective legal standards. For similar reasons, the Commission is not adding “unreasonable,” a term which is unnecessary and not as precise in this particular situation as “unfounded or groundless.”

The State Attorneys General comment also recommended that the definition include “a threat to enforce an agreement that is void, voidable, or unenforceable.” [ 178 ] It said that the word “unjustified” may be insufficient to address merchants arguing that their legal threats were justified by their non-disclosure agreements that limit consumer reviews. [ 179 ] The change from “unjustified” to “unfounded or groundless” addresses this concern. A comment from a review platform suggested that the Commission expand the definition to include threats based on form contracts that violate the Consumer Review Fairness Act (“CRFA”). [ 180 ] Given that such form contracts are already prohibited by the CRFA, [ 181 ] the Commission declines to address them in this rulemaking.

A consumer group's comment disagreed with the definition's use of the phrase “baseless legal action” on the basis that it “open[s] just as many questions as the underlying term it attempts to define.” [ 182 ] A company's comment noted that the phrase “a baseless legal action” is vague, and recommend that the Commission instead adopt language that is based upon Rule 11(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [ 183 ] Specifically, the commenter recommended changing “a baseless legal action” to “a legal action that is not warranted by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or establishing new law.” [ 184 ]

The Commission is partially adopting the commenter's suggestion by adopting language that is loosely based upon Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) and (3). [ 185 ] However, the Commission is not adopting the phrase “extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or establishing new law” because it is highly doubtful that companies would threaten consumers by asserting that, while no lawsuit is warranted under existing law, they will bring a lawsuit anyway and try to change existing law. Instead, the Commission chooses to clarify the definition by changing “threat to file a baseless legal action” to “legal threat based on claims, defenses, or other legal contentions unwarranted by existing law or based on factual contentions that have no evidentiary support or will likely have no evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.”

A review platform commenter was concerned that the proposed definition's “wording opens the door to bad actors being able to claim defamation on weakly justified grounds and to seek to game the system by deliberately constructing legal terms which can then be deployed to suppress reviews.” [ 186 ] The Commission believes that the revised definition addresses this ( print page 68047) concern, especially given its inclusion of language from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) and (3), which is intended to avoid such misuse of the court system. In any event, the Commission is deleting “such as an action for defamation that challenges truthful speech or matters of opinion” because this example is unnecessary and possibly confusing in this context.

For the reasons explained in this section, the Commission is adopting the proposed definition of an “unfounded or groundless legal threat” with clarifying changes. The final definition provides that an “unfounded or groundless legal threat” is a legal threat based on claims, defenses, or other legal contentions unwarranted by existing law or based on factual contentions that have no evidentiary support or will likely have no evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.

In Question 7 of the NPRM, the Commission asked what additional definitions, if any, are needed. In Questions 14 and 18 of the NPRM, the Commission asked whether it should define the terms “managers” and “relatives,” respectively. As discussed below, various commenters suggested that the Commission define the following terms and phrases that appear in the proposed rule: “dissemination,” “manager,” “relative,” and “purchase or procure fake indicators.” One commenter suggested that the Commission define “review hosting” and exclude it from the scope of § 465.2. [ 187 ]

The term “disseminate” appears in both proposed and final §§ 465.2 and 465.5. A comment from a trade association stated that the Commission should define “disseminate” “within Proposed § 465.2(b) to include only the affirmative posting or intentional distribution of reviews, where a company has actual knowledge that the reviews are false or fraudulent in nature.” [ 188 ] The commenter continued by saying that “disseminate” should “not include passive actions such as allowing a review to be posted or published on a company's web page, unless the company has actual knowledge that the review is false or fraudulent in nature” or “retailers sharing reviews with third-party platforms such as Google.” [ 189 ] Within both §§ 465.2 and 465.5, however, “disseminate” applies only to testimonials, not to consumer reviews. One of the basic canons of statutory and regulatory construction is that words are to be understood in their ordinary, everyday meanings—unless the context indicates that they bear a technical sense. [ 190 ] In §§ 465.2 and 465.5, the Commission intended for the term to have its ordinary, everyday meaning—that is, to spread or to convey something, rather than the proposed definition. [ 191 ] Accordingly, the Commission declines to add the proposed definition.

The term “manager” appeared in proposed § 465.5, Insider Consumer Reviews and Consumer Testimonials, and was undefined. Due to the clarifying changes to § 465.2 that are discussed in further detail below, the term is now included in both final § 465.5 and final § 465.2, Fake or False Consumer Reviews, Consumer Testimonials, or Celebrity Testimonials.

One business commenter noted that it is unnecessary to define “manager.” [ 192 ] An industry organization wrote in its comment that the failure to define the term “manager” “raises concerns about the number of a firm's employees impacted.” [ 193 ] A review platform commenter said that using the term “manager” without any definition is particularly problematic, [ 194 ] noting that someone “may have the title `manager' without any practical level of control and power to exert influence over others. For example, it is possible in a business for a person to have the title `manager' while holding a relatively junior position and without having any employees that directly report to them.” [ 195 ] Proposed and final § 465.5(c) address “managers” soliciting or demanding consumer reviews from employees or agents. In this context, the Commission's intent was for the term “manager” to be limited to those who supervise others. Thus, the Commission is adopting a definition for the term “manager” to make this clarification, which will ensure that § 465.5(c) is not interpreted as more restrictive than the Commission intended. [ 196 ]

A business commenter that operates in the insurance-marketing space explained that independent-contractor insurance agents who build their own agencies are referred to as “managers” and asked that the definition of “managers” expressly carve out “managers in the insurance marketing space” or at least clarify that managers are those “who are employed by the company.” [ 197 ] As similar situations may arise in other contexts, the Commission is adopting the commenter's latter recommendation, and clarifying that managers are employees of the businesses.

For the reasons explained in this section, the final rule adopts a definition for the term “manager.” The final rule defines the term “manager” as an employee of a business who supervises other employees or agents and who either holds the title of a “manager” or otherwise serves in a managerial role.

The term “relative” appeared in proposed § 465.5, Insider Consumer Reviews and Consumer Testimonials. It was undefined in the proposed rule.

Two commenters suggested that the Commission define the term “relative.” A comment from a review platform said that a plain reading of “relative” could cover “an extremely broad range of people” and “is likely to extend to persons who may not be biased since they are in reality not close to the ( print page 68048) business.” [ 198 ] The commenter suggested that the prohibition in § 465.5(c) be limited to close relatives such as immediate family members. [ 199 ] A comment from a business organization said that the term “relative” is too vague and that “[i]t is unclear whether the rule applies to third cousins, the spouses of a stepbrother's child from a previous marriage, or friends that are considered family.” [ 200 ] The commenter continued that “[l]arge companies creating monitoring programs for testimonials need some clarity about what relatives will be captured under the Rule.” [ 201 ]

As discussed below, the Commission believes that some rule provisions should be limited to “immediate relatives.” [ 202 ] The Commission is adding a definition of an “immediate relative,” which clarifies that the term refers to a spouse, parent, child, or sibling. In the final rule, the term “immediate relative” is used in §§ 465.2(c) and 465.5(c).

The phrase “purchase or procure fake indicators of social media influence” is used in proposed and final § 465.8, Misuse of Fake Indicators of Social Media Influence. The phrase was undefined in the proposed rule.

A consumer advocacy commenter stated that leaving the terms “purchase” and “procure” undefined “leaves ambiguity regarding which types of incentives are restricted,” and suggested defining the phrase “purchase or procure fake indicators of social media influence” to mean “to provide something of value, such as money, goods, or another indicator of social media influence ( i.e. [,] a `like'), in exchange for a fake indicator of social media influence.” [ 203 ] The Commission declines to adopt the commenter's suggestion. [ 204 ] The definition proposed by the commenter would unnecessarily narrow the types of actions that would be covered by the rule to an exchange. In the final rule, the Commission intends for the term “procure” to bear its ordinary, everyday meaning—that is, to obtain something. [ 205 ] Even if there is any ambiguity in the term “purchase,” any exchange of value in order to obtain fake indicators of social media influence would be “procuring” the fake indicators.

A retailer submitted a comment suggesting that “review hosting” be defined and excluded from the scope of § 465.2. [ 206 ] The commenter suggested the following definition:

Review hosting includes but is not limited to activity associated with maintaining a repository of consumer reviews and testimonials for display such as: offering review submission functionality, collecting and moderating reviews, organizing and displaying reviews, aggregating reviews into star ratings, and providing guidance to consumers about how to leave reviews where no incentive is offered. [ 207 ]

As discussed below, the Commission did not intend for its proposal to apply to simply hosting consumer reviews. [ 208 ] The Commission is therefore, for the purpose of clarification, adopting a definition of the term “consumer review hosting” in order to exclude mere review hosting from certain provisions of the rule. The Commission is not adopting the commenter's proposed definition because it included activities that go beyond the core of mere review hosting and because it begins with the phrase “include but is not limited to,” which would allow it to include an unknown, larger category of activities. The final rule defines “consumer review hosting” as providing the technological means by which a website or platform allows consumers to see or hear the consumer reviews that consumers have submitted to the website or platform. The exclusion of “consumer review hosting” from certain sections of the rule is discussed below.

Proposed § 465.2 addressed fake or false consumer reviews, consumer testimonials, and celebrity testimonials. Based on the following, the Commission has determined to finalize these prohibitions, with a number of revisions. The following paragraphs discuss comments relating to (1) proposed § 465.2 generally, (2) common language in all three paragraphs, (3) the individual paragraphs, 4) the knowledge standard, and (5) other potential requirements.

Numerous individual commenters wrote about the importance of authentic reviews or testimonials and that fake or false ones should be prohibited. [ 209 ] A technology company commenter wrote that it “would welcome rules to prohibit fake reviews and place stronger obligations on businesses who host them to better protect consumers.” [ 210 ]

A celebrity commenter wrote that he had “received more than 100 emails from consumers who have been induced to purchase fake products through the mis-use of . . . [his] image and the images of other Shark Tank `sharks.' ” [ 211 ]

A business commenter suggested explaining the “financial consequence of fake reviews,” such as whether it is “~$50,000 per fake review.” [ 212 ] The maximum civil penalty is currently $51,744 per violation, but courts must take into account the statutory factors set forth in section 5(m)(1)(C) of the FTC Act and may impose much lower per-violation penalties. [ 213 ] Ultimately, courts will also decide how to calculate the number of violations in a given case.

Proposed § 465.2 consisted of three paragraphs, each of which sought to address unfair or deceptive conduct by ( print page 68049) prohibiting specified types of reviews or testimonials: (1) by someone who “does not exist,” (2) by someone “who did not use or otherwise have experience with the product, service, or business that is the subject” of it, or (3) “that materially misrepresents, expressly or by implication, the [person's] . . . experience with the product, service, or business.” For the purpose of the following discussion, references to “fake or false” reviews or testimonials cover these three types of reviews or testimonials.

A trade association asserted that the Commission lacked sufficient evidence of prevalence of reviews and testimonials that “materially misrepresent[ ] . . . the reviewer's or testimonialist's experience.” [ 214 ] The trade association asserted that some of the cases cited by the Commission also involved “actual fake reviews” and therefore should not count as evidence of prevalence. [ 215 ] The Commission disagrees: a fake or fabricated review misrepresents the purported reviewer's experience ( e.g., that the reviewer used the product and what their experience was). The commenter also asserted that five of the cases cited by the Commission to establish prevalence “provide no additional details about the unfair or deceptive act or practice at issue aside from bare allegations that the consumer testimonials in the case involved misrepresentations of the consumer's experience,” and therefore are insufficient to establish prevalence. [ 216 ] However, the quoted representations in each of the Commission's complaints makes clear the nature of the misrepresentations. [ 217 ] Furthermore, even if a Commission complaint does not provide all details about a specific misrepresentation, that does not mean that it cannot serve as evidence of prevalence. The Commission thus has a strong basis for its conclusion that reviews and testimonials misrepresenting the experiences of the reviewers and testimonialists are prevalent.

The same trade association and another one expressed concern that the “prohibition on all reviews that are authored by individuals that [sic] `do not exist' or have not used the product would prohibit a wide swath of non-deceptive speech, including for example, any satirical reviews that a business authors, creates, sells, purchases, disseminates, or procures.” [ 218 ] As discussed in the NPRM, the Commission's intent was to prohibit misrepresentations resulting from reviews or testimonials by someone who does not exist or who did not use or otherwise have experience with the product, service, or business. [ 219 ] The Commission is unsure of the extent to which there are satirical reviews that could run afoul of the provision as proposed. Nonetheless, upon a review of the comments, the Commission now recognizes that absent an express reference to material misrepresentations, the provision could be interpreted to prohibit other potentially non-deceptive speech, such as the use of virtual influencers. [ 220 ] To avoid this unintended consequence, the Commission is clarifying that § 465.2 is limited to prohibiting material misrepresentations. As finalized, the prohibitions in § 465.2 are expressly limited to reviews and testimonials “materially misrepresent[ing], expressly or by implication . . . that the reviewer or testimonialist exists; . . . that the reviewer or testimonialist used or had experience with the product, service, or business that is the subject of the review or testimonial; or . . . the reviewer's or testimonialist's experience with the product, service, or business that is the subject of the review or testimonial.”

A different trade association raised several concerns about the common language of proposed § 465.2. It asserted that the provision “would prohibit the use of a dead person's endorsement because arguably that person does not exist.” [ 221 ] The Commission does not interpret a person who “does not exist” to include a person who died after making an endorsement, but that concern should be resolved by the new language regarding material misrepresentations. The commenter went on to question “what constitutes an `actual experience,' ” asking whether a person who saw a label had actual experience with it and whether a person who tasted an item purchased at a restaurant but did not visit the restaurant had actual experience. [ 222 ] The proposed provision did not use the term “actual experience,” and the persons in the commenter's posited hypotheticals did have legitimate experience with the product or service but should not misrepresent that experience as more than it was. The commenter also said that “it is unclear if the . . . element—materially misrepresenting the experience with the product or service—relates to the experience or an opinion about the product or service.” [ 223 ] It relates to the person's “experience” with the product or service, that is, what actually happened when they used or otherwise experienced it and not simply their “opinion” of it. The same commenter asked whether “an actor portraying an actual reviewer” is misrepresenting their experience as long as it is “clear that it is an actor portrayal.” [ 224 ] The provision does not prohibit using an actor to portray a real testimonialist.

An individual commenter who raised the same concern about whether actors could portray real testimonialists [ 225 ] went on to express concerns that the actor “shouldn't misrepresent who the original person was,” such as by misrepresenting “the effectiveness/health benefits of [a] product by hiring a very fit in shape person.” [ 226 ] The Commission has issued guidance stating that “use of an endorsement with the image or likeness of a person other than the actual endorser is deceptive if it misrepresents a material attribute of the endorser.” [ 227 ] Nevertheless, the Commission does not intend for § 465.2 to address such misrepresentations.

A consumer organization's comment requested that the Commission “explicitly indicate that fake . . . ratings are an independent and separate violation from deceptive narrative reviews.” [ 228 ] The Commission believes that making this distinction is unnecessary and declines to make this change.

Proposed § 465.2(a) would have made it a violation for a “business to write, create, or sell a consumer review, consumer testimonial, or celebrity testimonial” that is fake or false.

An individual commenter noted that the prohibition “is too specific and it would be easy for a business to find an alternative method not prohibited by the rule.” [ 229 ] The commenter posited an example: “a business could have someone next to them tell them their review and someone could transcribe it, technically the business did not create, make, or sell anything and thus would not be in violation.” [ 230 ] If a business is paying an individual to transcribe a fake or false review, it is creating or making the review, and would therefore have violated § 465.2(a). Accordingly, the Commission declines to modify the prohibition in response to the commenter's concern.

A trade association submitted a comment asking the Commission to “confirm that when a real consumer authors the review, the business cannot be said to have written or created it, and thus . . . section [465.2(a)] could not apply.” [ 231 ] The Commission is unsure what the commenter means by a “real consumer authors the review.” The provision would apply if, for example, a business employs a “real consumer” to write fifty reviews of a product under different names.

A comment from a retailer that publishes reviews said that “review brokers and other bad actors . . . coordinate the high-volume writing, buying, and selling of fake reviews” and that the rule should apply to those “approaching customers, instructing them on how to create fake reviews and avoid detection, and connecting them with bad actors operating [fake] accounts.” [ 232 ] Brokers of fake reviews would generally fall under the provision's prohibition against selling a consumer review, given that such brokers are generally being paid to provide fake reviews.

A trade association commenter suggested clarifying that “business” in § 465.2(a) “refers to a business that helps to create or sell reviews or testimonials.” [ 233 ] Although the paragraph does apply to such businesses, it also applies to a business that writes or creates fake reviews or testimonials for its own products or services. For this reason, the Commission declines to adopt the commenter's suggestion.

An individual commenter asked whether the prohibition covers “people who leave reviews in good faith” if “they were getting paid for it.” [ 234 ] Neither § 465.2(a) nor any section of the rule imposes liability on individual consumers who write honest reviews, even if they are paid for doing so.

Another individual commenter requested that civil penalties be imposed “on the company for soliciting the reviews, rather than on the reviewer, unless the reviewer knowingly is leaving fake reviews.” [ 235 ] Under § 465.2(a), an individual who is in the business of writing, creating, selling, or brokering reviews could be liable for creating consumer reviews that are fake or false. That individual could only be subject to civil penalties if they did so with actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances that they were engaging in an act or practice that is unfair or deceptive and is prohibited by the rule. [ 236 ]

An individual commenter expressed concern that “competing parties could potentially create fake reviews on another party in order to give the impression that the party is in violation of the” rule. [ 237 ] Although such misconduct is possible, the target of such misconduct would not be liable under § 465.2(a), based on how it is worded. For example, the target would not have been the one who created, wrote, or sold the review, nor would the target have purchased the review. The competitor who engaged in such misconduct might be liable for deceptive or unfair conduct under the FTC Act.

Proposed § 465.2(b) would have made it a violation for a business to “purchase a consumer review” or “disseminate or cause the dissemination of a consumer testimonial or celebrity testimonial” about “the business or one of its products or services” which “the business knew or should have known” was fake or false.

A consumer organization commented that, by limiting § 465.2(b) to a business posting reviews or disseminating or causing the dissemination of testimonials about “the business or one of its products or services,” the Commission's proposal limits liability to the business itself “instead of including other . . . creators or disseminators of deceptive reviews and testimonials.” [ 238 ] In response to the commenter's concern, the Commission notes that those creating or disseminating deceptive reviews and testimonials could be liable under § 465.2(a).

A trade association asked whether a business “ `disseminates' reviews for its products merely by . . . placing them in advertising/marketing materials.” [ 239 ] Section 465.2(b) applies only to the dissemination of testimonials, but if a business includes consumer reviews in its advertising or marketing materials, those reviews become “testimonials” and are covered.

Another commenter requested that the Commission “clarify the limited applicability of `to disseminate or cause the dissemination' in proposed § 465.2(b) so the definition does not wrongly apply to third parties that host or license reviews.” [ 240 ] The phrase “to disseminate or cause the dissemination” applies only to testimonials and not to consumer reviews, so it could not apply to third parties that host or license reviews. The only situation in which § 465.2(b) applies to consumer reviews is when a business purchases a consumer review.

Proposed § 465.2(c) would have made it a violation for a business to “procure a consumer review for posting on a third-party platform or website, about the business or one of its products or services,” which “the business knew or should have known” was fake or false.

Several commenters questioned the scope and “vagueness” of the undefined term “procure” in proposed § 465.2(c). [ 241 ] A trade association wrote that “the Commission should explain that a retailer does not `procure a consumer review for posting on a third-party platform or website' simply by requesting that previous customers submit reviews, and then allowing submitted reviews to be posted on the retailer's own website or sharing customer reviews with Google.” [ 242 ] The ( print page 68051) Commission did not intend to cover such activities. Instead, the Commission intended to cover a much more limited set of activities: the procurement of fake and false reviews from company insiders. The Commission is therefore revising § 465.2(c) by limiting it to a business procuring consumer reviews “from its officers, managers, employees, or agents, or any of their immediate relatives.”

A trade association's comment questioned the phrase “its products or services” in the context of what was proposed § 465.2(c). [ 243 ] It asked whether the term would apply to all of the products sold by a department store, an online marketplace, or a consignment business. [ 244 ] The Commission recognizes that the phrase “its products or services” was ambiguous. In order to address this inadvertent ambiguity, the Commission is making clarifying changes by replacing the phrase “its products or services” with the phrase “the products or services it sells” in § 465.2(b) and (c), as well as in other places where it appears in the rule. [ 245 ] The revised language captures what the Commission originally intended and would apply to products sold by a department store, an online marketplace, or a consignment business.

Upon consideration of the comments received, the Commission is adding paragraph (d) in § 465.2 to clarify the scope of § 465.2(b) and (c). The Commission recognizes that, when a business sends a broad solicitation to customers to post customer reviews, one or more recipients might also be employees of the business. If any such employee then posts reviews, one might consider those reviews to have been “procured” from the employee. Similarly, the Commission recognizes that broad, incentivized solicitations to the general public or past customers to post about a product on social media could be considered “causing the dissemination” of testimonials. It would not be reasonable to expect a business to know whether such resulting reviews or testimonials were fake or false, and the Commission did not intend to cover those reviews in this section of the proposed rule. Therefore, the Commission is adding § 465.2(d)(1), which clarifies that § 465.2(b) and (c) do not apply to “generalized solicitations to purchasers to post reviews or post testimonials about their experiences with the product, service, or business that is the subject of the review or testimonial.” By “generalized solicitations,” the Commission means to exempt from § 465.2(b) and (c) solicitations sent to large groups of customers, such as those who purchased a particular item or who became customers during a given time period, where specific customers are not chosen based on the likelihood that they will express a particular sentiment. In contrast, solicitations made only to customers whom the business believes to be happy customers would not be “generalized solicitations” and would therefore be subject to § 465.2(b) and (c).

As the Commission said in the NPRM, § 465.2 does not “apply to any reviews that a platform simply publishes and that it did not purchase.” In other words, the Commission did not intend for § 465.2 to apply to platforms that simply host third-party content and does not believe that the section can be interpreted otherwise. Nonetheless, numerous commenters expressed concern over whether the section covered the mere hosting of third-party content. [ 246 ] A number of industry commenters and an individual commenter asked the Commission to expressly exempt those who host consumer reviews created by a third party. [ 247 ] Three industry comments asked the Commission to create a safe harbor for review hosting when the company has reasonable processes in place to identify and remove fake reviews. [ 248 ] Consistent with its statement in the NPRM, the Commission is adding § 465.2(d)(2) to provide an explicit exemption for “merely engaging in consumer review hosting” from the scope of § 465.2(b) and (c).

A trade association noted that, in the “case of reviews being shared between retailers and third-party platforms,” “it would be unfair to immunize the search platform from liability for the review shared by the retailer, but not to immunize the retailer for the review created by the potential bad actor.” [ 249 ] However, a retailer or other entity will not be liable for sharing consumer reviews unless it would have been liable for displaying those same reviews on its own website.

Two comments raised the issue of hosting both reviews and testimonials. A trade association commenter expressed concern that the Commission should “avoid sweeping in companies such as online retailers that host consumer reviews and testimonials and engage in activities such as organizing, moderating, aggregating, and prompting the submission of reviews and testimonials.” [ 250 ] Another trade association made a very similar comment and “urge[d] the FTC to confirm that liability under this section would require the company to do more than host reviews/testimonials.” [ 251 ] As for reviews, § 465.2 will not prohibit an online business that hosts reviews from prompting the submission of reviews from the general public or from organizing, moderating, or aggregating them. Nonetheless, certain unfair or deceptive conduct that involves prompting the submission of reviews or moderation could violate § 465.4 or § 465.7(b), respectively. [ 252 ] As for testimonials, it is unclear what hosting scenarios the commenters are contemplating. The Commission is not adding an exemption for “merely hosting testimonials” because there is no provision in the rule that applies to testimonial hosting because testimonials are, by definition, advertising or promotional messages. A business that puts testimonials on its own website is “disseminating” them and is not merely “hosting” them. When such testimonials are fake or false, the business should face potential liability under this paragraph. On the other hand, a business that has on its website a community forum in which consumers can comment about the business and the products or services it sells could be merely hosting the community forum. A comment in the community forum touting one of the business's products, which was posted by a consumer who was not incentivized to do so and who has no other connection to the company, is not a testimonial in the first place, so it would not fall under § 465.2(b). The same analysis would apply to a business that hosted a section on its website ( print page 68052) where consumers could answer questions posed by other consumers.

A business organization commenter said the Commission should “make clear [that] Section 465.2 does not apply to platforms or retailers that display ratings even if they prompt review submissions or aggregate star ratings of submitted reviews.” [ 253 ] Paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 465.2 do not apply to mere consumer review hosting, even if the business prompts review submissions or aggregates star ratings.

The commenter continued by saying that “the Commission must clearly indicate that the Rule provision would not apply to any website displaying a consumer review or testimonial that they did not purchase or procure,” arguing that “Section 230 [of the Communications Decency Act] . . . broadly immunizes providers of an interactive computer service from liability for presenting third party content.” [ 254 ] If a business creates fake or false reviews or testimonials and displays them on its website, it is not presenting third-party content. It could be liable for such reviews or testimonials under § 465.2(a). The commenter made a similar argument with respect to the applicability of § 465.2(b) to a website that displays a fake or false testimonial and thus causes its dissemination. [ 255 ] Section 465.2(b) does apply if such testimonials are about the business or one of the products or services it sells. Such testimonials are advertising, not third-party content covered by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ( 47 U.S.C. 230 ).

Like proposed § 465.2(b) and (c), final § 465.2(b) and (c) are limited to situations in which businesses “knew or should have known” that they were engaging in the conduct that was prohibited. Commenters had varied reactions to this standard, with some finding it appropriate, others finding it too high, and others finding it too low.

A corporate commenter noted that, for the purpose of § 465.2(b) and (c), “`[s]hould have known' needs to be the standard.” [ 256 ] Similarly, an individual commenter recommended that the FTC adopt the “knew or should have known” standard for purposes of § 465.2(b) and (c):

because it: (1) sufficiently effectuates consumers' shared interest in reducing the prevalence of unfair or deceptive online consumer reviews and testimonials, (2) avoids unfairly imposing liability on unwitting, blameless business transgressors, and (3) conveniently aligns with the FTC's existing “has good reason to believe” standard for similar purpose of application of FTC Act Section 5 to the use of endorsements and testimonials in advertising. [ 257 ]

However, several commenters objected to the imposition of civil penalties based upon a “should have known” standard, believing that standard would be too onerous. [ 258 ] For example, an industry organization said that proposed § 465.2(b) and (c) are “problematic because [they] place[ ] the onus on the business to have knowledge of the author's state of mind as to whether their actual experience was expressed. . . , an impossible task for anyone but the” author. [ 259 ] The industry organization also claimed that the risk of a civil penalty will “likely . . . compel businesses to drastically limit the consumer reviews or testimonials they seek out or even allow on their websites.” [ 260 ] Under section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1)(A) , however, the Commission can seek civil penalties for a rule violation only by showing that a defendant had “actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances that such act is unfair or deceptive and is prohibited by such rule” (hereinafter shortened to “actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied”). A lower knowledge standard in a Commission rule—such as the “knew or should have known” standard found within certain sections of the proposed rule—does not override the higher standard found in section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act. The Commission has not suggested otherwise in the course of this rulemaking.

Other commenters objected similarly, saying that “knew or should have known” is too low as a knowledge threshold and that the standard should be actual knowledge, but did not tie their concerns to the imposition of civil penalties. [ 261 ] For example, some of the comments expressing concern about a “knew or should have known” standard appeared to focus primarily on the standard's supposed applicability to, and harsh impact on, websites hosting reviews. [ 262 ] As another example, a trade association commenter recommended “that the Commission define `knew,' as used in . . . § 465.2, as `having actual knowledge,' and remove the `should have known' language.” [ 263 ]

Additionally, two commenters advocated for a standard higher than “should have known” but lower than actual knowledge. With respect to activities such as “purchasing” a review, they said that businesses should be held responsible for ensuring the reviews are authentic but recommended a “knew or consciously avoided” standard. [ 264 ] One of the commenters asserted that the proposed “should have known” standard “is vague and does not provide adequate specificity about the sorts of actions businesses should take to ensure that they will not be held liable for not detecting that a review they purchased was fake.” [ 265 ] The commenter said a “consciously avoided” knowing standard would allow for liability when a business takes no steps to respond to receiving repeated complaints raising red flags about the authenticity of a particular purchased review. [ 266 ]

As part of the NPRM, the Commission also inquired whether, instead of the “should have known” standard, the Commission should adopt a “knew or could have known” standard. Only two commenters addressed that proposed standard. An individual commenter said that such a standard would “ambiguously expand the proposed Rule's prosecutorial scope and possibly open unsuspecting businesses to financial penalties for violations they had no inkling of having committed in the moment.” [ 267 ] Another individual commenter, who incorrectly thought the proposed rule provided a private right of action, said that such a standard “provides scienter never used in consumer law” and the “courts could potentially become overwhelmed with an influx of claims.” [ 268 ]

Other commenters advocated for a lower standard than “knew or should have known.” An individual commenter did not think that “knew or should have known” was appropriate because it would make it “very difficult to prove” violations and recommended that the Commission require “businesses to be able to show they used reasonable ( print page 68053) diligence through policies and procedures to prove that the[ ] reviews are legitimate.” [ 269 ] A consumer organization said in its comment that “there is no need for a knowledge or intent requirement under this Rule” as “Section 5 of the FTC Act does not otherwise require the Commission to prove knowledge or intent when enforcing against entities engaging in deceptive practices.” [ 270 ] It continued that “the Commission can and should consider knowledge and intent in deciding the equities of bringing any enforcement action.” [ 271 ]

After reviewing and considering the comments received, the Commission believes that the most appropriate standard for imposing liability under § 465.2(b) and (c) is the “knew or should have known standard.” As discussed above, [ 272 ] those paragraphs were not intended to apply to consumer review hosting and § 465.2(d)(2) now contains an explicit exemption for consumer review hosting. [ 273 ] Thus, the “knew or should have known” language in § 465.2(b) and (c) will not have a harsh impact on review platforms, as some of the commenters suggested. Eliminating the knowledge standard altogether, however, may indeed have an overly harsh impact on businesses in some circumstances, and the idea garnered almost no public support. For example, it would be unreasonable to hold a company liable for publishing a testimonial when it had no reason to know that the testimonial misrepresented the testimonialist's experience. The Commission sees no reason why the standard should be higher than “knew or should have known.” The “knew or should have known” standard—which the Commission has used in other rules [ 274 ] —thus best achieves the appropriate, equitable balance between protecting consumers and holding marketers accountable for deceptive conduct while not overly burdening marketers that engage in the responsible use of reviews and testimonials.

Two trade associations' comments said that if “the Commission . . . imposes a `should have known' standard, the Commission must provide greater clarity about what sorts of indicators of inauthenticity would provide companies with sufficient notice to trigger liability. [ 275 ] They both said, “Without that guidance and faced with the risk of significant civil penalty exposure for failing to stop the actions of undiscovered third parties, many businesses would likely be deterred from using consumer reviews or testimonials at all.” [ 276 ] The Commission has already addressed the knowledge standard found in section 5(m)(1)(A), which applies to the imposition of civil penalties. In the discussion of § 465.2(b) and (c) below, the Commission provides further guidance as to what is intended by “knew or should have known.”

Several other commenters discussed general views about the application of the “knew or should have known” standard. For example, an individual commenter said that “[a] business cannot always reasonably know that a testimonial contains testimony that is fake or false, if the influencer expresses to them that it is true.” [ 277 ] The Commission agrees with this assertion.

A comment from a public interest research center said that the “lack of an adequate endorser oversight program should be a per se violation of the `know or should have known' standard as that is tantamount to the company deliberately avoiding knowing.” [ 278 ] A consumer organization commenter said that the following actions should be considered knowledge that a review is fake or false: “failure to meaningfully police” for suspicious review activity, “inducements to provide reviews without clearly instructing the reviewer to clearly disclose material conflicts,” “materially incentivizing reviews where it's impossible to convey material conflicts ( e.g., providing a five-star review with no accompanying narrative on TripAdvisor),” and “failure to take meaningful steps to confirm the existence of the purported celebrity or meaningfully document the celebrity's purported experience with the product or service.” [ 279 ] The Commission encourages businesses to have endorser oversight programs, and whether a company has and follows such a program could impact the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. The Commission does not intend, however, for companies to be liable under this section of the rule based merely on the absence of an oversight program or on these other suggested bases.

A corporate commenter said that “how a business `should have known' that a reviewer does not exist is not apparent,” and posited that, under a “should have known” standard, “perhaps [a] business may be under a duty to reach out to the reviewer, but it is unclear how many resources the business must expend to attempt to contact the reviewer.” [ 280 ] First, as noted, § 465.2(d)(2) exempts businesses merely engaging in consumer review hosting from § 465.2(b) and (c). Another key limitation here is the exemption for generalized solicitations under § 465.2(d)(1). That exemption means that businesses can send such solicitations to their customers without creating any investigative obligation for resulting reviews under § 465.2(b) or (c), even if such reviews have been “purchased.” [ 281 ]

With respect to “purchased” reviews under § 465.2(b)the rule's “knew or should have known” standard does not impose a general duty to reach out to the reviewers or investigate whether each resulting review is fake or false. While each case will depend on its specific facts, it is possible that a business may possess clear indications that purchased reviews are likely to be fake or false, in which case a failure to investigate further may trigger liability under the “should have known” ( print page 68054) standard. For example, a business that hires a third party to provide free samples of its products to consumers in order to generate reviews, without more, may have no reason to investigate the resulting reviews. However, a business may be on notice that the resulting reviews are likely fake or false if they are submitted too quickly after purchase or many of them are submitted in a very short period of time or refer to the wrong product. As for § 465.2(c), which applies only to reviews by insiders, a possible reason for knowing that such reviews are likely fake or false could be that an insider sent emails to a manager over time that together showed that the insider was using multiple accounts to submit reviews to the same website.

A company that is in the business of identifying fake consumer reviews described ways that a business purchasing or procuring a consumer review should know that the review is fake or false. These indications include the named reviewer not being a customer, the content of the review being vague or odd, many reviews arriving at once, and the use of unnatural language or “keyword stuffing.” [ 282 ] A review platform commenter gave similar ways that a business could identify fake reviews, such as “the review text describes a product or service that is not offered by the business, the review clearly references the wrong business name, or perhaps if a review . . . acknowledges that the reviewer has never shopped there.” [ 283 ] Although, as previously stated, each case depends on its specific facts, these various indications may indeed suggest that one or more purchased or insider reviews are likely fake or false, in which case a failure to reasonably investigate them may trigger liability under the “should have known” standard.

With respect to testimonials, there may be red flags that should indicate to a business that a testimonial is likely fake or false, and, thereby, would serve as indicia of the fact that the business should have known that the testimonials that it disseminated were fake or false. For example, the Commission alleged that Google asked iHeartMedia, Inc. radio personalities to record product testimonials for a smartphone using a standard script written for Google and refused to provide the radio personalities with the product when requested. [ 284 ] If a business provides the text for a testimonial, it should have a reasonable basis to conclude, based on inquiry or otherwise, that the text is truthful for the testimonialist. A testimonialist asking for the product should cause a business to question whether the testimonialist used the product. If a business knows that a testimonialist is using a competing product, it should inquire into whether a testimonial for its own product is truthful. For example, a business should investigate whether a celebrity testimonial for its new smartphone is false if the testimonial claims the celebrity exclusively uses the smartphone, but the social media post containing the testimonial indicates that the celebrity posted it using a competing smartphone brand.

A review platform said in its comment that, “if procuring fake reviews is the action of a single, rogue employee trying to help the business they work for, on a practical level it may be difficult for a business to have knowledge of” it. [ 285 ] The commenter suggested that the Commission consider “whether it is in fact disproportionate for knowledge and liability to be attributed to a business because of the actions of a well-intentioned rogue employee.” [ 286 ] Whether a business will be held responsible under the rule for a rogue employee under a “knew or should have known” standard will be a fact-intensive inquiry. While a business may not be aware of every employee's activities, it should be pay attention to red flags. Assuming that the facts are such that the business should have known of the rogue employee's actions, whether the business would also be subject to civil penalties would depend on whether a court finds that the business met the actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied standard of section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act.

Some commenters suggested that the Commission impose additional requirements. Many commenters suggested that third-party platforms featuring reviews should be held responsible for certain conduct, such as for: failing to report businesses that they suspect are posting fake reviews, [ 287 ] the “lack of identification verifications,” [ 288 ] not posting notices reminding consumers that there is no guarantee of the veracity or accuracy of customer reviews, [ 289 ] engaging in review “manipulation” for advertising purposes, [ 290 ] failing to disclose publicly certain information about posted reviews, [ 291 ] or failing to employ reasonable measures to root out fraud and deceptive reviews. [ 292 ] A review platform suggested imposing requirements on social media companies and internet service providers to address the sale of fake reviews, [ 293 ] and a trade association proposed that the Commission require reviewers to identify themselves and that social media sites hosting reviews verify reviewers' identities. [ 294 ] As explained above, the Commission's intent from the outset of this rulemaking was to focus on clearly unfair or deceptive conduct involving reviews and testimonials. This intent is reflected in, as explained above, the addition of a definition of the term “consumer review hosting” and the explicit exclusion of such mere hosting from the coverage of certain rule provisions. This focus should not be taken to signal that third-party platforms do not bear significant responsibility for combatting fake reviews.

An individual commenter recommended “requir[ing] proof of purchase of [a] product for a consumer to leave a review.” [ 295 ] Another individual commenter would have the Commission hold businesses that recruit, direct, and compensate influencers responsible for the influencers' false or fake testimonials. [ 296 ] A third commenter asked that the Commission “ensure there is a way for anyone who is believed to have violated reviewing policies [to have] a chance to reinstate their ability to leave ( print page 68055) reviews.” [ 297 ] A consumer organization recommended making clear that “it is a deceptive practice to aggregate fake reviews in a product's consumer rating” and that “reviews requiring a disclosure should not be included in a product's rating.” [ 298 ] The Commission appreciates these additional suggestions but declines to add any of them to the rule. The suggestions are beyond the scope of the rulemaking, which focuses instead on those responsible for clearly unfair or deceptive acts or practices regarding reviews and testimonials, and which is limited to those acts or practices for which the Commission has evidence of prevalence.

In response to other commenters suggesting that the Commission impose liability on review sites and online retailers, a trade association asked the Commission to make clear that sections 5 and 18 of the FTC Act contain no express authorization for assisting-and-facilitating liability. [ 299 ] As this legal issue goes beyond, the context of this rulemaking, the Commission declines to address it here.

Proposed § 465.3 sought to address a business using or repurposing a consumer review written or created for one product so that it appears to have been written or created for a substantially different product. It also sought to cover businesses that caused such use or repurposing.

The Commission received varied comments, both supportive and critical, about this provision. [ 300 ] As described above, some commenters also raised concerns about the definition of “substantially different product,” a term that appeared only in this provision and is key to determining the circumstances in which the provision would apply; one of those commenters proposed a disputed issue of material fact related to that definition. [ 301 ] The Commission would need to address those concerns before finalizing the provision. As it is not able to resolve those concerns on the current rulemaking record, the Commission has decided not to finalize the provision. If the Commission chooses later to engage in further rulemaking regarding the provision, it will address the comments at that time.

Proposed § 465.4 sought to address businesses providing “compensation or other incentives in exchange for, or conditioned on, the writing or creation of consumer reviews expressing a particular sentiment, whether positive or negative, regarding the product, service, or business that is the subject of the review.” Based on the following, the Commission has decided to finalize this provision with two modifications. [ 302 ]

Comments from a retailer and a trade association expressed that they found the section important and useful. The retailer said, “This section is important to ensure that the rule covers bad actors that seek inauthentic reviews reflecting a particular predetermined sentiment.” [ 303 ] The trade association wrote, “Providing compensation in exchange for reviews that must reflect a particular sentiment is a deceptive practice,” and expressed support for “the Commission's goal of targeting and eliminating this practice.” [ 304 ]

Three individual commenters mistakenly thought that proposed § 465.4 banned paid or incentivized customer reviews and were opposed to such a ban. One of them said the proposed provision would “ban reviews which are made by those who have been provided an item,” that “[g]enerally the writer includes a list of sponsors on, or within, their blog/website,” and that “[i]f such sponsorship relationships are eliminated . . ., the ability of writers to review a variety of items will disappear.” [ 305 ] The second one wrote, “Section 465.4 of the proposed rule prohibits the incentivization of or compensation on for the creation of consumer reviews or testimonials. . . . [I]t is unnecessarily restrictive.” [ 306 ] The third commenter did not support the provision “forbidding paying for reviews” because the practice “does not . . . deceive the public unless the paid review service dictates that the review must be positive.” [ 307 ] These commenters misunderstand the nature of § 465.4. First, § 465.4 does not apply to testimonials, only to consumer reviews, and then only to reviews that appear on a website or portion of a website dedicated to receiving and displaying such reviews. A blogger's “review” is not considered a consumer review for purposes of the rule; if such a review was incentivized, it would be considered a testimonial. Second, § 465.4 does not prohibit paid or incentivized consumer reviews. It only prohibits paid or incentivized consumer reviews when the business soliciting the review provides compensation or an incentive in exchange for a review expressing a particular sentiment.

In Question 12 of the NPRM, the Commission asked whether the prohibition in § 465.4 should “distinguish in any way between an explicit and implied condition that a consumer review express a particular sentiment.” [ 308 ]

A business commenter responded, “Real consumers' reviews often contain multiple sentiments on what businesses did right and what they did wrong. This is helpful.” [ 309 ] The meaning of this comment is unclear.

Another business commenter responded to Question 12 of the NPRM by stating that § 465.4 “should unequivocally prohibit explicit conditions only,” because this would “provide[ ] a clear standard for businesses and reviewers to follow,” and “the lack of clarity in how the Proposed Rule would prohibit `implied conditions' [would] stifle[ ] businesses' ability to encourage and to entice reviews in a legitimate manner.” [ 310 ] The Commission disagrees and believes that businesses are capable of soliciting and encouraging reviews without suggesting that the reviews must be positive to obtain an incentive. The commenter also asserted that the Commission “has no experience bringing enforcement actions against a business for allegedly creating an implied condition that a review or endorsement be positive,” referencing the cases the Commission cited in the NPRM. [ 311 ] That assertion is incorrect. The respondent in AmeriFreight, Inc. did not expressly state that the reviews needed to be positive but only implied it, encouraging past customers to submit reviews in order to be eligible for a $100 “Best Monthly Review Award” given to “the review with the most captivating subject line and best content.” [ 312 ] The respondent also told past customers that ( print page 68056) they should “be creative and try to make your review stand out for viewers to read.” [ 313 ]

Two trade associations gave examples of what they asserted were innocuous requests for reviews that could be considered as implying that reviews need to be positive in order to receive an incentive. One said that its members will sometimes automatically contact customers saying, “Tell us how much you loved [product] for 10% off your next purchase!” and that such a request could “be read to violate this Section of the Proposed Rule—even if a negative review would still entitle the consumer to the incentive or bonus.” [ 314 ] The other commenter wrote that, if the Commission says that “a business may not implicitly seek positive reviews in exchange for incentives, then the rule could apply to such offers as, `Tell us how much you loved your visit to John's Steakhouse and get a $5 coupon' or `Tell your friends about all the fun you had at Jane's Arcade for a chance to win prizes,' ” and asserted that such requests are justified because businesses “prefer to use these enthusiastic and positive messages when seeking reviews, as opposed to less inspiring messages like, `Write a review and save 10% next time.' ” [ 315 ] The problem with the enthusiastic and positive messages suggested by these commenters is that consumers receiving them could reasonably take the message that their reviews must be positive and enthusiastic in order to obtain the reward. As the second commenter noted, there are perfectly acceptable, albeit less “inspiring,” alternatives. The second commenter also said that “a reasonable consumer would infer that a business prefers positive reviews, and so even a neutral request such as, `Write a review and receive a discount off your next purchase,' might be construed as impliedly requesting a positive review.” [ 316 ] The Commission disagrees. The fact that businesses prefer positive reviews is not a basis on which to conclude that consumers would interpret any such “neutral request” as containing an implied condition that reviews must be positive to receive the offered discount.

A consumer organization said in its comment that, “[w]hen a reviewer feels pressured to express a certain sentiment, regardless of how that pressure was generated, the net result is a deceptive review,” and that there should be “no distinction made between explicitly and implicit conditioning of compensation or other incentives.” [ 317 ] A second consumer organization commenter said that “[i]mplied conditions may be just as salient as express conditions” and quoting Aronberg v. FTC, 132 F.2d 165, 167 (7th Cir. 1942), said that, “[i]n interacting with businesses, `[t]he ultimate impression upon the mind of the reader arises from the sum total of not only what is said but also of all that is reasonably implied.' ” [ 318 ] The Commission agrees with both of these commenters.

Advocating for limiting the provision to express conditions, a trade association acknowledged that the NPRM clarified that the provision does not cover review gating, [ 319 ] the mere solicitation of positive reviews, or incentivized reviews (except for those required to express a particular sentiment), but argued that, “[r]egardless, the Proposed Rule still could be read to prohibit such behavior— i.e., when a Company solicits a review that it has reason to believe will be positive.” [ 320 ] The Commission does not consider this statement to be a fair reading of the provision. Just because a business engages in review gating or otherwise expects reviews to be positive does not mean there is either an express or implied requirement that reviews need be positive to obtain an incentive. The Commission notes that, although § 465.4 does not cover “review gating,” review gating can nonetheless violate section 5 of the FTC Act. [ 321 ]

A review platform commenter said that prohibiting an “implied condition to express a particular sentiment could create a number of gray areas” and “encouraged the FTC to provide guidance and examples to businesses.” [ 322 ] The examples, discussed above, by the trade association asking consumers to say how much they “love” something or how much fun they had are excellent examples of implied conditions.

The Commission has decided to clarify that the rule prohibits businesses from providing incentives conditioned on the writing or creation of consumer reviews expressing a particular sentiment, regardless of whether the conditional nature of the incentive is express or implicit. For this purpose, the Commission is adding the phrase “expressly or by implication” in § 465.4 to clarify that, although the incentive needs to be conditioned on the writing or creation of consumer reviews expressing a particular sentiment in order for conduct to violate § 465.4, the condition may be implicit.

Three commenters argued that the Commission should allow the compensation or incentives addressed in § 465.4 as long as they are disclosed in the resulting reviews. For example, the first commenter wrote, “A reasonable consumer can easily understand that when a reviewer is incentivized or compensated, the content they produce may be skewed in a more positive light. A mere disclaimer is sufficient to stave off misrepresentation.” [ 323 ] This statement may be correct for some incentivized reviews when there is no express or implied condition for those reviews to express a particular sentiment. For such reviews, an adequate disclosure that incentives were provided in exchange for the review may be able to cure a misleading impression that the reviews were independent and unbiased. However, such a disclosure does not reveal to consumers the requirement that reviews be positive. In addition, even if an individual review disclosed that it resulted from incentives requiring the review to be positive, such a disclosure would not be effective in instances where a consumer relies on the overall average star rating and does not read all individual reviews. Furthermore, the Commission believes that, if incentives are conditioned on reviews expressing a particular sentiment, many resulting reviews will not be merely misleading but false. For example, the offer of an incentive in exchange for a positive review may lead some reviewers to create positive reviews even when they had a negative experience with the product, service, or business. No disclosure can adequately cure a false review. [ 324 ]

The second commenter taking this position pointed to examples in the Endorsement Guides, [ 325 ] claiming inaccurately that they stand for the proposition that businesses are allowed to offer incentives in exchange for positive reviews. [ 326 ] The Endorsement Guides do contain an example involving incentives for reviews conditioned on the reviews being positive: “[a] manufacturer offer[ing] to pay genuine purchasers $20 each to write positive reviews of its products on third-party review websites.” [ 327 ] However, consistent with the Commission's approach in this section, the Guides provide that “[s]uch reviews are deceptive even if the payment is disclosed because their positive nature is required by, rather than being merely influenced by, the payment.” [ 328 ]

The third commenter taking this position suggested that it should be acceptable to use a disclosure like, “We asked customers to tell us how much they loved their visit to John's Steakhouse, and here's what some of them said! (customers who submitted reviews received a $5 coupon).” [ 329 ] The scenario the commenter describes does not involve consumer reviews. It involves consumer testimonials, which are not covered by § 465.4. Further, it is unlikely that one could make such a disclosure in the context of consumer reviews, given how reviews are usually presented on a business's own website and the lack of control over the way they are presented on a third-party website. In addition, the disclosure does not communicate that the customers had to “tell how much they loved their visit in order to receive a $5 coupon.” Furthermore, as discussed above, many incentivized reviews conditioned on consumers saying how much they “loved their visit” are likely false regardless of such a disclosure.

Two commenters, an individual and a review platform, requested that § 465.4 go further and prohibit all incentives given in exchange for reviews regardless of any requirement to express a particular sentiment. [ 330 ] An individual commenter would have the Commission “require businesses to disclose any form of incentive that they provide or arrange for reviewers.” [ 331 ] These requests are beyond the scope of this rulemaking but are addressed in the Endorsement Guides, which provide that unexpected material connections such as incentives given in exchange for customer reviews without any requirement as to the sentiment of the reviews must be disclosed clearly and conspicuously. [ 332 ] The Commission continues to believe that this principle from the Endorsement Guides is an appropriate expression of what incentivized review practices would or would not violate section 5 of the FTC Act. In any event, there is no basis on the current rulemaking record for the Commission to conclude that all incentivized reviews should be prohibited or that all incentivized reviews should require a disclosure.

Two commenters, an individual and a review platform, recommended that § 465.4 also prohibit offering compensation to remove or change consumer reviews. [ 333 ] Another individual commenter inquired about paid review removal without stating a position on the topic. [ 334 ] The Commission previously noted that, “[i]n procuring [or] suppressing . . . consumer reviews of their products, advertisers should not take actions that have the effect of distorting or otherwise misrepresenting what consumers think of their products.” [ 335 ] A product marketer paying consumers to change or remove truthful negative reviews may be engaging in an unfair or deceptive act or practice that has the effect of distorting or otherwise misrepresenting what consumers think of a marketer's products. Nevertheless, that act or practice is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

Proposed § 465.5 sought to prohibit certain undisclosed insider reviews and testimonials. It had three subparts. Proposed § 465.5(a) would have prohibited an officer or manager of a business from writing or creating a consumer review or consumer testimonial about the business or one of its products or services that failed to have a clear and conspicuous disclosure of the officer's or manager's relationship to the business. [ 336 ] Proposed § 465.5(b) would have applied to testimonials, but not consumer reviews. It would have prohibited a business from disseminating or causing the dissemination of a consumer testimonial about the business or one of the products or services by one of its officers, managers, employees, or agents, or any of their relatives, if that testimonial failed to have a clear and conspicuous disclosure of the testimonialist's relationship to the business or to the officer, manager, employee, or agent, and if the business knew or should have known of that relationship. Proposed § 465.5(c) would have applied to consumer reviews, but not testimonials, and would have been limited to when an officer or manager of a business solicits or demands a consumer review about the business or one of its products or services from an employee, an agent, or a relative of any such officer, manager, employee, or agent. Proposed § 465.5(c) would have prohibited that conduct when (1) the person requesting the review knew or should have known the prospective reviewer's relationship to the business (or to one of its officers, managers, employees, or agents), (2) the request resulted in a consumer review without a disclosure, and (3) the person requesting the review (a) did not instruct the prospective reviewer to disclose clearly and conspicuously that relationship, (b) knew or should have known that such a review appeared without such a disclosure and failed to take remedial steps, or (c) encouraged ( print page 68058) the prospective reviewer not to make such a disclosure. The Commission has determined to finalize proposed § 465.5 with a number of modifications. [ 337 ]

Two individual commenters shared their experiences with insider reviews. One individual commenter “made a purchase based on a glowing review” but “later discovered that the person who wrote the review was, in fact, a salesperson for the same company, receiving a commission based on my purchase,” and the purchase turned out to be “a fraudulent service.” [ 338 ] Another individual commenter shared their experience as an employee: “I was asked to leave positive reviews in Amazon . . . and in other sites to boost the number of positive reviews for our products. The CEO asked employees to do this and include family members. In fact, I found the immediate family and friends of the CEO leaving glowing reviews of the product.” [ 339 ]

A business commenter said, “If you allow insider reviews, disclosure [of the reviewers' relationship to the business] should be mandatory.” [ 340 ] Another business commenter wrote that “limiting . . . § 465.5(a)-(c) to circumstances in which the requisite disclosure is absent is a fair restriction on businesses that would simultaneously protect consumers all while allowing businesses to effectively advertise.” [ 341 ] The commenter noted that the “requirement for clear-and-conspicuous disclosure is used widely throughout federal and state consumer protection laws.” [ 342 ] The commenter was also concerned that a rule might “infringe on the ability of employees and independent contractor agents . . . to inform others of their experiences with an employer or principal.” [ 343 ] To the extent that the commenter is referring to review websites that specialize in reviewing employers from the perspective of employees, it is obvious that the reviewers are employees or former employees, and no further disclosure appears necessary.

A trade association commented that it “understands the Commission's concern that in some cases, employees may have an incentive to post positive reviews on behalf of their company's products,” but the concern “is already addressed through Section 5 and the Endorsement Guides.” [ 344 ] The Commission continues to believe that certain conduct should be addressed by a trade regulation rule even if it can also be addressed through section 5 enforcement actions. Having specific conduct addressed by a rule provides the general public with further clarity as to what steps are necessary to conform its conduct to the requirements of the law, deters prevalent unlawful conduct, and allows the Commission to bring enforcement actions more efficiently and effectively.

A retailer recommended that the provision “be revised to further incorporate a requirement that the `insider' review/testimonial be `fake' or `false,' in order to better target the deceptive acts of bad actors that use their employees to generate fake reviews and testimonials that purport to be from actual customers.” [ 345 ] The Commission rejects that suggestion, as the intention of § 465.5 is to address certain inherently biased reviews and testimonials. Fake and false reviews are already addressed by § 465.2.

Commenters pointed out what they saw as inconsistencies between proposed § 465.5 and section 5 of the FTC Act. A retailer commenter wrote that proposed § 465.5 was “inconsistent with the longstanding principles in the Endorsement Guides . . . that disclosures must be made when the connection between a reviewer and the sponsoring advertiser is material, meaning it would affect the weight or credibility that consumers give to the endorsement.” [ 346 ] A trade association noted in its comment that the section “seeks to impose liability for reviews and testimonials authored by certain employees or their relatives that lack disclosures regardless of context, and whether that connection is material under the circumstances” and “would impose civil penalties for reviews or testimonials that are not even deceptive.” [ 347 ] Another trade association opined “that a reviewer's out-of-state second cousin [who] works a minimum-wage job at a retailer would (hopefully) not be a `material connection' requiring disclosure under the Endorsement Guides, because such connection would not bias the reviewer's review, and therefore would not make the review misleading.” [ 348 ] The same trade association and a business organization also commented that the provision poses concerns under the First Amendment by “broadly prohibiting certain reviews or testimonials by `insiders' regardless of whether that speech is deceptive in context.” [ 349 ] The Commission intended for § 465.5 to be limited to unfair or deceptive failures to disclose material connections, and is now clarifying this intent. Specifically, in paragraphs (a) through (c) of § 465.5, the Commission is limiting the covered relationships to “material” relationships. In § 465.5(a) and (b), the Commission is also clarifying that, under certain circumstances, the relationship of a consumer testimonialist may be clear to the audience without disclosure. For example, the audience may already be aware that an executive is associated with a particular company, or the context of an ad may otherwise communicate a relationship with a particular company. Specifically, in § 465.5(b), which applies only to consumer testimonials, the Commission is adding the requirement that “the relationship is not otherwise clear to the audience,” and in § 465.5(a), which involves both consumer reviews and testimonials, it is adding, “unless, in the case of a consumer testimonial, the relationship is otherwise clear to the audience.” The Commission does not believe that, absent a disclosure, a relationship will ever be clear to consumers in the context of an ordinary consumer review.

Proposed § 465.5(b) and (c) would have required disclosures in some circumstances involving consumer testimonials or reviews from “relatives” of a company's officers, managers, employees, or agents. Some commenters voiced concerns pertaining to these requirements.

For example, a review platform, explaining that it prohibits reviews about a business or its products by someone whose immediate family owns or works for the business, asked how businesses would “know whether reviews have been submitted by the extended family (such as the second cousins) of their officers, managers, employees, or agents,” questioned whether it would be proportional to seek penalties when extended family are involved, and suggested “narrowing the scope of the family requirement” to “immediate family.” [ 350 ] A trade association said that “relatives can include cousins, nieces/nephews, and other more distant familial ( print page 68059) relationships,” that “even immediate family relationships (parents, children, siblings) are not always closely held” because “adult siblings are not necessarily in each other's day-today lives,” and that “it would be more appropriate to substitute the term . . . `members of the same household' as that would suggest individuals that have regular contact with an employee.” [ 351 ] A business organization wrote in its comment that the term “relative” is too vague and that “[i]t is unclear whether the rule applies to third cousins, the spouses of a stepbrother's child from a previous marriage, or friends that are considered family,” concluding that “[l]arge companies creating monitoring programs for testimonials need some clarity about what relatives will be captured under the Rule.” [ 352 ] A second trade association said in its comment that “relatives” of “any company employee should not be considered `insiders'” because “[i]n most cases, such family members would have no incentive to post a fake review.” [ 353 ] However, the Commission intended for § 465.5 to address biased reviews and testimonials by insiders or their relatives, not the writing of “fake [or false] reviews,” which is addressed in § 465.2.

To reduce the compliance burden, the Commission is removing relatives from § 465.5(b) and limiting what was originally proposed as § 465.5(c)(1), which is now split into three separate prohibitions. One prohibition addresses officers or managers soliciting or demanding a consumer review from “any of their [own] immediate relatives.” A second prohibition addresses officers or managers soliciting or demanding reviews from employees or agents. A third prohibition addresses solicitations or demands by officers or managers that “employees or agents seek such [consumer] reviews from their relatives.” In such instances the request will likely be a general one (such as “Ask your relatives to review us” or “Get three family members to review us”), although it could also be more specific (such as “Get your spouse to write us a review”). As set forth in § 465.5(c)(1)(i), any reviews resulting from demands that employees or agents solicit their relatives would only be violations if the resulting reviews were written by immediate relatives of the employees or agents.

A trade association objected to the inclusion of the undefined term “agents” in proposed § 465.5(b) and (c) and suggested its removal. The commenter said that “it is not clear what individuals would be considered `agents' of the business” and the meaning of the term “agent” could “dramatically expand the scope of the compliance programs that businesses will likely need to create in order to mitigate their risks under this section” which “would be particularly important for small businesses.” [ 354 ] The Commission intends for the term “agents” in this rule to apply only to those agents that promote the company or its products, such as representatives of advertising agencies, public relations firms, and review management firms. As discussed below, given the clarifications of and limitations to § 465.5(b)(1) and (c)(1), the Commission has no reason to believe that the inclusion of “agents” will “dramatically expand the scope of the compliance programs.” [ 355 ]

Several comments addressed the scope of proposed § 465.5, including the scope of liability of businesses in the context of insider reviews and testimonials. For example, a trade association asserted that § 465.5 should “be limited to the extent it references employees (or agents) who are not officers or managers, and who were not instructed by their superiors to post reviews.” [ 356 ] A retailer asked for a safe harbor that would apply to employee reviews and testimonials “if businesses are not encouraging insider reviews and testimonials.” [ 357 ] The Commission intended for the provision to apply to reviews or testimonials by employees or agents who are not officers or managers only when (1) the reviews are requested or solicited by an officer or manager of the business or (2) the testimonials appear in advertising or promotional messages actively disseminated by the business. As discussed in this section, the Commission's clarifications and limitations should resolve any concerns arising from any broader interpretation.

Two trade associations and another industry organization asserted in their comments that § 465.5 “appears to impose liability on businesses for distributing the content of third parties, even when they had no knowledge that the content violated the proposed rule.” [ 358 ] As the commenters used the word “distributing,” the Commission assumes that these comments pertain to the liability of businesses under § 465.5(b), which prohibits businesses from “disseminating or causing the dissemination of consumer testimonials” by insiders without disclosures. The testimonials covered by § 465.5 are, by definition, a business's advertising or promotional messages, so the Commission does not consider them to be third-party content. The section covers such testimonials when disseminated by the business itself, by its officers or managers, or in response to solicitations or demands from its officers or managers. With respect to the commenters' concern that businesses will be liable even when they had no knowledge that the content violated the rule, the Commission discusses below the appropriate application of the “knew or should have known” standard.

A retailer's comment expressed “significant concerns with this section if the FTC intends to apply it to marketplace service providers with hundreds of thousands of employees.” [ 359 ] A trade association said in its comment that, “to the extent the Commission intends for this language to apply to reviews or testimonials written by employees of online retailers with hundreds of thousands of employees, the Commission has failed to demonstrate that this is an unfair or deceptive act or practice that is prevalent” as “[n]one of the cases cited in the NPRM involved this type of company.” [ 360 ] With respect to employees, the section applies only to (1) testimonials by employees that the company chooses to disseminate and (2) reviews that are solicited or demanded by company officers or managers. Further, the Commission has sufficient evidence of prevalence as to the use of insider reviews and testimonials, [ 361 ] and that evidence need not specifically include examples of companies of every size, such as those “with hundreds of thousands of employees.”

A trade association's comment “urge[d] the Commission to add a safe harbor . . . that will assure businesses acting in good faith that they will not face civil penalty liability for the actions of rogue individuals.” [ 362 ] Again, whether a business will be subject to civil penalties will depend on whether ( print page 68060) the facts show that the business had actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied of the violation. A business will not violate the rule—much less be subject to civil penalties—merely because employees write consumer reviews without disclosing their relationship to the business, but it may violate the rule when an officer or manager of the company solicited or demanded such reviews. A business will also not be liable under § 465.5 simply because one of its employees (other than an officer or manager) or agents makes an unsolicited social media post. However, as discussed above, a business might be liable under § 465.2(a) for an employee posting fake testimonials to social media on behalf of the company. [ 363 ]

Two commenters addressed general review solicitations from businesses to their customers. A trade association said that “[b]usinesses which seek reviews from their customers generally seek reviews from all customers, and again, do not currently monitor or screen for potential relatives or agency relationships.” [ 364 ] A review platform operator wrote in its comment, “An automated review invitation system can operate via integration with, for example, a C[ustomer] R[elationship] M[anagement] platform where customer details are automatically fed through to generate review invitations following on from purchases or experiences. The information within the system could be as minimal as a name and email address. . . . It could therefore be possible for businesses to inadvertently invite persons that are related to an officer, manager, employee, or agent . . . . In practice, it will be difficult to check whether any invitation recipients could fall within the very wide group of persons outlined at [§ ] 465.5(c), and it will also be difficult to draw a firm line between what types of indicators are sufficient to warrant imputing constructive knowledge.” [ 365 ] The Commission did not intend for § 465.5(c) to cover such generalized invitations to past purchasers to write reviews. The Commission is therefore adding language in § 465.5(c)(2) to clarify that § 465.5(c)(1) “does not apply to generalized review solicitations to purchasers for them to post reviews about their experiences with the product, service, or business.” The Commission is making a similar clarification in § 465.5(b)(2)(i); specifically, that § 465.5(b)(1) “does not apply to generalized review solicitations to purchasers for them to post testimonials about their experiences with the product, service, or business.”

The Commission has also added § 465.5(b)(2)(ii), which exempts “merely engaging in consumer review hosting” from § 465.5(b)(1). Thus, an unsolicited employee review merely appearing on the business's website cannot violate the provision against disseminating insider testimonials.

A trade association noted that “[l]arge national retail chains collectively employ millions of workers who are also their customers” and “[w]hile a retailer may provide guidance on disclosing their relationship, it should not be liable for policing their customer reviews for posts that may have been submitted by any one of their thousands or millions of employees—who in many cases may be using ambiguous screennames or not be readily identifiable.” [ 366 ] The Commission points out that only § 465.5(c) applies to customer reviews by employees, and that provision only applies to employee reviews that an officer or manager has solicited or demanded. If there are no such solicitations or demands, then § 465.5 does not apply to employee reviews. When an officer or manager does solicit or demand a review, the business would only be liable if the officer or manager (1) “encouraged the prospective reviewer not to make . . . a disclosure,” (2) “did not instruct that prospective reviewers disclose clearly and conspicuously their relationship to the business,” [ 367 ] or (3) “knew or should have known that such a review appeared without such a disclosure and failed to take remedial steps.” It is only under the last of the three clauses that a business might be liable for any “policing” of reviews, and, as discussed below, any such obligations should not be unduly burdensome. [ 368 ]

An industry organization commenter expressed concern that § 465.5 “would require the disclosure of personally identifying information” and impact employees' privacy. [ 369 ] The Commission does not see how the provision requires the disclosure of personally identifying information. Section 465.5 requires the disclosure of unexpected material connections but does not require that employees identify themselves by name. Testimonialists and reviewers could be anonymous, or use pseudonyms, and include general phrases indicating their relationship to the business, such as “my employer's product,” “my company's,” or “my spouse's company.”

A number of commenters discussed the “knew or should have known” standard contained in § 465.5(b) and (c). A trade association said that a “ ‘knew or should have known' standard . . . [in] § 465.5 aptly reflects that the rule is targeting bad actors that intend to commit fraud through fake reviews.” [ 370 ] A consumer organization “advise[d] the Commission against relying on knowledge standards that will introduce unnecessary evidentiary burdens in the enforcement process” and against making it “a condition of liability,” noting that instead “the Commission can and should consider knowledge and intent in deciding the equities of bringing any enforcement action.” [ 371 ] A review platform said “that `should have known' is too low as a knowledge threshold and this should therefore be limited to `knew', i.e., actual knowledge.” [ 372 ] A trade association called the “should have known” standard “vague.” [ 373 ] A business commenter also described “should have known” as vague and suggested limiting the knowledge standard to actual knowledge. [ 374 ] A trade association and a retailer said that civil penalties should not be based upon a “should have known” standard. [ 375 ] The retailer continued, “In the alternative, if the Commission refuses to elevate the knowledge standard for this section, the final rule must provide greater guidance on the sorts of scenarios that would give rise to liability.” [ 376 ] Specifically, the retailer asserted that the Commission would have to provide “additional information about when a company or officer/manager `should' know that an `insider' review or testimonial violates the rule.” [ 377 ] A trade association wrote in its comment that “the Commission should raise the knowledge standard for this section to actual knowledge,” which “would ensure that companies that are actually complicit in the proliferation of deceptive insider reviews and testimonials are the targets of this section, rather than well-meaning ( print page 68061) businesses that fail to discover and remedy reviews or testimonials by employees, managers, officers, agents, or any of those individuals' relatives that lack disclosures.” [ 378 ] The commenter continued, “[r]egardless of the knowledge standard the Commission imposes, the final rule must provide greater guidance on what sorts of scenarios would give rise to liability under this section.” [ 379 ]

The Commission chooses to retain the proposed “knew or should have known” standard in § 465.5(b)(1) and (c)(1)(ii)(c). First, the Commission notes again that it cannot obtain civil penalties under section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act for a rule violation unless it proves that a defendant had actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied that the act or practice is unfair or deceptive and is prohibited by the rule. With respect to § 465.5(b)(1), the provision applies only to testimonials that the business disseminates or causes to be disseminated, i.e., it applies to the business's own advertising and promotional activities. As noted above, § 465.5(b)(1) does not apply to unsolicited social media posts by employees or to social media posts that result from generalized solicitations. The Commission does not expect that a business will ask every potential testimonialist whether they are an agent of the business. There may be red flags, however, that should cause a business to realize that a prospective testimonialist is likely an insider, such as the testimonial featuring an image of that person standing in front of the company's headquarters. If a business routinely asks prospective testimonialists how they became interested in the business or its products, it should not avoid looking at answers that might indicate a covered connection.

With respect to § 465.5(c)(1)(ii)(c), the Commission believes that, if officers and managers of a business request or demand that the business's employees or agents write consumer reviews or solicit or demand that such employees or agents seek such reviews from their relatives, it is more than reasonable to have those officers and managers take on certain responsibilities with respect to those reviews. The employees, agents, and relatives on the receiving end of such requests or demands are likely to assume that their reviews should be positive, which gives such reviews an inherent bias. Therefore, officers and managers should instruct that prospective reviewers make disclosures. When they demand that employees or agents seek reviews from their relatives, the officers or managers should instruct the employees or agents to ask their immediate relatives to make disclosures. The officers and managers should also take remedial steps when they know or should know that resulting insider reviews appeared without a disclosure. The Commission does not expect an officer or manager to scour every review of the business for possible insider reviews appearing without a disclosure. There may be red flags, however, that should cause officers or managers to inquire further. An example that is at least applicable to smaller companies is a review without a disclosure by someone the soliciting officer or manager recognizes as having the same last name as an employee whom the officer or manager told to obtain reviews from relatives. Another example is an employee sending a soliciting officer or manager a link to the resulting review, in which case the officer or manager should take the time to see if that review has a disclosure. By taking “remedial steps,” the Commission means that the officer or manager should request that the reviewer delete the review or add a clear and conspicuous disclosure to it.

Commenters recommended that the Commission adopt a number of additional requirements or prohibitions. An individual commenter said that insider reviews should be banned and that disclosures are insufficient to cure them. [ 380 ] One consumer group proposed that (1) “non-disclosed insider ratings” should be “independent and separate violation[s] from deceptive narrative reviews;” (2) “symbolic ratings—both independently and when aggregated—should feature a clear and conspicuous disclosure of necessary material connections;” and (3) “reviews requiring a disclosure should not be included in a product's aggregate rating without a disclosure.” [ 381 ] Another consumer group suggested the following: (1) § “465.5(a) and (c) should apply to all employees and board members of a business;” (2) § 465.5(b) and (c) be extended “to employees or board members of other companies with a material business relationship with the first business;” (3) § 465.5(c) should be extended “to include solicitations or demands of employees of companies with which the business conducts material business;” (4) § 465.5(c) should prohibit “any employee or board member of a business to solicit or demand from another employee or board member (or relative of an employee or board member) a consumer review about the business or one of its products or services;” and (5) “employees of a business should not be permitted to provide star or numerical reviews that count toward an aggregate or average rating, even if their conflict of interest is otherwise disclosed in an accompanying narrative review.” [ 382 ] Some of these proposals go beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Based on its policy expertise, the Commission declines to make any of these changes at this time. The Commission notes, however, that some may, in certain situations, involve unfair or deceptive acts or practices that violate section 5 of the FTC Act.

Proposed § 465.6 sought to prohibit a business from representing, expressly or by implication, that a website, organization, or entity that it controls, owns, or operates provides independent reviews or opinions about a category of businesses, products, or services including the business or one or more of its products or services. Based on the following, the Commission has determined to finalize this provision with two limiting modifications. [ 383 ]

A business organization, a retailer, and a review platform submitted comments supporting the intent of proposed § 465.6. [ 384 ] For example, the business organization noted that it “was supportive of a . . . rule aimed at addressing the practice of marketers setting up purportedly independent websites, organizations, or entities to review or endorse their own product.” [ 385 ]

Some commenters argued that, as drafted, the provision was overly broad and would prohibit conduct that was not deceptive or unfair. A business organization said that, as drafted, proposed § 465.6 “. . . could capture retailers that sell their own house brands” and “prevent media companies from operating general review websites that publish reviews by independent critics and consumers about films or television produced by affiliated studios or divisions.” [ 386 ] A consumer ( print page 68062) organization similarly said that, “as written, . . . [proposed § 465.6] would make it illegal for companies to host any reviews whatsoever so long as some of the reviews touch on a category of business, products, or services the company provides” and would prohibit “customer review forums on sites such as Home Depot and Amazon.” [ 387 ] A retailer said that “the plain text of . . . [proposed § 465.6 would] sweep[ ] in more conduct that is neither deceptive nor unfair—for example, where Company A provides customer reviews authored by others to Company B, without disclosing an ownership relationship.” [ 388 ] A trade association wrote that proposed § 465.6 “could be applied to prohibit retailers from representing that any consumer reviews or opinions featured on their own websites are independent, even if they are.” [ 389 ] A retailer commented that proposed § 465.6 is “overly broad and would prohibit a business from using a related entity from [sic] testing or comparing products in good faith and publishing those results, even if the company clearly disclosed that the test or comparison was done by an affiliate.” [ 390 ] A review platform asked in its comment that the Commission clarify that the section would not “unintentionally lead[ ] to review sites being unable to host reviews of their own company or sector.” [ 391 ] The Commission recognizes and agrees with the above concerns and is making two responsive modifications to narrow final § 465.6 in a way that better reflects the Commission's intent. The Commission is excluding “consumer reviews” from the scope of final § 465.6 and changing the prohibition against “represent[ing]” to a prohibition against “materially misrepresent[ing].”

A trade association commented that “many retailers host product reviews on their online shopping websites and make no direct claims that the reviews are independent” and asked the Commission to “make clear that it is permissible for retailers to host product reviews on a site they control and operate.” [ 392 ] Assuming that the commenter is referring to retailers hosting independent consumer reviews on a site they operate or control, then this is permissible under § 465.6. If the retailer's website misrepresents that it provides independent reviews or opinions by experts or organizations, then the retailer could be liable under § 465.6.

Two commenters asked the Commission to adopt a safe harbor provision for disclosures of the relationship between the business and the provider of the purportedly independent reviews or opinions. [ 393 ] The Commission's modifications address this request effectively by providing that businesses do not violate § 465.6 if they are not materially misrepresenting independence. The Commission believes that contradictory disclosures cannot cure a false express claim, such as a false express claim of independence. If a false claim of independence is merely implied, whether a disclosure is adequate to cure it will depend on the net impression of the website or advertisement, i.e., whether it materially misrepresents independence even with the disclosure.

A trade association commented that “[i]t would be helpful to make it clear that . . . § 465.6 only applies to websites or entities whose core service is providing reviews or opinions.” [ 394 ] The term “core service” is ambiguous, and it is not clear how one would determine whether it applies to reviews or opinions provided by a given website or other entity. False material claims that a website or entity provides independent reviews or opinions would still be deceptive even if such reviews or opinions are not the website's or entity's core service. The NPRM cited a number of cases in which businesses created purportedly independent seals or badges that they then awarded to their own products; the awarding of such seals or badges was clearly not their core business. [ 395 ] The NPRM also cited cases involving purportedly independent review websites, and, although such review websites might have appeared to be a “core service,” the true core business was selling the respondent's or defendant's own products. [ 396 ] Focusing on the ambiguous term “core services” would likely open the door to manipulation and evasion of the prohibition. The commenter further noted that it would also be “useful to clarify what `independent reviews or opinions' means.” [ 397 ] In this context, the term “independent” merely refers to explicit or implicit claims that reviews or opinions are not coming from a business that offers any of the products or services being reviewed or evaluated.

A business organization commenter suggested that the Commission not finalize § 465.6 because “the fraudulent nature of reviews on purportedly independent websites would likely be covered by . . . [§§ ] 465.2 and 465.5 of the . . . Rule.” [ 398 ] Those sections are limited to consumer reviews and consumer or celebrity testimonials and do not apply to reviews, seals, or other opinions by purportedly independent experts, organizations [ 399 ] or other entities. Therefore, § 465.6 is not duplicative of either § 465.2 or § 465.5.

Proposed § 465.7 sought to prohibit two different types of consumer review suppression.

Proposed § 465.7(a) sought to prohibit anyone from using an unjustified legal threat or a physical threat, intimidation, or false accusation in an attempt to prevent a consumer review or any portion thereof from being written or created or to cause a consumer review or any portion thereof to be removed. Based on the following, the Commission is finalizing § 465.7(a) with several revisions for the purpose of clarity. [ 400 ]

A number of commenters supported the provision. [ 401 ] The NPRM asked whether it is “appropriate that . . . § 465.7(a) focuses on the specific types of listed threats or activities,” and two ( print page 68063) business commenters responded that it is. [ 402 ] One of the commenters said that “[t]his narrow approach protects consumers, all while ensuring clarity for businesses and avoiding the pitfall of ambiguity in the . . . Rule.” [ 403 ] However, as already noted above, based on the comments and on the proposed definition for the phrase “unjustified legal threat,” the Commission is adopting a definition for the phrase “unfounded or groundless legal threat,” instead of a definition of the phrase “unjustified legal threat,” as originally proposed. [ 404 ]

A trade association commenter noted that “ `intimidation' means threat of the use of force” so it “duplicates `physical threat' ” and should be deleted. [ 405 ] A review platform commenter questioned why the “proposed text is limited to `physical threats' ” and said that non-physical threats, such as verbal threats in the form of abusive or coercive language, should not be tolerated and should be acted against.” [ 406 ] A consumer group's comment said that “[t]he term `intimidation' seems sufficiently broad to cover most types of threats not otherwise covered by `legal' or `physical' threats.” [ 407 ] The Commission disagrees with the first commenter because, in this context, “intimidation” means things other than legal or physical threats. Intimidation can include abusive communications, stalking, character assassination, and sexual harassment when those things are used to intimidate, that is to force someone into or deter someone from taking some action by inducing fear. [ 408 ]

Three commenters voiced concerns about the fact that proposed § 465.7(a) included “false accusation[s]” as a type of conduct that could amount to review suppression. A review platform noted that the determination of whether an accusation is false “introduces an element of subjectivity,” and that it would “be preferable to ground this in a legal basis, such as defamation.” [ 409 ] A trade association wrote that “a statement by a business about a consumer review or the consumer making a review may sometimes be in order,” and a prohibition on false accusations should “allow breathing room for First Amendment free speech concerns, such as requiring a guilty mental state from the maker of an accusation before culpability attaches.” [ 410 ] It recommended adding “knowing that it is false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity.” [ 411 ] A second trade association asserted that proposed § 465.7(a) was “not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest because it applies regardless of the magnitude of the alleged error or intent or state of mind of the business that makes the false statement.” [ 412 ] In order to illustrate its point, the second trade association also posited a scenario involving false accusations by a restaurant owner in a private conversation with a disgruntled patron. [ 413 ] The owner in the hypothetical did not know the accusations were false and did not act recklessly. In response to these comments, final § 465.7(a) adopts the phrase “a public false accusation in response to a consumer review that is made with the knowledge that the accusation was false or made with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity,” rather than the phrase “false accusation,” as originally proposed. This change resolves the commenters' concerns regarding the accuser's state of mind, clarifies the Commission's intent that the provision applies only to public accusations, and provides greater clarity, thereby making compliance less burdensome. In response to the concern about subjectivity, the Commission notes that courts can make objective determinations of whether a given accusation is false. One of these commenters also asserted broadly that § 465.7(a) “regulates `pure speech,' not conduct, because it applies to the use of words to convey a message” and that speech is not commercial speech if it does not propose a commercial transaction. [ 414 ] This assertion has no basis in First Amendment law and is an overly limited articulation of what counts as commercial speech. When a business makes a public false accusation in response to a consumer review in an attempt to cause the review to be removed, the speech at issue is clearly commercial speech because it is intended to promote the product, service, or business that was the subject of the negative consumer review.

Two commenters, a review platform and a trade association, said that the provision should be strengthened by also covering attempts to force a consumer review or a portion thereof to be changed or edited. [ 415 ] Proposed § 465.7(a) would have prohibited certain acts made in an attempt to, among other things, “cause a consumer review or any portion thereof to be removed.” The Commission believes that, in most cases, changing or editing a review would necessarily require removing a portion of it. Accordingly, the Commission is clarifying that final § 465.7 applies to such modifications of reviews by adding “whether or not that review or a portion thereof is replaced with other content,” immediately after “cause a consumer review or any portion thereof to be removed.”

A trade association's comment asked that the “Rule be clarified to emphasize that it does not prohibit companies from contacting customers who post negative reviews to resolve the reported issues.” [ 416 ] The commenter was concerned that “sensitive customers could argue that such communication from the Company (no matter how innocuous) amounts to intimidation.” [ 417 ] The Commission does not believe that a company engages in intimidation by merely contacting customers to resolve reported issues or simply asking satisfied customers to update their reviews. Specifying that a consumer's concerns will be addressed only if the consumer changes or removes a truthful negative review may be an unfair or deceptive act or practice that has the effect of distorting or otherwise misrepresenting what consumers think of a marketer's products, [ 418 ] but that issue is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

A consumer organization's comment said that, “[j]ust as businesses may use threats or intimidation to prevent a consumer from leaving a negative review, they may use similar tactics to ensure receipt of a positive review,” thus concluding that § 465.7(a)'s “prohibitions . . . should also apply to compelled creation of positive reviews.” [ 419 ] Although compelling the creation of positive reviews through threats or intimidation may be an unfair or deceptive act or practice, the ( print page 68064) Commission declines to address that practice in this rulemaking at this time.

A dental trade association expressed that, because Federal and State privacy laws prohibit dentists and other health care providers from disclosing patient information, their ability to correct the record when they are themselves a target of deceptive or unfair reviews is limited. [ 420 ] The commenter asked the Commission to permit dentists and other health care providers to disclose patient information in response to a review (limited to the scope of the topics addressed in the review) without violating any FTC privacy-based prohibitions. [ 421 ] This request is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

Proposed § 465.7(b) sought to prohibit a business from misrepresenting, “expressly or by implication, that the consumer reviews of one or more of its products or services displayed on its website or platform represent most or all the reviews submitted to the website or platform when reviews are being suppressed ( i.e., not displayed) based upon their ratings or their negativity.” Proposed § 465.7(b) enumerated reasons for suppressing reviews that would not be considered suppression based upon their ratings or their negativity, so long as the criteria for withholding reviews are applied to all reviews submitted without regard to the favorability of the review. Proposed § 465.7(b) listed the following valid reasons for review suppression: (1) “the review contain[ed] . . . [(a)] trade secrets or privileged or confidential commercial or financial information, . . . [(b)] libelous, harassing, abusive, obscene, vulgar, or sexually explicit content, . . . [(c)] the personal information or likeness of another person, . . . [(d)] content that is discriminatory with respect to race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, or another protected class, or . . . [(e)] content that is clearly false or misleading;” (2) “the seller reasonably believe[d] the review is fake;” or (3) “the review is wholly unrelated to the products or services offered by or available at the website or platform.” Based on the following, the Commission has determined to finalize this prohibition with some modifications. [ 422 ]

Multiple commenters said that the practice of product sellers suppressing less favorable reviews was problematic. One individual commenter said they were “[d]isgusted by businesses who[ ] filter/have control over their . . . reviews.” [ 423 ] Another individual commenter stated that “[t]he removal of reviews that are critical, but accurate of the service or good creates an illusion and ultimately, defrauds the consumer of their choice,” but also worried about how “the FTC [will] catch companies that delete negative reviews.” [ 424 ] A third individual commenter said that the “Rule should prohibit businesses from suppressing . . . honest negative reviews.” [ 425 ] A fourth individual commenter wrote that “[b]usiness should be barred from misrepresenting reviews on their websites and from suppressing negative reviews.” [ 426 ] The State Attorneys General said that, when “a merchant . . . only posts positive consumer reviews on its website, instead of both favorable and negative reviews, [it] can potentially mislead consumers into believing that such reviews represent most or all of the reviews submitted to the merchant's website.” [ 427 ] A retailer wrote that it “support[s] the goals of section 465.7[(b)], which prohibits sellers from suppressing customer reviews based on their negativity” and “believe[s] that it is critically important that customers not be deprived of useful, negative feedback when deciding whether to purchase a product.” [ 428 ]

The NPRM asked whether “it [is] appropriate that proposed § 465.7(b) is limited to circumstances in which reviews are being suppressed based on rating or negativity,” and a business commenter agreed that it was. [ 429 ]

A trade association commenter said “that the Commission has . . . failed to satisfy the requirement that the specific unfair or deceptive acts or practices identified in the rule be prevalent.” [ 430 ] According to the commenter, “The rulemaking record cites only one case, one closing letter, and one comment in support of the Commission's conclusion that review suppression is prevalent.” [ 431 ] The commenter understates the significance of the evidence that the Commission considered in finding that the suppression of reviews based upon their rating or sentiment is prevalent. The closing letter to Yotpo, a company that provided review management services, is significant because the investigation revealed that more than 4,500 Yotpo merchant clients were automatically publishing only 4- or 5-star reviews and that most 1-star reviews and 2-star reviews submitted to those merchants were suppressed. [ 432 ] The investigation of Yotpo shows that there was widespread suppression of negative reviews. The Commission thus has a strong basis for its conclusion that the suppression of negative reviews on retailer or business websites is prevalent.

A review platform's comment suggested changing “based upon their ratings or their negativity” to “based upon their ratings or their sentiment” because “reviews can be difficult to categorize as wholly `negative' or `positive.' ” [ 433 ] The Commission intended for the phrase “based upon their ratings or their negativity” to refer to the suppression of reviews based on their ratings or their sentiment. However, in light of the comment, the Commission now realizes that the use of the word “negativity” in this context could be subject to misinterpretation and be construed to imply that a review must be wholly negative for its suppression to be problematic. Accordingly, the Commission is clarifying its original intent by changing “their negativity” to “their negative sentiment.” The commenter also said that “consumer harm may result if someone suppresses a review, regardless of the sentiment expressed in the review.” [ 434 ] The Commission is not expanding the rule to address other types of review suppression not based on ratings or negative sentiment. There are numerous legitimate reasons for suppressing consumer reviews, including those listed in § 465.7(b)(1), (2), and (3). Furthermore, such an expansion would be beyond the scope of the rulemaking.

A trade association's comment requested that the Commission “carve out the use of reviews in marketing materials” because the provision “could effectively prohibit retailers from highlighting any customer reviews in advertising—even though customers understand that advertising normally highlights particularly positive ( print page 68065) reviews.” [ 435 ] The Commission did not intend for proposed § 465.7(b) to cover the use of consumer reviews in marketing materials. Specifically, proposed § 465.7(b) was only intended to cover misrepresentations about the body of reviews in a “reviews” section of a website or platform—that is, a portion of a website or platform dedicated in whole or in part to receiving and displaying consumer reviews—and not misrepresentations about whether a highlighted review is “representative.” The Commission is clarifying this by changing “displayed on its website or platform” to “displayed in a portion of its website or platform dedicated in whole or in part to receiving and displaying consumer reviews.” The Commission notes however, that the use of non-representative consumer reviews in marketing could be deceptive in violation of section 5 of the FTC Act. [ 436 ]

A trade association asked that the Commission “clarify what it means for a review to be “suppressed ( i.e., not displayed).” [ 437 ] The trade association said that “[m]any businesses that operate websites that display consumer reviews will organize those reviews in reasonable ways to help consumers navigate what might be a large corpus of varying consumer commentary” and that, “[i]f a business takes reasonable steps to organize their reviews, those reviews should not be considered `suppressed.' ” [ 438 ] The Commission agrees that organizing reviews does not qualify as suppressing reviews. The Commission notes, however, that organizing reviews in a way that makes it difficult for consumers to know about or find negative reviews could be an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of section 5 of the FTC Act. The commenter also asked that the Commission change “not displayed” to “not displayed or accessible.” [ 439 ] The Commission is instead clarifying its original intent by changing “not displayed” to “not displayable,” so that the provision only covers reviews that consumers will be unable to view even if they were to sort or filter the reviews differently. Another trade association's comment said that “the Rule should explicitly allow retailers to sort reviews by objective measures unrelated to the positivity of the review, where the sorting method is disclosed.” [ 440 ] As modified, § 465.7(b) does not prohibit the sorting or organization of reviews, so the proposed modification is unnecessary.

Four industry commenters argued that there are legitimate reasons for suppressing consumer reviews beyond those listed in proposed § 465.7(b). [ 441 ] One of these commenters, a retailer, gave examples of other legitimate reasons for suppressing a review: “describing violence, encouraging illegal activities or misuse of the product, incorporating hyperlinks that could jeopardize customer online safety, or using a language not supported by the website.” [ 442 ] Three of the industry commenters said that, by limiting review suppression to the listed reasons, the provision violated the First Amendment and section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, [ 443 ] and all four asked the Commission to clarify that the listed reasons are not exhaustive. [ 444 ] The Commission agrees that there are legitimate reasons for suppressing reviews beyond those listed and is clarifying that the listed criteria for review suppression are non-exhaustive examples.

Proposed § 465.7(b) provided that suppression was not violative “so long as the criteria for withholding reviews are applied to all reviews submitted without regard to the favorability of the review.” The Commission is clarifying that the criteria must be applied to all reviews equally. Additionally, to be consistent with the above clarification regarding sentiment, the Commission is changing “without regard to the favorability of the review” to “without regard to sentiment.”

An individual commenter asked whether a company could “have a policy of not posting reviews that mention other products” or suppress a review that is “patently false (wrong company, wrong product, wrong location, etc. ).” [ 445 ] As long as the policy is applied to all reviews equally, those could be legitimate reasons for suppressing reviews.

A trade association commented that one of the listed, acceptable reasons for suppressing reviews is too limited. Specifically, it said that “libelous” reviews would not cover reviews with an oral component that were “slanderous,” and it thus recommended using the word “defamatory.” [ 446 ] The Commission intended to cover all defamatory consumer reviews, not just written ones, and the Commission is making that clarification.

Another one of the listed, acceptable reasons for suppressing reviews was that “the seller reasonably believes the review is fake.” A review platform commented that it is important that this criteria “cannot be used by a business to seek to censor consumer reviews based on a valid experience” and said that, without information about the reviewer, the reviewer's location, and the reviewer's other reviews, “it can be difficult to accurately identify fake reviews.” [ 447 ] One individual commenter wrote that this “is overbroad and gives sellers leeway to suppress reviews at their discretion so long as they claim a belief that said reviews were fake.” [ 448 ] The commenter recommended “revising this provision to add specificity and identify the parameters of what a fake review looks like.” [ 449 ] A seller does not risk liability if the suppression occurs for a reason other than the review's rating or negative sentiment. The provision's phrase “such as” recognizes that it is proper to suppress reviews for legitimate reasons. For this specific enumerated exception, “the seller [only needs to] reasonabl[y] believe[ ] the review . . . [to be] fake.” Thus, if there are indicia that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the review is fake, the seller would meet this exception.

A different, listed acceptable reason for suppressing reviews was “content that is discriminatory with respect to race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, or another protected class.” The Commission is changing “protected class” to “intrinsic characteristic” in order to more closely echo the language in the CRFA on which the reason is based. [ 450 ]

A trade association noted that the “FTC should not prohibit sellers from excluding reviews that solely discuss service experience and do not include comments on the product.” [ 451 ] The rule as clarified does not prohibit suppressing reviews that solely discuss customer service as long as the criteria is applied equally to all reviews. The Commission notes, however, that it has expressed the view that suppressing customer reviews about a “particular seller's customer service, delivery, returns, and exchanges” can be deceptive in violation of section 5 of the FTC Act. [ 452 ]

A consumer organization expressed concern that proposed § 465.7(b) “allows businesses to suppress reviews when they contain `harassing,' `abusive,' or `obscene' content, which are highly subjective terms likely to be interpreted broadly by businesses that have a clear interest in suppressing reviews that may harm their public perception.” [ 453 ] The commenter suggested that, “to preserve the public benefit of reviews that contain instances of objectionable content,” the Commission could “allow businesses to redact such content but require them to leave the remainder of the review along with any corresponding score or numerical rating available for public consumption.” [ 454 ] Appropriate redaction of portions of consumer reviews may be difficult or infeasible in some instances. The Commission declines to impose such a requirement at this time.

The State Attorneys General asked in their comment that the Commission “delete[ ] the phrase `based upon their ratings or their negativity' at the end of the first sentence.” [ 455 ] The State Attorneys General's reasoning for this request was that the language is unnecessarily limiting and superfluous” because “a company seeking to suppress negative reviews could potentially succeed by offering reasons that are proxies for negativity” and “any legitimate suppression should already be sufficiently covered by the robust carve-outs set forth in § 465.7(b)(1).” [ 456 ] The Commission declines to make that change, as the enumerated “carve-outs” do not exhaustively identify every legitimate reason for suppressing reviews.

A business organization asserted that proposed § 465.7(b) “implies a `gross feedback score' must be disclosed along with the `net feedback score,' which is the actual number of reviews viewable to a user.” [ 457 ] The commenter is incorrect, as § 465.7(b) contains no such disclosure requirements.

An individual commenter expressed concern as to how the FTC will “catch companies that delete negative reviews” and suggested offering rewards “for individuals or organizations to help address” the problem. [ 458 ] The Commission will use the investigative and law enforcement tools at its disposal to identify bad actors who suppress reviews.

In connection with proposed § 465.7(b), several commenters recommended that the Commission impose additional consumer review-related requirements. An individual commenter asked the Commission to “require businesses to display consumer reviews in a fair and transparent manner, such as by allowing consumers to choose how they want to sort or filter reviews, and by disclosing any criteria or algorithm that they use to rank or highlight reviews.” [ 459 ] Another individual commenter said that “companies . . . should be required to maintain and periodically disclose records of review suppression,” which would, at a minimum, “contain the number of reviews suppressed at each rating level and an associated justification.” [ 460 ] A review platform recommended the Commission expand the scope of the rule to (1) prevent reviews from “being misquoted and manipulated via quoting select parts of reviews,” and (2) require that the criteria on which consumer reviews are selected for showcasing ( e.g., on a website carousel) be made clear. [ 461 ] A consumer organization commented that consumers should be able to assume that the reviews that they see on a business's website are representative of the reviews the business receives, and if “a business wishes to curate reviews, the business should have the burden to transparently communicate the fact and nature of the curation to consumers.” [ 462 ] One individual commenter asked that the proposed rule be “extended to include penalties for Pay-to-Play platforms that engage in practices such as manipulating ratings and suppressing negative reviews for businesses that advertise on their websites,” [ 463 ] and another commenter thought the rule should cover “companies that profit from shaming businesses by posting negative reviews while unilaterally determining positive reviews are `unverified'—effectively holding any positive sentiment back until the business subscribes to the platform.” [ 464 ] Some of these proposed requirements are beyond the scope of this rulemaking, although some of the acts and practices described may be deceptive or unfair in violation of section 5 of the FTC Act. For example, misquoting reviews can be deceptive [ 465 ] and showcasing or curating reviews might deceptively represent that the reviews presented are representative or typical of the reviews received. Based on its policy expertise, the Commission declines to address any of these practices in this rulemaking at this time.

Proposed § 465.8(a) sought to prohibit anyone from selling or distributing fake indicators of social media influence that can be used by persons or businesses to misrepresent their influence or importance for a commercial purpose. Proposed § 465.8(b) sought to prohibit anyone from purchasing or procuring fake indicators of social media influence to misrepresent their influence or importance for a commercial purpose. Based on the following, the Commission has determined to finalize these prohibitions with certain modifications. [ 466 ]

Several commenters raised concerns about the meaning of the term “fake” in the context of indicators of social media influence. A trade association asked, “Does `fake' only mean that the likes and followers were created by bots or through fake accounts? If a social media influencer were to recommend that their followers also follow another business' social media account, would that also be `procuring' of `fake' indicators of social media influence? . . . If the FTC means to capture a specific category of `likes,' `follows,' or other metrics that do not reflect any real opinions, findings, or experiences with the marketer or its products or services, it should make that ( print page 68067) intention more clear.” [ 467 ] A retailer asked for “confirmation . . . that this provision would not apply where companies award legitimate indicators of influence to certain users upon satisfaction of objective criteria, even if those individuals are later discovered to have circumvented or abused those criteria.” [ 468 ] A second trade association said that, “[w]hen . . . indicators are awarded based on legitimate criteria, they serve this informative and non-deceptive purpose” and the “innovative companies that develop these indicators of influence should not be punished if bad actors try to abuse the processes,” so the Commission “should . . . clarify that this section applies to true `fake' indicators of social media influence.” [ 469 ] In response to these comments, the Commission is clarifying what it intended as “fake indicators of social media influence.” For this purpose, the final rule includes a definition of the phrase “fake indicators of social media influence” in § 465.1(h), which defines the phrase as indicators of social media influence derived from bots, purported individual accounts not associated with a real individual, accounts created with a real individual's personal information without their consent, hijacked accounts, or that otherwise do not reflect a real individual's or entity's activities, opinions, findings, or experiences. If a social media influencer were to recommend that their followers also follow another social media account, any resulting followers of the second account would not be “fake.” If a company awards legitimate indicators of influence to certain users upon satisfaction of objective criteria reflecting the influence of the users, the company would not be selling “fake” indicators, even if bad actors were able to deceive the company.

Three commenters addressed the section's lack of a knowledge requirement. A retailer commenter wrote that “a business could be in violation of this provision even if it innocently sold or procured a fake indicator, without knowledge or any indication that the indicator was fake,” which it said “is patently unreasonable.” [ 470 ] A second retailer similarly “recommend[ed] that the rule be revised so that it only applies when the seller/buyer knows the indicators are fake.” [ 471 ] A trade association suggested “revising this section to additionally require that the seller or purchaser act `with knowledge that the indicators of influence are fake.' ” [ 472 ] The Commission recognizes that someone could think that they were paying for a promotional campaign to increase their followers but, unbeknownst to the purchaser, the entity offering the campaign was lying and just providing fake followers. It is also possible that a company might bestow a legitimate indicator of social media influence, like a seal, that the company does not know is based upon or derived from fake indicators of social media influence. The Commission is therefore narrowing the provision by adding “that they knew or should have known to be fake” to both § 465.8(a) and (b).

A trade association's comment asserted that “the Commission failed to meet the prevalence requirement” because “the evidence the Commission . . . cited in the NPRM . . . all relate[s] to the use of actual `fake' indicators of influence that the seller or purchaser knew were fake.” [ 473 ] The Commission believes that, with the addition of the definition of “fake indicators” and the knowledge requirement, it has sufficiently addressed the commenter's concerns.

A trade association expressed concern that the provision would “hold[ ] retailers vicariously liable for the actions of independent endorsers,” that is, the influencers and other endorsers that they hire. [ 474 ] That was not the Commission's intention. The distribution of fake indicators of social media influence was intended to mean the distribution to individuals or businesses who could use the indicators to misrepresent their influence, not causing the dissemination of social media by users of such fake indicators, e.g., by hiring influencers who happen to have fake followers. The Commission is clarifying this intent by adding a definition of “distribute fake indicators of social media influence” in § 465.1(g).

Although no commenter specifically raised the issue in the context of § 465.8, the Commission is adding the concept of materiality to both § 465.8(a) and (b) in terms of the scope of misrepresentations covered therein, so as to be consistent with other parts of the rule.

A consumer organization said in its comment that the Commission “should clarify that `procure' ” in § 465.8(b) “includes the creation of automated bot or other fake accounts that `follow' or `subscribe' to an account, artificially inflating the popularity of that account.” [ 475 ] The Commission declines to make this change. It is not the creation of the bot or fake account, itself, that the rule makes illegal, but the use of the bot or fake account to follow another user, watch another user's videos, or create other fake indicia of social media influence. The same commenter said the Commission should “remove the word ‘fake' from the Rule to clarify that it covers the purchase or procurement of any social media engagement . . . from both real and fake accounts unless those incentives can be disclosed to people who can view the engagement.” [ 476 ] The use of incentivized indicia of social media influence is not necessarily deceptive in all cases, and it is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

Finally, a trade association and a retailer suggested changing the prohibition in § 465.8(a) from selling or distributing fake indicators that “can be used” by persons to misrepresent their influence to those that “are used” by persons to misrepresent their influence. [ 477 ] The trade association said that “[a]pplying this section to indicators of social media influence that `can be' used for this purpose, but are not, would mean that the rule prohibits conduct that is not deceptive.” [ 478 ] Such fake indicators are not physical products that people collect and then use later as desired. Instead, their existence is premised on and limited to situations in which they appear deceptively on a social media site. Therefore, any person or business that obtains fake indicators of social media influence is misrepresenting their social media influence. While some individuals may not be doing so for a commercial purpose, those individuals are excluded from the rule's scope. Further, a person or entity that is in the business of selling or distributing fake indicia of social media influence is engaging in commerce, and it is unreasonable to posit that no buyers would use such indicia to misrepresent their social media influence for a commercial purpose. The Commission therefore declines to make the suggested modification.

Proposed § 465.9 provided that the provisions of the rule are separate and severable from one another and that, if any provision is stayed or determined to ( print page 68068) be invalid, the remaining provisions shall continue in effect. The Commission did not receive any comments regarding proposed § 465.9. The Commission is changing “shall continue in effect” to “will continue in effect” which is more precise. With that clarification, the Commission is finalizing § 465.9.

For the reasons described above, the Commission has determined to adopt the provisions of §§ 465.1, 465.2, and 465.4 through 465.9 with clarifying or limiting modifications. The Commission declines to finalize proposed § 465.3 regarding consumer review or testimonial reuse or repurposing.

Under section 22 of the FTC Act, the Commission, when it promulgates any final rule for a “rule” as defined in section 22(a)(1), must include a “final regulatory analysis.” 15 U.S.C. 57b-3(b)(2) . The final regulatory analysis must contain (1) a concise statement of the need for, and objectives of, the final rule; (2) a description of any alternatives to the final rule which were considered by the Commission; (3) an analysis of the projected benefits, any adverse economic effects, and any other effects of the final rule; (4) an explanation of the reasons for the determination of the Commission that the final rule will attain its objectives in a manner consistent with applicable law and the reasons the particular alternative was chosen; and (5) a summary of any significant issues raised by the comments submitted during the public comment period in response to the preliminary regulatory analysis, and a summary of the assessment by the Commission of such issues. 15 U.S.C. 57b-3(b)(2)(A)-(E) .

The Commission received several comments that included elements that the Commission identified as specifically in response to the preliminary regulatory analysis. Two trade associations asserted that compliance costs would be higher than estimated by the Commission. These associations stated that the risk of statutory penalties would lead many of their members to engage in compliance activities beyond those assumed for the high-cost compliance scenario in the NPRM. [ 479 ] In the preliminary regulatory analysis, the high-cost compliance scenario assumed an average compliance burden of 8 hours of attorney time for firms with greater than 500 employees. This average is consistent with some firms, especially the largest ones in industries more reliant on reviews and testimonials, choosing to make more extensive improvements to their compliance programs. In addition, the Commission has narrowed the rule and clarified the rule requirements as described in section IV of this document. For these reasons, the Commission continues to believe the high-cost scenario likely overestimates compliance costs, and chooses to not modify its estimate of possible compliance costs for that scenario, but it does present a sensitivity analysis below that assesses what effect systematic underestimation of compliance costs would have on the rule's net benefits to the public.

One individual commenter asserted that the benefits the Commission estimated in the NPRM did not justify the estimated compliance costs because the same results could be obtained using the FTC's existing section 5 authority. [ 480 ] As explained in detail in this final regulatory analysis, the Commission believes that the final rule will increase deterrence of unfair or deceptive acts or practices involving consumer reviews and testimonials relative to relying on its existing authority and that the net benefits of the rule justify its promulgation.

A second individual commenter claimed that it was unreasonable to assume that the rule would eliminate the entire loss to consumers, in terms of choosing products optimally, from the impact of bad information in false reviews. The commenter asserted that deterrence would be only partial because some circumstances would make it difficult to identify such reviews. [ 481 ] The Commission believes that its estimate of the benefits of reducing manipulated reviews is appropriate, as discussed further below. However, the Commission presents additional sensitivity analysis below that assesses the effect of systematic overestimation of the degree to which the rule would fix review manipulation, and determines that, even conceding that point, the quantified net benefits are highly positive.

Finally, a business offering third-party review fraud detection tools offered research that it claimed showed that the rule would generate benefits of $180.83 billion and that the benefits would outweigh the costs 100:1. [ 482 ] These estimates are similar to those of the Commission.

The Commission believes that the final rule will substantially improve its ability to combat certain specified, clearly unfair or deceptive acts or practices involving consumer reviews or testimonials. Although such unfair or deceptive acts or practices are already unlawful under section 5 of the FTC Act, the rule will increase deterrence of such conduct by allowing courts to impose civil penalties against the violators. In addition, the final rule will allow the Commission to seek court orders requiring violators to compensate consumers for the harms caused by their unlawful conduct. The Commission believes that the rule will accomplish these goals without significantly burdening honest businesses and that the rule will provide significant benefits to consumers and honest competitors.

The final rule will allow courts to impose civil penalties under section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1)(A) , against those who engage in the deceptive or unfair conduct that the final rule prohibits. The ability to obtain civil penalties is important because it can be difficult to quantify consumer losses that stem from the use of unfair or deceptive consumer reviews and testimonials. Without civil penalties, persons who engage in such conduct might avoid monetary consequences for their unlawful conduct simply because there is insufficient evidence to link their unlawful conduct to quantifiable losses suffered by consumers. And if there are no monetary consequences, potential wrongdoers have little incentive to refrain from engaging in unlawful practices. Because the final rule will allow courts to impose civil penalties for violations, it provides the deterrence necessary to incentivize compliance with the law, even in cases where it is difficult to quantify consumer harm.

In addition, the final rule is necessary to allow the Commission to recover redress more efficiently to redress consumer harm resulting from the unfair or deceptive use of reviews or testimonials. In 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court in AMG Capital Management, LLC ( print page 68069) v. FTC [ 483 ] ruled that section 13(b) of the FTC Act [ 484 ] did not authorize the Commission to seek court orders requiring wrongdoers to return money unlawfully taken from consumers through unfair or deceptive acts or practices or give up the unjust gains they earned from engaging in such unlawful conduct. The AMG ruling has made it significantly more difficult for the Commission to return money to injured consumers, particularly in cases that do not involve rule violations. [ 485 ]

Since AMG, the primary means for the Commission to return money unlawfully taken from consumers is section 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57b , which provides two paths for consumer redress. The longer path, under section 19(a)(2), typically requires the Commission to first conduct an administrative proceeding to determine whether the respondent violated the FTC Act; if the Commission finds that the respondent did so, the Commission issues a cease-and-desist order, which might not become final until after the resolution of any resulting appeal to a Federal court of appeals. After the conclusion of the administrative proceeding (and any appeal), the Commission must initiate an action in Federal court to obtain monetary relief under section 19 and, in that action, the Commission must prove that the violator engaged in objectively fraudulent or dishonest conduct. [ 486 ] In effect, the section 19(a)(2) pathway requires the Commission to file two separate actions to obtain monetary relief.

The more efficient path to monetary relief is under section 19(a)(1), which allows the Commission to recover redress in one Federal court action for violations of a Commission rule relating to unfair or deceptive acts or practices. [ 487 ] Only a small portion of the Commission's past cases challenging unfair or deceptive consumer reviews or testimonials involved rule violations that would allow the Commission to seek monetary relief under section 19(a)(1). With the final rule, however, the Commission will be able to use section 19(a)(1) to obtain redress for consumer losses attributable to violations of the rule.

Overall, outlawing egregious review and testimonial practices in the final rule expands the Commission's enforcement toolkit and allows it to deliver on its mission by stopping and deterring harmful conduct and, in some cases, making American consumers whole when they have been harmed. The unfair or deceptive acts or practices involving reviews and testimonials encompassed by this final rule are prevalent and harmful to consumers and honest businesses. Thus, the unlocking of additional remedies through this rulemaking—particularly, the ability to obtain civil penalties against violators and redress for consumers or others injured by the conduct—will allow the Commission to more effectively police and deter harmful review and testimonial practices that plague consumers and honest businesses.

As discussed below, the Commission has determined that the rule's benefits greatly outweigh its costs. The rule promotes accuracy in reviews and testimonials by prohibiting certain unfair or deceptive acts or practices involving reviews and testimonials. Thus, this rule will help the vast majority of American consumers who rely on such reviews and testimonials to make better-informed purchase decisions. The rule prohibits (1) the creation, sale, purchasing, or procurement from insiders of fake or false reviews, and (2) buying of reviews conditioned on the reviews expressing particular sentiments. It also includes prohibitions on fake or false consumer or celebrity testimonials, certain insider reviews without adequate disclosures, misleading company-controlled review websites or entities, certain review suppression practices, and the misuse of fake indicators of social media influence.

In the analysis below, the Commission describes the anticipated impact of the rule. Where possible, the Commission quantifies the benefits and costs. If a benefit or cost is quantified, the Commission indicates the sources of the data relied upon. If an assumption is needed, the analysis makes clear which quantities are being assumed. The Commission measures the benefits and costs of the rule against a baseline in which no rule has been promulgated by the Commission. For the remainder of section VI, and in the interest of brevity, the term “reviews” collectively refers to both reviews and testimonials.

Quantifiable benefits stem from consumer welfare improvements and consumer time savings. With the rule, reviews will be more accurate overall, leading consumers to purchase higher-quality products or products that are better-matched to their preferences. The rule will also lead to more trustworthy aggregate review ratings ( e.g., star ratings), leading some consumers to spend less time scrutinizing reviews to determine their validity. Quantifiable costs primarily reflect the resources spent by businesses to review the rule and to take any preemptive or remedial steps to comply with its provisions. Because the rule is an application of preexisting law under section 5 of the FTC Act, the Commission expects these compliance costs to be minimal.

A period of ten years is used in the baseline scenario because FTC rules are subject to review every ten years. [ 488 ] Quantifiable aggregate benefits and costs are summarized as the net present value over this ten-year period in Table 1.1. The discount rate reflects society's preference for receiving benefits earlier rather than later; a higher discount rate is associated with a greater preference for benefits in the present. The present value is obtained by multiplying each year's net benefit by a discount factor raised to the power of the number of years in the future the net benefit accrues.

Table 1.1—Present Value of Net Benefits

[2024-2033 (in billions)]

Present value: low-end estimate Present value: high-end estimate Total Benefits: 3% Discount Rate $67.40 $269.55 7% Discount Rate 57.03 230.44 Total One-Time Costs 0.87 0.00 Net Benefits: 3% Discount Rate 66.53 269.55 7% Discount Rate 56.16 230.44

This section describes the beneficial impact of the rule, provides quantitative estimates where possible, and describes benefits that are only assessed qualitatively. The quantifiable estimates reflect benefits stemming from the decrease in online review manipulation on third-party platforms or company websites, which covers most of the prohibitions contained in the rule. This analysis does not calculate benefits from the other aspects of the rule—that is, the prohibitions on fake or false celebrity testimonials, company-controlled entities that deceptively purported to provide independent opinions, review suppression, and the misuse of fake indicators of social media influence—because of the limited quantitative research in these areas. Some of these benefits are likely to be substantial. The quantified benefits are presented by benefit category, rather than stemming from a specific provision of the rule, because the relevant provisions have the same end goal—that is, to improve the information available to consumers by reducing the level of review manipulation. Therefore, it is difficult to disentangle the benefits stemming from each provision.

Existing academic literature in economics, marketing, computer science, and other fields documents the importance of online reviews; specifically that the number of online reviews and aggregate ratings are extremely important for consumer purchase decisions. It is widely documented that the presence of online reviews improves consumer welfare via reductions in both search costs and the level of information asymmetry that exists prior to purchase. [ 489 ]

When making purchase decisions, consumers typically have incomplete information on product quality and attributes. Searching for additional information is costly. Consumers incur costs—including time and effort costs—to seek, evaluate, and integrate incoming information. Online platforms where past users share information about their experiences can significantly lower search costs.

Researchers have also demonstrated that consumer reviews create value for consumers beyond a reduction in search costs. Consumers are better able to learn of a product's quality and attributes when there is free-flowing, non-manipulated commentary from past consumers. Consumer reviews lead to “better” decisions by increasing the level of information available prior to purchase and reducing uncertainty. By the same token, the academic literature also documents that manipulated or fake reviews lead to reductions in consumer welfare by leading consumers to buy low-quality products or otherwise make suboptimal purchase decisions. [ 490 ]

A secondary benefit is deterrence of the specified review practices. The rule is essentially the only means for imposing civil penalties in most cases involving such practices. Civil penalties are not available for conduct that violates section 5(a)'s prohibition on unfair or deceptive acts or practices—rather, a violation of an FTC rule is necessary to impose civil penalties under section 5(m)(1)(a). Civil penalties act as a deterrent to fraud and deception in connection with reviews. [ 491 ]

To obtain redress without alleging a rule violation, the Commission must typically first determine in an administrative proceeding that the respondent violated the FTC Act, successfully defend that determination in any appeal to a Federal court of appeals, and then initiate a second action in Federal district court under section 19(a)(2) in which the Commission must prove that the conduct at issue is “one which a reasonable man would have known under the circumstances was dishonest or fraudulent.” [ 492 ] Although these requirements are likely to be satisfied in cases involving the conduct covered by

the rule, it would take substantially more time and resources, and would significantly delay any redress to consumers, compared to a single Federal court action alleging a rule violation, in which the court adjudicates both whether the defendant violated the rule and, if so, the appropriate amount of monetary relief to award. [ 493 ]

Given the prevalence of unfair or deceptive conduct involving reviews and testimonials, the Commission will have no shortage of bad actors to investigate; it can invest the extra resources freed up by the final rule into more investigations and actions with respect to consumer reviews or testimonials. In sum, the potential consumer-redress benefits of the rule are significant: the Commission can put a stop to more inarguably unfair or deceptive consumer reviews, return more money to consumers, and obtain that redress more quickly.

The study containing the most direct estimate of welfare losses from review manipulation finds that the presence of fake reviews leads consumers to lose $0.12 for every dollar spent in an experimental setting. [ 494 ] The study considers a limited number of kinds of review manipulation, which notably does not include suppression of negative reviews or misrepresenting the independence of reviews, which might mean that $0.12 is an underestimate of the effect of the rule. However, the study also measures the effect of complete elimination of inflated star ratings and false written narratives, which might mean that $0.12 is an overestimate of the effect of the rule. Thus, the Commission believes that a reasonable proxy for the effect of the rule's elimination of much review manipulation is that consumers will gain an estimated $0.12 for every dollar spent on goods whose online reviews included fake or false ones.

To estimate consumer welfare benefits from better-informed purchase decisions, the Commission first estimates the total amount of sales for which consumers consult online reviews. U.S. e-commerce sales by retail firms totaled $1.119 trillion in 2023. [ 495 ] The Commission assumes that all online retail sales had some form of user-generated commentary ( e.g., on third-party review platforms or on company websites), and that this commentary factored into consumers' purchase decisions for these goods.

Online reviews are also important for commerce that is not conducted online, including for revenues earned by the hospitality industry and by other services. Sales for businesses classified as “Food Services and Drinking Places” by the U.S. Census totaled $980.15 billion in 2022, which includes revenue from restaurants and bars. [ 496 ] The Commission assumes that consumers rely on reviews for only a portion of these sales. Some consumers—particularly those living in rural parts of the country and in smaller cities—may have a small set of familiar food and drink establishments available to them, making online reviews less influential to their decision to patronize a particular one. Moreover, prior research has found that online reviews do not impact revenues of chain restaurants. [ 497 ] Accordingly, the Commission assumes that consumers rely on reviews for twenty-five percent of the total revenue generated in the food services and drinking places sector (twenty-five percent of $980.15 billion, or $245.04 billion). [ 498 ]

Online reviews are also important for sales in other service sectors. In 2022, total revenue was $316.35 billion for the accommodations sector (which includes hotels and vacation rentals), and total revenue was $67.70 billion for personal services (including beauty salons, barber shops, health clubs, and non-veterinary pet care), totaling $384.05 billion for both sectors. [ 499 ] About half of hotel revenue is generated by business travelers, who might rely less on online reviews than leisure travelers do. [ 500 ] In addition, pre-paid hotel bookings and vacation rentals booked online are already accounted for in the e-commerce sales figure described above. Furthermore, some consumers may be loyal customers of local salons and other personal services, regardless of these businesses' online reputations. For these reasons, the Commission assumes that a subset of accommodation and personal services revenues is affected by consumer reviews. Similar to the calculation for the food and drinking places industry, the Commission assumes that twenty-five percent of total accommodation and personal care services revenue is impacted by consumer reviews (twenty-five percent of $384.05 billion, or $96.01 billion). The total estimated revenue for services impacted by consumer reviews is $341.05 billion (the sum of $245.04 billion and $96.01 billion). Combining the revenue estimates described above yields $1.461 trillion in estimated sales of goods or services for which consumers incorporate reviews into their decision-making.

Quantitative estimates of the incidence of fake or false reviews vary by source. [ 501 ] Nevertheless, at least three prior studies examining the degree of review manipulation as a proportion of businesses or products (rather than as a proportion of reviews ) contain similar findings. According to these studies, approximately ten percent of products or businesses have some manipulated ( print page 68072) consumer reviews. [ 502 ] Thus, a basic approximation of total e-commerce sales involving some review manipulation is ten percent of $1.119 trillion, or $111.9 billion. Similarly, a basic approximation of review-dependent service industry sales involving some review manipulation is ten percent of $341.05 billion, or $34.1 billion.

Importantly, online businesses that engage in review manipulation are likely to earn less revenue than other e-commerce companies. For example, prior research has found that independent firms and sellers offering lower-quality products are more likely to engage in review manipulation. [ 503 ] Therefore, e-commerce sales affected by review manipulation are likely to be lower than the $111.9 billion in sales described above. A more conservative estimate of e-commerce sales involving review manipulation can be obtained by using price differentials of review-manipulated products versus others. Because products with online review manipulation have price points that are approximately 19 percent of the average price of goods sold online (according to research using data from Amazon), [ 504 ] a more conservative estimate of review-manipulated products' revenue is 1.9 percent (19 percent × 10 percent) of all $1.119 trillion in e-commerce sales, or $21.26 billion. Because the Commission does not have data on the revenue or quantities sold of review-manipulated products, it assumes that revenue is constant across price points and relies solely on the price differential to approximate revenue. The Commission does not similarly adjust revenues for non-e-commerce firms ( e.g., restaurant and hotels) because there is less variation in prices in those industries.

The Commission estimates annual welfare gains by applying the $0.12 estimate, described above, to the estimated amount of U.S. sales that are likely to have some manipulated consumer reviews, yielding an annual estimate of welfare gains in the range of $6.64 billion (12 percent of $55.36 billion, the sum of $21.26 billion and $34.1 billion) and $17.52 billion (12 percent of $146.0 billion, the sum of $111.9 billion and $34.1 billion). Assuming that e-commerce sales increase linearly over the next ten years at the same rate as they did in the past year, [ 505 ] the present value of consumer welfare improvements from better-informed purchasing decisions is estimated to be between $57.03 and $230.36 billion as described in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1—Estimated Benefits From Consumer Welfare Improvements From Purchase Decisions

[2024-2033]
Percent of e-commerce revenue impacted by review manipulation	Total annual welfare improvements from better-informed purchase decisions (in billions)	Total 10-year (2024-2033) welfare improvement, 3% discount rate (in billions)	Total 10-year (2024-2033) welfare improvement, 7% discount rate (in billions)
10	$17.52	$230.36	$196.91
1.9	6.64	67.40	57.03

The rule's prohibitions against deceptive and unfair consumer review acts and practices would increase the reliability of consumer reviews. The Commission assumes that this improvement in the dependability of reviews will lead consumers to place more trust in aggregate measures ( e.g., aggregate star ratings), which many review settings use to summarize consumer reviews. This in turn will lead some consumers to spend less time scrutinizing individual reviews to detect red flags commonly found in manipulated reviews ( e.g., spelling and grammar mistakes, generic highly positive or negative statements, and lack of detail). Therefore, the rule is likely to result in some amount of time savings for consumers who consult online reviews before making purchases.

Approximately eighty percent of Americans are online shoppers. [ 506 ] Of those who shop online, fourteen percent shop online more than once a week, twenty percent shop online once a week, twenty-three percent shop online once every two weeks, twenty-five percent shop online once a month, and the remainder do so every few months. [ 507 ] Different age groups of online shoppers spend various amounts of time reading reviews before making a purchase decision. On average, younger consumers spend more time reading reviews than older consumers. [ 508 ] This analysis does not incorporate time spent by consumers researching reviews of ( print page 68073) restaurants, hotels, and other goods and services that are not purchased online because of the limited amount of information available regarding consumers' total time spent on such activities.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly wage in 2023 was $31.48. [ 509 ] Recent research suggests that individuals living in the United States value their non-work time at eighty-two percent of average hourly earnings. [ 510 ] Thus, Americans overall value their non-work time at $25.81 per hour on average.

The survey data does not specify whether consumers were surveyed regarding the time spent reading reviews before the purchase of a single product or whether the question concerned the purchase of multiple products. This analysis assumes that the time listed in the survey results pertains to the purchase of a single product. It also assumes that the implementation of the rule will reduce the time spent reading reviews by ten percent. Combining the above figures results in $2.49 billion in consumer time savings per year, or a present value of $33.53 billion to $39.19 billion over a 10-year period, as described in Table 2.2.

In addition, there are likely to be other utility-related benefits consumers receive when reading nonmanipulated online reviews or consulting more accurate aggregate summary measures, such as increased satisfaction (apart from purchasing decisions) and decreased frustration. The Commission is not able to quantify these benefits.

Finally, some consumers may spend more time reading reviews if reviews are less likely to be fake or otherwise manipulated. This increase in time spent reading reviews may offset any time savings from the increased reliability of summary ratings. Therefore, the Commission presents another scenario in Table 2.2 where consumers do not gain any benefits from time savings. However, as before, there are likely to be additional benefits that are difficult to quantify ( e.g., decreased frustration) that result from reading more accurate reviews, likely yielding positive net benefits related to reading reviews even when consumers spend more time doing so.

Table 2.2—Estimated Benefits From Time Savings

[2024-2033]

Number of online shoppers, age 18-34	60,467,204
Average amount of time spent reading online reviews before making a purchase decision (in hours), age 18-34	0.336
Number of online shoppers, age 35-54	67,273,832
Average amount of time spent reading online reviews before making a purchase decision (in hours), age 35-54	0.231
Number of online shoppers, age 55+	78,920,814
Average amount of time spent reading online reviews before making a purchase decision (in hours), age 55+	0.167
Total amount of time all online shoppers spend reading online reviews before making a purchase decision (in hours)	48,991,116
Total amount of time U.S. online shoppers spend reading online reviews per year (in hours)	1,728,406,578
Value of time for online shoppers (per hour)	$25.81
Percentage of time saved	10%
Total annual time savings	$4,461,017,378
Total 10-year (2024-2033) time savings, 3% discount rate (in billions)	$39.19
Total 10-year (2024-2033) time savings, 7% discount rate (in billions)	$33.53

No quantifiable benefit	$0
80% of age-specific total U.S. population (Source: Pew Research Center, U.S. Census).
Adjusting for online shopping frequency (Source: International Post Corporation).

Accurate online reviews have been shown to improve competition. Several studies have found that online reviews are particularly important for independent and newer firms. [ 511 ] Ratings are more influential for these firms because consumers do not have strong prior beliefs as to their quality. New entrants whose sales benefit from online reviews typically offer higher quality goods and services. On the other hand, lower-quality firms often experience revenue losses with more online review activity. [ 512 ]

Relatedly, fake, false, and manipulated online reviews allow companies to surpass competitors. One study found that it only takes 50 fake reviews for a seller to pass any of its competitors in terms of visibility ( e.g., via rankings or search results). [ 513 ] It follows that by curbing the number of fake, false, or manipulated reviews, the rule would benefit consumers by improving the competitive environment for legitimate firms selling higher-quality products ( i.e., those who do not rely on review manipulation to sell their goods). While the benefits resulting ( print page 68074) from improvements in the competitive environment are difficult to quantify, the Commission believes they are likely to be substantial.

This section describes the costs associated with the rule, provides quantitative estimates where possible, and describes costs that are only assessed qualitatively. While the Commission only quantifies benefits from reduced review manipulation and not the other rule provisions above, the Commission quantifies compliance costs for all aspects of the rule.

The acts and practices prohibited by the rule are unfair or deceptive under section 5 of the FTC Act. The rule targets acts or practices that are clear violations of section 5, and businesses that are already compliant will not experience any additional compliance costs as a result of the rule. Moreover, the FTC routinely provides guidance to businesses on complying with FTC law, which will make the implications of the rule easy to understand for a wide range of businesses. Finally, in response to the comments, the Commission has both narrowed and clarified the rule requirements relative to the proposed rule ( see section IV of this document). Accordingly, one of the scenarios reflected in Table 3.1 assumes that businesses will spend a de minimis amount of time interpreting the rule and make no changes to their current policies.

However, because businesses now face the potential for civil penalties if they engage in conduct that violates the final rule, businesses may choose to incur additional administrative burdens to ensure compliance. The Commission presents another scenario in Table 3.1 where businesses notify their employees of the rule, conduct a review of their processes, and take any steps they deem important to ensure compliance. For firms that already comply with section 5 of the FTC Act, these steps might be out of caution so as not to risk the possibility of violating the rule. For example, some sellers may currently flag and remove reviews on their websites that they reasonably believe are fake. While this practice would not amount to a violation of the relevant rule provision (§ 465.7(b)), the rule may lead some businesses to choose to take extra steps to verify the inauthenticity of such reviews before suppressing them. A business may also decide to notify its employees of the rule. For example, if certain employees are responsible for posting new product pages or managing the company's social media presence, business owners may wish to notify these employees to ensure compliance. Although cautious firms may elect to conduct additional compliance review, the rule would not require any additional recordkeeping or notices beyond what is required by section 5 of the FTC Act.

For the heightened compliance review scenario in Table 3.1, the Commission makes assumptions about the number of businesses impacted and the number of person-hours involved in compliance activities. In 2021, there were approximately 34.77 million total firms in the United States. Of these firms, 19,688 had 500 or more employees (“large companies”), and the remaining 34.75 million had fewer than 500 employees (“small companies”). [ 514 ] The Commission assumes that all 19,688 large companies had some form of online consumer review presence ( e.g., on third-party business platforms such as Yelp or Google Reviews, or on their own websites). It assumes that 74 percent of the 34.75 million small companies (25.71 million companies) had an online consumer review presence. [ 515 ]

With heightened compliance review, the Commission assumes that lawyers at large companies, whose time is valued at $70.08 per hour, [ 516 ] will spend eight hours conducting a one-time review of the rule and notifying employees whose role involves creating new product pages, managing the company's social media presence, and any other relevant practices covered by the rule. It assumes that small company owners, whose time is valued at $33.48, [ 517 ] and are less likely have formal compliance programs, spend one hour doing the same.

In addition, some companies may spend time reviewing their automated processes to ensure that they comply with the rule. These costs, which companies might incur just once or on a recurring basis, are likely to be minimal. The Commission does not quantify these process-related costs because, among other things, the Commission does not know the number of firms that might undertake such a review.

The total estimated costs are tabulated in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1—Estimated Compliance Costs
	2024 Only

No cost	$0
Total cost	$0

Number of large companies (in thousands)	19.69
Cost per hour of rule review and related activities	$70.08
Number of hours of rule review and related activities	8
Subtotal (in millions)	$11.04
Number of small companies with online reviews (in thousands)	25,715.23
Cost per hour of rule review and related activities	$33.48
( print page 68075)
Number of hours of rule review and related activities	1
Subtotal (in millions)	$860.95
Total cost (in millions)	$871.98

There are several other potential effects from the rule. While the proposed requirements are far from onerous, there is the possibility that some sellers may “overcorrect” in response to the penalties available for rule violations. For example, a firm may encounter an excess of fake, negative reviews from a competitor. While § 465.7(b) permits the suppression of reviews that the seller reasonably believes are fake, an overcautious seller seeking to suppress fake reviews from competitors may choose to display no reviews whatsoever so as not to risk violating the rule. Alternatively, such a firm may take no action towards suspected fake reviews to avoid a possible rule violation. Both of these hypothetical scenarios would likely hurt the information environment for consumers. The Commission believes that such unintended consequences of the rule are very unlikely, especially in light of how the rule has been clarified and narrowed in response to the comments.

The Commission has attempted to catalog and quantify the incremental benefits and costs of the provisions included in the final rule. Extrapolating these benefits over the 10-year assessment period and discounting to the present provides an estimate of the present value for total benefits and costs of the rule, with the difference—net benefits—providing one measure of the value of regulation.

Using our low-end estimate above, the present value of quantified benefits for consumers from the rule's requirements over a 10-year period using a 7% discount rate is estimated at $57.03 billion. The present value of quantified costs for covered firms of complying with the rule's requirements over a 10-year period using a 7% discount rate is estimated at $0.83 billion. This generates an estimate of the present value of quantified net benefits equal to $56.16 billion using a discount rate of 7%. Using the upper-end assumptions discussed in the preceding analysis results in net benefits of $230.44 billion using a discount rate of 7%.

To examine the sensitivity of the net benefits conclusions to the possibility of systematic underestimating of compliance costs, the Commission calculates costs and benefits in a scenario where all labor costs turn out to be ten times larger than the parameter values in the heightened compliance review scenario. For both small and large companies, the number of hours of rule review and related activities are increased by a factor of ten. All benefits and other cost parameters are unchanged in this analysis. With these new parameters, compliance review will cost $8.72 billion in 2024, and the present value of quantified net benefits will be equal to $48.31 billion using a discount rate of 7%. Thus, while the Commission believes compliance costs in the heightened compliance scenario are likely overestimates, even if they are instead severe underestimates, the quantified net benefits are highly positive.

To examine the sensitivity of the net benefits conclusions to the possibility of systematic overestimating of the effectiveness of deterrence, the Commission calculates costs and benefits in a scenario in which the rule only partially eliminates the welfare losses to consumers caused by the various types of review manipulation covered by the rule. For this scenario, the Commission instead assumes that consumers will gain an estimated $0.04, rather than $0.12, for every dollar spent on goods whose online reviews included fake or false ones, the minimum welfare improvement reported for partial elimination of review manipulation in the study on which these estimates are based. [ 518 ] Under this scenario, the present value of quantified net benefits under a 7% discount rate is $18.14 billion instead of $56.16 billion. Combining the two scenarios, if the Commission both systematically underestimates compliance costs and systematically overestimates the effectiveness of the rule in preventing review manipulation, the present value of quantified net benefits under a 7% discount rate is $10.29 billion. Thus, even if the main compliance cost estimates above are underestimates and the main welfare benefits above are overestimates, the quantified net benefits are highly positive.

One alternative to the final rule would be to terminate the rulemaking and rely instead on the existing tools that the Commission currently possesses to combat the specified review and testimonial practices, such as consumer education and enforcement actions brought under sections 5 and 19 of the FTC Act. Failing to strengthen the set of tools available in support of the Commission's enforcement program against unfair or deceptive consumer reviews or testimonials would deprive it of the net benefits outlined above.

The Commission expects unquantified benefits to outweigh unquantified costs for this rule. As noted above, the benefits from several rule provisions are unquantified, while the compliance costs of all rule provisions are quantified. Thus, the quantified net benefits of $56.16 billion above likely underestimate the benefits to the public. Furthermore, these estimates are robust to uncertainty. Even assuming systematic underestimation of compliance costs and systematic overestimation of the rule effectiveness, the quantified net benefits are large and positive. Therefore, this regulatory analysis indicates that adoption of the rule will result in benefits to the public that outweigh the costs.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., requires Federal agencies to seek and obtain Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) approval before undertaking a collection of information directed to ten or more persons. As part of the NPRM, the Commission noted that the proposed rule did not contain an information collection requirement. However, for the purpose of confirmation, in Question 4 of the NPRM, the Commission nonetheless asked commenters whether the proposed rule contained a collection ( print page 68076) of information. [ 519 ] One commenter responded, “Yes, it does. It contains our research and others' research, as well as valuable estimates to harm/costs for all 3 parties: consumers, businesses, and government.” [ 520 ] The Commission believes that this commenter was addressing whether the NPRM was collecting information, as opposed to whether the proposed rule would contain a collection of information within the meaning of the PRA. No other comments responding to the NPRM or Notice of Hearing addressed this question. While the Commission finalizes the proposed rule with some limiting modifications and clarifications based on the comments it received, it has not added any new requirements that would collect information from the public. Accordingly, the Commission has determined that the final rule neither includes a new collection of information, nor modifies an existing collection of information.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires an agency to provide an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”) with a proposed rule and a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“FRFA”) with a final rule, if any, unless the Commission certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. [ 521 ] The purpose of a regulatory flexibility analysis is to ensure that an agency considers potential impacts on small entities and examines regulatory alternatives that could achieve the regulatory purpose while minimizing burdens on small entities.

In the NPRM, the Commission provided an IRFA, stating its belief that the proposal will not have a significant economic impact on small entities, and soliciting comments on its burden estimate. In addition to publishing the NPRM in the Federal Register , the Commission announced the proposed rule through press and other releases. The Commission received comments from small businesses and associations that represent small businesses. In order to reduce compliance burdens on small businesses and other small entities, the Commission finalizes the proposed rule with some limiting modifications and clarifications as described in section IV of this document.

The Commission believes that the rule will not have a significant economic impact upon small entities, although it may affect a substantial number of small businesses. The rule primarily prohibits certain unfair or deceptive acts or practices involving consumer reviews or testimonials and does not impose a reporting or recordkeeping requirement upon businesses. In addition, the Commission does not anticipate these changes will impose any additional significant additional costs upon small businesses. Specifically, as discussed in further detail below, the Commission anticipates than an average small business will spend, at most, one hour on compliance review, incurring a cost of $33.48. [ 522 ] Therefore, the rule imposes no new significant burdens on law-abiding small businesses. The Commission has determined, nonetheless, that it is appropriate to publish an FRFA to identify the impact of the rule on small entities. Therefore, the Commission has prepared the following analysis:

The Commission describes the reasons for the rule in section VI.A. of this document. The FTC's law enforcement, outreach, and other engagement in this area indicate that certain unfair or deceptive acts or practices involving consumer reviews or testimonials are prevalent. The rule will benefit consumers and legitimate businesses without imposing significant burdens.

The Commission describes the objectives for the rule in section VI.A of this document. The legal basis for the rule is section 18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a , which authorizes the Commission to promulgate, modify, and repeal trade regulation rules that define with specificity acts or practices in or affecting commerce that are unfair or deceptive within the meaning of section 5(a)(1) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1) .

One individual commenter accepted the Commission's estimated compliance costs on small businesses but said it was unfair that “small companies with online reviews would bear almost all of the [rule's] estimated compliance costs.” [ 523 ] As the Commission stated in the NPRM, it is likely that only a minority of small businesses would elect to conduct optional compliance review and the total compliance costs for small businesses is likely to be significantly lower than the Commission's estimate. [ 524 ]

One trade association simply asserted that certain provisions of the proposed rule could be detrimental to small businesses but did not specifically address the IRFA. [ 525 ] This commenter expressed concern about: (1) civil penalty exposure for failing to stop the actions of undiscovered third parties providing reviews and testimonials appearing on a business's website; (2) a subsequent broadening of the proposed rule to prohibit incentivized reviews other than those required to express a particular sentiment; and (3) potential liability when an agent's review or testimonial appears without a disclosure. [ 526 ] The Commission addresses these specific concerns in section IV of this document and has narrowed the rule or provided clarification as appropriate.

The Commission does not believe that it needs to make any changes to its IRFA in response to these comments.

Section IV provides a section-by-section analysis that discusses the provisions proposed in the NPRM, the comments received, the Commission's responses to the comments, and any changes made by the Commission as a result.

The Commission did not receive any comments from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.

The final rule could impact small entities that currently have, or might potentially, solicit consumer reviews or disseminate consumer testimonials. It could also impact small entities that use celebrity testimonials or have a social media presence. It is likely that the rule will primarily affect businesses that sell products or services directly to consumers. For example, the rule is less likely to impact small entities that manufacture niche raw materials for other businesses or small agricultural ( print page 68077) firms that do not sell directly to consumers. Nevertheless, for a conservative estimate of total costs, the Commission assumes that the rule will impact all industry classes of small entities.

As described in section VI.B.2 of this document, there are approximately 34.75 million small businesses in the United States. Prior research has found that 74 percent of small businesses have at least one Google review. [ 527 ] On the one hand, it is possible that, across all platforms (beyond Google reviews), a higher percentage of small businesses have consumer reviews or testimonials, celebrity testimonials, or a social media presence. On the other hand, it is likely that many of these firms do not interact with reviews and such passive firms would not be affected by the rule. The Commission does not have the appropriate data to refine this estimate. Therefore, its best estimate is that no more than 25.71 million (74 percent × 34.75 million) small businesses will be impacted by the rule.

The rule contains no reporting or recordkeeping requirements. Therefore, many law-abiding businesses are likely to incur no additional compliance costs with the rule.

As described in section VI.B.2 of this document, a cautious firm may elect to undertake additional compliance review due to the potential for civil penalties for rule violations. If every small business impacted by the rule conducts one hour of compliance review, each firm would incur $33.48 of compliance costs, which reflects the estimated hourly earnings of a small business owner. [ 528 ] Therefore, under the conservative estimate of heightened compliance review for all small businesses, costs to small businesses would total $860.95 million (25.71 million × $33.48). Because it is likely that only a minority of small businesses will elect to conduct optional compliance review, total compliance costs for these entities are likely to be significantly lower than this estimate.

In response to comments, the Commission has narrowed the rule and clarified the rule requirements as described in section IV of this document, which should minimize further any economic impact on small entities. In its IRFA, the Commission described an alternative to the proposed rule, namely, to rely on the Commission's previously existing tools, such as consumer education and enforcement actions brought under sections 5 and 19 of the FTC Act, to combat the specified review and testimonial practices. The Commission believes that promulgation of the rule will result in greater net benefits to the marketplace while imposing no additional burdens beyond what is required by the FTC Act. As described in further detail in section VI.B.1.c of this document, the rule will not only result in significant benefits to consumers but also improve the competitive environment, particularly for small, independent, or new firms. Therefore, the rule appears to be superior to this alternative for small entities.

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act ( 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has designated this rule as a “major rule,” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2) .

Advertising

For the reasons set forth above, the Federal Trade Commission amends 16 CFR Chapter I by adding part 465 to read as follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 57a .

(a) Business means an individual who sells products or services, a partnership that sells products or services, a corporation that sells products or services, or any other commercial entity that sells products or services.

(b) Celebrity testimonial means an advertising or promotional message (including verbal statements, demonstrations, or depictions of the name, signature, likeness, or other identifying personal characteristics of an individual) that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, or experiences of a well-known individual who purchased, used, or otherwise had experience with a product, service, or business.

(c) Clear and conspicuous means that a required disclosure is easily noticeable ( i.e., difficult to miss) and easily understandable by ordinary consumers, including in all of the following ways:

(1) In any communication that is solely visual or solely audible, the disclosure must be made through the same means through which the communication is presented. In any communication made through both visual and audible means, such as a television advertisement, the disclosure must be presented in at least the same means as the representation(s) requiring the disclosure.

(2) A visual disclosure, by its size, contrast, location, the length of time it appears, and other characteristics, must stand out from any accompanying text or other visual elements so that it is easily noticed, read, and understood.

(3) An audible disclosure, including by telephone or streaming video, must be delivered in a volume, speed, and cadence sufficient for ordinary consumers to easily hear and understand it.

(4) In any communication using an interactive electronic medium, such as social media or the internet, the disclosure must be unavoidable. A disclosure is not clear and conspicuous if a consumer must take any action, such as clicking on a hyperlink or hovering over an icon, to see it.

(5) The disclosure must use diction and syntax understandable to ordinary consumers and must appear in each language in which the representation that requires the disclosure appears.

(6) The disclosure must comply with these requirements in each medium through which it is received, including all electronic devices and face-to-face communications.

(7) The disclosure must not be contradicted or mitigated by, or inconsistent with, anything else in the communication.

(8) When the representation or sales practice targets a specific audience, such as children, the elderly, or the terminally ill, “ordinary consumers” includes members of that group.

(d) Consumer review means a consumer's evaluation, or a purported consumer's evaluation, of a product, service, or business that is submitted by ( print page 68078) the consumer or purported consumer and that is published to a website or platform dedicated in whole or in part to receiving and displaying such evaluations. For the purposes of this part, consumer reviews include consumer ratings regardless of whether they include any text or narrative.

(e) Consumer review hosting means providing the technological means by which a website or platform enables consumers to see or hear the consumer reviews that consumers have submitted to the website or platform.

(f) Consumer testimonial means an advertising or promotional message (including verbal statements, demonstrations, or depictions of the name, signature, likeness, or other identifying personal characteristics of an individual) that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, or experiences of a consumer who has purchased, used, or otherwise had experience with a product, service, or business.

(g) Distribute fake indicators of social media influence means the distribution of fake indicators of social media influence to individuals or businesses who could use the indicators to misrepresent their influence.

(h) Fake indicators of social media influence means indicators of social media influence generated by bots, purported individual accounts not associated with a real individual, accounts created with a real individual's personal information without their consent, or hijacked accounts, or that otherwise do not reflect a real individual's or entity's activities, opinions, findings, or experiences.

(i) Immediate Relative means a spouse, parent, child, or sibling.

(j) Indicators of social media influence means any metrics used by the public to make assessments of an individual's or entity's social media influence, such as followers, friends, connections, subscribers, views, plays, likes, saves, shares, reposts, and comments.

(k) Manager means an employee of a business who supervises other employees or agents and who either holds the title of a “manager” or otherwise serves in a managerial role.

(l) Officers include owners, executives, and managing members of a business.

(m) Purchase a consumer review means to provide something of value, such as money, gift certificates, products, services, discounts, coupons, contest entries, or another review, in exchange for a consumer review.

(n) Reviewer means the author or purported author of a consumer review.

(o) Testimonialist means the individual giving or purportedly giving a consumer testimonial or celebrity testimonial.

(p) An unfounded or groundless legal threat is a legal threat based on claims, defenses, or other legal contentions unwarranted by existing law or based on factual contentions that have no evidentiary support or will likely have no evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.

(a) It is an unfair or deceptive act or practice and a violation of this part for a business to write, create, or sell a consumer review, consumer testimonial, or celebrity testimonial that materially misrepresents, expressly or by implication:

(1) That the reviewer or testimonialist exists;

(2) That the reviewer or testimonialist used or otherwise had experience with the product, service, or business that is the subject of the review or testimonial; or

(3) The reviewer's or testimonialist's experience with the product, service, or business that is the subject of the review or testimonial.

(b) It is an unfair or deceptive act or practice and a violation of this part for a business to purchase a consumer review, or to disseminate or cause the dissemination of a consumer testimonial or celebrity testimonial, about the business or one of the products or services it sells, which the business knew or should have known materially misrepresented, expressly or by implication:

(c) It is an unfair or deceptive act or practice and a violation of this part for a business to procure a consumer review from its officers, managers, employees, or agents, or any of their immediate relatives, for posting on a third-party platform or website, when the review is about the business or one of the products or services it sells, and when the business knew or should have known that the review materially misrepresented, expressly or by implication:

(1) That the reviewer exists;

(2) That the reviewer used or otherwise had experience with the product, service, or business that is the subject of the review; or

(3) The reviewer's experience with the product, service, or business that is the subject of the review.

(d) However, paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section do not apply to:

(1) Reviews or testimonials that resulted from a business making generalized solicitations to purchasers to post reviews or testimonials about their experiences with the product, service, or business; or

(2) Reviews that appear on a website or platform as a result of the business merely engaging in consumer review hosting.

It is an unfair or deceptive act or practice and a violation of this part for a business to provide compensation or other incentives in exchange for, or conditioned expressly or by implication on, the writing or creation of consumer reviews expressing a particular sentiment, whether positive or negative, regarding the product, service, or business that is the subject of the review.

(a) It is an unfair or deceptive act or practice and a violation of this part for an officer or manager of a business to write or create a consumer review or consumer testimonial about the business or one of the products or services it sells that fails to have a clear and conspicuous disclosure of the officer's or manager's material relationship to the business, unless, in the case of a consumer testimonial, the relationship is otherwise clear to the audience.

(b)(1) It is an unfair or deceptive act or practice and a violation of this part for a business to disseminate or cause the dissemination of a consumer testimonial about the business or one of the products or services it sells by one of its officers, managers, employees, or agents, which fails to have a clear and conspicuous disclosure of the testimonialist's material relationship to the business, when the relationship is not otherwise clear to the audience and the business knew or should have known the testimonialist's relationship to the business. ( print page 68079)

(2) However, paragraph (b)(1) of this section does not apply to:

(i) Generalized solicitations to purchasers for them to post testimonials about their experiences with the product, service, or business, or

(ii) Merely engaging in consumer review hosting.

(c)(1) It is an unfair or deceptive act or practice and a violation of this part for an officer or manager of a business to solicit or demand a consumer review about the business or one of the products or services it sells from any of their immediate relatives or from any employee or agent of the business, or to solicit or demand that such employees or agents seek such reviews from their relatives, when:

(i) The solicitation or demand results in an officer's or manager's immediate relatives, an employee or agent, or the immediate relatives of an employee or agent writing or creating such a review without a disclosure of the reviewer's material relationship to the business, and

(ii) The officer or manager:

(A) Encouraged the prospective reviewer not to make such a disclosure,

(B) Did not instruct that prospective reviewers disclose clearly and conspicuously their relationship to the business, or

(2) However, paragraph (c)(1) of this section does not apply to generalized solicitations to purchasers for them to post reviews about their experiences with the product, service, or business.

It is an unfair or deceptive act or practice and a violation of this part for a business to materially misrepresent, expressly or by implication, that a website, organization, or entity that it controls, owns, or operates provides independent reviews or opinions, other than consumer reviews, about a category of businesses, products, or services including the business or one or more of the products or services it sells.

It is an unfair or deceptive act or practice and a violation of this part:

(a) For anyone to use an unfounded or groundless legal threat, a physical threat, intimidation, or a public false accusation in response to a consumer review that is made with the knowledge that the accusation was false or made with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity, in an attempt to:

(1) Prevent a review or any portion thereof from being written or created, or

(2) Cause a review or any portion thereof to be removed, whether or not that review or a portion thereof is replaced with other content, or

(b) For a business to materially misrepresent, expressly or by implication, that the consumer reviews of one or more of the products or services it sells displayed in a portion of its website or platform dedicated in whole or in part to receiving and displaying consumer reviews represent most or all the reviews submitted to the website or platform when reviews are being suppressed ( i.e., not displayable) based upon their ratings or their negative sentiment. For purposes of this paragraph, a review is not considered suppressed based upon rating or negative sentiment if the suppression occurs based on criteria for withholding reviews that are applied equally to all reviews submitted without regard to sentiment, such as when:

(1) The review contains:

(i) Trade secrets or privileged or confidential commercial or financial information,

(ii) Defamatory, harassing, abusive, obscene, vulgar, or sexually explicit content,

(iii) The personal information or likeness of another individual,

(iv) Content that is discriminatory with respect to race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, or another intrinsic characteristic, or

(v) Content that is clearly false or misleading;

(2) The seller reasonably believes the review is fake; or

(3) The review is wholly unrelated to the products or services offered by or available at the website or platform.

It is an unfair or deceptive act or practice and a violation of this part for anyone to:

(a) Sell or distribute fake indicators of social media influence that they knew or should have known to be fake and that can be used by individuals or businesses to materially misrepresent their influence or importance for a commercial purpose; or

(b) Purchase or procure fake indicators of social media influence that they knew or should have known to be fake and that materially misrepresent their influence or importance for a commercial purpose.

The provisions of this part are separate and severable from one another. If any provision is stayed or determined to be invalid, the remaining provisions will continue in effect.

By direction of the Commission.

April J. Tabor,

1. Fed. Trade Comm'n, Trade Regulation Rule on the Use of Reviews and Endorsements, 87 FR 67424 (Nov. 8, 2022) [hereinafter “ANPR”], https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/11/08/2022-24139/trade-regulation-rule-on-the-use-of-reviews-and-endorsements . The ANPR was entitled “Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Reviews and Endorsements.” In order to better reflect its content, the Commission subsequently decided to change the name of the proposed rule to “Trade Regulation Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials.”

2. See ANPR, 87 FR 67427 .

3. The Commission also received six unresponsive comments.

4. The comments are publicly available on this rulemaking's docket at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FTC-2022-0070/comments .

5. See Fed. Trade Comm'n, Trade Regulation Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials, 88 FR 49364 (July 31, 2023) [hereinafter “NPRM”], https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/07/31/2023-15581/trade-regulation-rule-on-the-use-of-consumer-reviews-and-testimonials .

6. See id. at 49370-77.

7. Id. at 49377-81, 49389-90.

8. Id. at 49390-92.

9. The Commission also received sixteen comments that were non-responsive and two that were duplicates.

10. The comments are publicly available on this rulemaking's docket at https://www.regulations.gov/document/FTC-2023-0047-0001/comment .

11. Fake Review Watch, Cmt. on NPRM at 4-5 (Aug. 8, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0015 (“Fake Review Watch Cmt.”); Interactive Advertising Bureau, Cmt. on NPRM at 14-15 (Sept. 29, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0101 (“IAB Cmt.”); Researchers at Brigham Young University, Pennsylvania State University, and Emory University, Cmt. on NPRM at 4 (Sept. 22, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0060 (“The Researcher Cmt.”).

12. Fed. Trade Comm'n, Trade Regulation Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials, 89 FR 2526 (Jan. 16, 2024) [hereinafter “Hearing Notice”], https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/01/16/2024-00678/rule-on-the-use-of-consumer-reviews-and-testimonials .

13. The comments are publicly available on this rulemaking's docket at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FTC-2024-0004/comments .

14. Hearing Notice, 89 FR 2528 .

15. Members of the public were able to watch the informal hearing live on the Commission's website, https://www.ftc.gov .

16. A transcript of the February 13 hearing session is available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/transcript-consumer-reviews-and-testimonials-rule-informal-hearing-feb-13-2024.pdf [hereinafter “February 13 Hearing Transcript”].

17. IAB's proposed disputed issues of material fact were “whether the compliance costs for businesses will be minimal, particularly if the `knew or should have known' standard is finalized” and “whether the Commission finding that unattended consequences from the NPRM are unlikely is accurate.” February 13 Hearing Transcript at 9.

18. Order by Presiding Officer Foelak at 2 (Feb. 13, 2024), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/r311003aljorder20240213.pdf .

19. IAB “represents over 700 leading media companies, brand marketers, agencies and technology companies.” February 13 Hearing Transcript at 6.

20. Letter Brief from Interactive Advertising Bureau to Presiding Officer Foelak (Feb. 20, 2024), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/r311003iabsubmission20240220.pdf .

21. Order by Presiding Officer Foelak (Feb. 23, 2024), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/p311003aljorder20240226.pdf .

22. Id.

23. Id.

24. Order by Presiding Officer Foelak (Feb. 28, 2024), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/r311003_alj_order_3_2024.02.28.pdf .

25. A transcript of the March 6 hearing session is available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/r311003informalhearing03062024.pdf . See also, Interactive Advertising Bureau's Submission of Exhibits (Mar. 5, 2024), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/r311003iabsubmissionexhibits20240305.pdf .

26. The presiding officer stated that testimony by the trade association's “attorney about survey responses is hearsay and will be weighed accordingly.” Order by Presiding Officer Foelak (Mar. 4. 2024), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/r311003aljorder20240304-1.pdf .

27. IAB received eighteen responses to the first survey and nineteen to the second. See Post-Hearing Letter Brief from Interactive Advertising Bureau to Presiding Officer Foelak (Mar. 13, 2024), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/r311003iabposthearingbrief20240313.pdf .

28. See Transcript of Informal Hearing on Proposed Trade Regulation Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials (Mar. 6, 2024), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/r311003informalhearing03062024.pdf .

29. Order by Presiding Officer Foelak at 5 (May 8, 2024), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/r311003aljdecision20240508.pdf . The presiding officer added that, “[u]nquestionably, there is insufficient evidence in the record to make a specific finding as to the size of the compliance costs associated with the proposed rule.” Id. at 5 n.9.

30. Id. at 6.

31. See 15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B) .

32. 15 U.S.C. 57a(d)(1) . In addition, section 22(b)(2) of the FTC Act requires the Commission to prepare a final regulatory analysis. 15 U.S.C. 57b-3(b)(2) . The final regulatory analysis is in section VI of this document.

33. ANPR, 87 FR 67425-26 .

34. NPRM, 88 FR 49370-77 .

35. Id. at 49370-72. AI tools make it easier for bad actors to pollute the review ecosystem by generating, quickly and cheaply, large numbers of realistic but fake reviews that can then be distributed widely across multiple platforms. AI-generated reviews are covered by the final rule, which the Commission hopes will deter the use of AI for that illicit purpose.

36. NPRM, 88 FR 493720-73 .

37. Id. at 49373.

38. Id. at 49373-74.

39. Id. at 49374.

40. Id. at 49374-75.

41. Id. at 49375

42. Id. at 49376.

43. Id.

44. Id. at 49376-77.

45. ANPR, 87 FR 67426-27 ; NPRM, 88 FR 49387-88 .

46. See AMG Cap. Mgmt., LLC v. FTC, 593 U.S. 67, 82 (2021).

47. See 15 U.S.C. 57b(a)(1) , (2); see also NPRM, 88 FR 49377-78 (discussing impact of AMG Cap. Mgmt. ).

48. When the rule has been violated, the Commission can commence a Federal court action and seek to recover money for consumers or obtain an order imposing civil penalties. See 15 U.S.C. 57b(a)(1) , 15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1)(A) . Without the rule, the path to monetary relief is longer and requires the Commission to first conduct an administrative proceeding to determine whether the respondent violated the FTC Act; if the Commission finds that the respondent did so, the Commission issues a cease-and-desist order, which might not become final until after the resolution of any resulting appeal. Then, to recover money for consumers, the Commission must prove in a separate Federal court action that the violator engaged in fraudulent or dishonest conduct. See 15 U.S.C. 57b(a)(2) .

49. See section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1)(A) (providing that violators of a trade regulation rule “with actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances that such act is unfair or deceptive and is prohibited by such rule” are liable for civil penalties for each violation). In addition, any entity or person who violates such a rule (irrespective of the state of knowledge) is liable for any injury caused to consumers by the rule violation. The Commission may pursue such recovery in a suit under section 19(a)(1) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57b(a)(1) .

50. NPRM, 88 FR 49382-85 .

51. Id. at 49385-87; see infra sections VI and VIII of this document.

52. Minor changes to formatting, grammar, and punctuation have been made to some of the comments quoted in this document. These changes do not entail any substantive changes.

53. NPRM, 88 FR 49388 .

54. Id. at 49388-89.

55. Id. at 49388. In addition to soliciting public comment on the NPRM's PRA and RFA analyses in the PRA and RFA sections, the NPRM also posed two specific questions related to the PRA and RFA analyses. Question 4 inquired whether “the proposed rule contains a collection of information,” and Question 5 asked, “Would the proposed rule, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? If so, how could it be modified to avoid a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?” Id. at 49381-86, 49388.

56. NPRM, 88 FR 49388 .

57. Yelp Inc., Cmt. on NPRM at 3 (Sept. 29, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0088 (“Yelp Cmt.”); The Transparency Company, Cmt. on NPRM at 1, 5 (Sept. 29, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0107 (“Transparency Company Cmt.”).

58. Trustpilot, Cmt. on NPRM at 2 (Sept. 29, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0084 (“Trustpilot Cmt.”).

59. Family First Life, LLC, Cmt. on NPRM at 2 (Sept. 29, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0104 (“Family First Life Cmt.”).

60. Trustpilot Cmt. at 2-3; Family First Life Cmt. at 2-3.

61. Consumer Reports, Cmt. on NPRM at 2-3 (Sept. 29, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0099 (“Consumer Reports Cmt.”).

62. NPRM, 88 FR 49388 .

63. Transparency Company Cmt. at 6.

64. Trustpilot Cmt. at 3.

65. Amelia Markey, Cmt. on NPRM (July 31, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0003 (“Markey Cmt.”); Chris Hippensteel, Cmt. on NPRM (Aug. 1, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0006 (“Hippensteel Cmt.”); Jeremy Anderson, Cmt. on NPRM (Aug. 1, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0007 (“Anderson Cmt.”); Caroline Fribance, Cmt. on NPRM (Aug. 11, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0017 (“Fribance Cmt.”); Pia Edborg, Cmt. on NPRM (Aug. 17, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0027 (“Edborg Cmt.”); Anonymous 1, Cmt. on NPRM (Aug. 20, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0031 (“Anonymous 1 Cmt.”); Jessica Ludlam, Cmt. on NPRM (Aug. 24, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0036 (“Ludlam Cmt.”); SUPERGUEST, Cmt. on NPRM (Sept. 8, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0046 (“Superguest Cmt.”); Sean Poole, Cmt. on NPRM at 1-2 (Sept. 22, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0063 (“Poole Cmt.”); Artemio Magana, Cmt. on NPRM (Sept. 28, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0079 (“Magana Cmt.”).

66. American Dental Association, Cmt. on NPRM at 1 (Sept. 28, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0078 (“ADA Cmt.”); Travel Technology Association, Cmt. on NPRM at 1, 4-5 (Sept. 29, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0097 (“Travel Tech. Cmt.”).

67. Coalition of Civil Society Organizations, Cmt. on NPRM at 1-3 (Sept. 29, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0108 ; U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund, Cmt. on NPRM at 2 (Sept. 29, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0109 (“US PIRG Cmt.”).

68. Markey Cmt.

69. Anderson Cmt.

70. Anonymous 1 Cmt.

71. Travel Tech. Cmt. at 1, 4.

72. US PIRG Cmt. at 2.

73. Michael Ravnitzky, Cmt. on NPRM at 1-2 (Aug. 6, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0013 (“Ravnitzky Cmt.”); Adam Foster, Cmt. on NPRM at 1-2 (Sept. 21, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0052 (“Foster Cmt.”); Anonymous 2, Cmt. on NPRM at 1, 4 (Sept. 22, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0065 (“Anonymous 2 Cmt.”); Anonymous 3, Cmt. on NPRM (Sept. 27, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0069 (“Anonymous 3 Cmt.”).

74. Yelp Cmt. at 1, 5-8.

75. Strategic Marketing, Cmt. on NPRM (Aug. 7, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0014 ; PerfectRec Inc., Cmt. on NPRM at 1-3 (Aug. 23, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0035 ; Mozilla, Cmt. on NPRM at 5-7 (Sept. 28, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0076 (“Mozilla Cmt.”); The Responsible Online Commerce Coalition, Cmt. on NPRM at 2, 4-6 (Sept. 29, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0086 .

76. Fake Review Watch Cmt. at 1-4; Truth in Advertising, Inc., Cmt. on NPRM at 2, 4-11 (Sept. 29, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0083 (“TINA Cmt.”); National Consumers League, Cmt. on NPRM at 2-9 (Sept. 29, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0096 (“NCL Cmt.”); Consumer Reports Cmt. at 2-11.

77. Anonymous 3 Cmt.

78. Yelp Cmt. at 1, 4-8.

79. TINA Cmt. at 4, 6.

80. Anonymous 4, Cmt. on NPRM (Sept. 1, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0040 (“Anonymous 4 Cmt.”); Riley Albert, Cmt. on NPRM at 3 (Sept. 21, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0053 (“Albert Cmt.”); Alyssa Frieling, Cmt. on NPRM at 1-4 (Sept. 22, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0059 (“Frieling Cmt.”).

81. Hammacher, Schlemmer and Co., Inc., Cmt. on NPRM at 1-7 (Aug. 21, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0032 (“Hammacher Schlemmer Cmt.”); Amazon.com, Inc., Cmt. on NPRM at 5-13 (Sept. 29, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0085 (“Amazon Cmt.”); TechNet Cmt. on NPRM at 2-4 (Sept. 29, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0089 (TechNet Cmt.”); Family First Life Cmt. at 2-16.

82. Anonymous 4 Cmt.

83. Frieling Cmt. at 1-4.

84. Hammacher Schlemmer Cmt. at 1.

85. Amazon Cmt. at 5.

86. TechNet Cmt. at 2-4.

87. Marc Slezak, Cmt. on NPRM at 1-5 (Sept. 22, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0054 (“Slezak Cmt.”); Sumner Camp-Martin, Cmt. on NPRM at 1-5 (Sept. 22, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0056 (“Camp-Martin Cmt.”).

88. National Automobile Dealers Association, Cmt. on NPRM at 1-2 (Sept. 28, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0077 (NADA Cmt.”); Association of National Advertisers, Cmt. on NPRM at 3-7 (Sept. 29, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0105 (“ANA Cmt.”).

89. Slezak Cmt. at 1-4.

90. Id. 3.

91. Id. 4.

92. Camp-Martin Cmt. at 1-2. The commenter said, “In the alternative to the complete abandonment of the proposed rule, Section 465.4 should be amended” and broadened. Id. at 1.

93. NADA Cmt. at 1-2.

94. ANA Cmt. at 3-7.

95. The Commission is aware that a business could attempt to damage a competitor's reputation by purchasing fake positive reviews for that competitor and then reporting those reviews to the platform on which they appear. In investigating a fake review matter, FTC staff would take such a possibility into account.

96. The Commission notes that many commenters raised similar concerns or addressed overlapping issues. To avoid repetition, the Commission has endeavored to respond to issues raised in similar comments together. Responses provided in any given section apply equally to comments addressing the same subject in the context of other sections. Moreover, throughout the SBP, the Commission discusses justifications for the final rule that are informed by its careful consideration of all comments received, even where that discussion is not linked to a particular comment.

97. Because the Commission is adding additional definitions and not including one proposed definition, the definitions are renumbered in the final rule.

98. National Federation of Independent Businesses, Cmt. on NPRM at 2 (Sept. 12, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0047 (“NFIB Cmt.”).

99. Id.

100. TINA Cmt. at 6-7.

101. Yelp Cmt. at 3.

102. NADA Cmt. at 5.

103. Id.

104. IAB Cmt. at 14.

105. Id.

106. Family First Life Cmt. at 4-5.

107. Id. at 5. See Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).

108. Electronic Privacy Information Center, Cmt. on NPRM at 3 (Sept. 29, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0111 (“EPIC Cmt.”).

109. See Fed. Trade Comm'n, Guides Concerning Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (“Endorsement Guides”), 16 CFR 255.4 .

110. The Commission is using the term “individual” in the context of this rule to mean a single human being. See Individual (def. 1), Dictionary.com, LLC, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/individual (last visited July 5, 2024) (defining “individual” as “a single human being, as distinguished from a group”). The Commission notes that, in the context of a different rulemaking, it has proposed defining “individual” to mean “a person, entity, or party, whether real or fictitious, other than those that constitute a business or government” under 16 CFR 461 . See Fed. Trade Comm'n, Trade Regulation Rule on Impersonation of Government and Businesses, 89 FR 15072 , 15083 (Mar. 1, 2024).

111. NFIB Cmt. at 2.

112. Id.

113. See Diction (def. 2), Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diction (last visited July 5, 2024) (defining “diction” as the “choice of words especially with regard to correctness, clearness, or effectiveness”).

114. See Syntax (defs. 1a, 1b), Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/syntax (last visited July 5, 2024) (defining “syntax” as the “the way in which linguistic elements (such as words) are put together to form constituents (such as phrases or clauses)” and as “the part of grammar dealing with this”).

115. ANA Cmt. at 11.

116. IAB Cmt. at 14; U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Cmt. on NPRM at 7-8 (Sept. 29, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0087 (“Chamber of Commerce Cmt.”); National Retail Federation, Cmt. on NPRM at 10 (Sept. 29, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0090 (“NRF Cmt.”).

117. IAB Cmt. at 14; Chamber of Commerce Cmt. at 8.

118. Id.

119. Fed. Trade Comm'n, .com Disclosures: How to Make Effective Disclosures in Digital Advertising at 10 (Mar. 2013), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/plain-language/bus41-dot-com-disclosures-information-about-online-advertising.pdf .

120. Id. at 11. (“Although the label itself does not need to contain the complete disclosure, it may be necessary to incorporate part of the disclosure to indicate the type and importance of the information to which the link leads.”)

121. See Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm'n, FTC Looks to Modernize Its Guidance on Preventing Digital Deception (June 3, 2022), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/06/ftc-looks-modernize-its-guidance-preventing-digital-deception .

122. Trustpilot Cmt. at 14. The same commenter also raised concerns about the applicability of the definition to ratings and aggregate ratings. Id. That is issue is discussed below in the discussion of the corresponding substantive rule provision. See infra section IV.E.6 of this document.

123. NRF Cmt. at 10.

124. Id. at 11.

125. ANA Cmt. at 11.

126. IAB Cmt. at 14; NRF Cmt. at 11.

127. ANA Cmt. at 11.

128. See infra section IV.E.1 of this document.

129. Id.

130. 16 CFR 255.0(g)(9) and (11) .

131. 16 CFR 255.0(g)(10) .

132. Retail Industry Leaders Association, Cmt. on NPRM at 5 (Sept. 29, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0094 (“RILA Cmt.”).

133. NRF Cmt. at 10.

134. Id.

135. Fed. Trade Comm'n, Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, 87 FR 44288 , 44290 (July 26, 2022) (proposing changes to guides and soliciting public comment).

136. NRF Cmt. at 11.

137. Id.

138. RILA Cmt. at 5.

139. Id.

140. Trustpilot Cmt. at 8.

141. Anonymous 2 Cmt. at 1.

142. IAB Cmt. at 13-14.

143. Id.

144. TINA Cmt. at 7.

145. Id.

146. Id.

147. Id.

148. Yelp Cmt. at 3-4.

149. Id.

150. Id. at 4.

151. The Commission is making this change throughout the rule, including in §§ 465.2(a), (b), and (c), 465.4, 465.5(a), 465.6, 465.7, 465.8, and 465.9.

152. NFIB Cmt. at 2-3.

153. Id. at 4.

154. See Endorsement Guides, 16 CFR 255.0(g)(2) .

155. See, e.g., Fed. Trade Comm'n, FTC Policy Statement on Deception, 103 F.T.C. 174, 176-77 (1984) [hereinafter FTC Policy Statement on Deception] (appended to In re Cliffdale Assocs., Inc., 103 F.T.C. 110 (1984)), available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/410531/831014deceptionstmt.pdf .

156. See supra Section IV.A.2.b of this document.

157. EPIC Cmt. at 3.

158. NCL Cmt. at 3.

159. Id. at 3-6.

160. Id. at 6-8.

161. Yelp Cmt. at 4-5.

162. Id. at 5.

163. Trustpilot Cmt. at 12.

164. Id.

165. See infra Section IV.A.3.b of this document.

166. John Christofferson, Cmt. on NPRM (Aug. 16, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0025 .

167. Yelp Cmt. at 5.

168. Id.

169. Id.

170. Trustpilot Cmt. at 8.

171. The Commission is also replacing the term “goods” with the word “products” in the final definition of the phrase “purchase a consumer review” (final § 465.1(m)).

172. Yelp Cmt. at 4.

173. See supra Section IV.A.2.d of this document.

174. Some commenters suggested edits to the definition, such as removing “flavor” from the list of attributes that might not be material, adding other product attributes to that list, or adding flexibility by removing the listed attributes altogether. TINA Cmt. at 6; Amazon Cmt. at 9-10; Chamber of Commerce Cmt. at 6-7; RILA Cmt. at 3; NRF Cmt. at 7-8; IAB Cmt. at 8.; ANA Cmt. at 15-16; NRF Cmt. at 8. Other commenters asked questions about how the definition would apply to an updated version of a product or to different scenarios. Magana Cmt.; NADA Cmt. at 5.

175. Transparency Company Cmt. at 14.

176. NFIB Cmt. at 4.

177. State Attorneys General, Cmt. on NPRM at 2-3 (Sept. 29, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0100 (“State AGs Cmt.”).

178. Id. at 2.

179. Id. at 3.

180. Yelp Cmt. at 5.

181. Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016 § 2(b)(1), 15 U.S.C. 45b(b)(1) .

182. Consumer Reports Cmt. at 10.

183. Family First Life Cmt. at 16.

184. Id.

185. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2) and (3).

186. Trustpilot Cmt. at 17-18.

187. As discussed below in Section IV.H. of this document, the Commission is adding definitions of two phrases in response to concerns raised by commenters: “fake indicators of social media influence” and “distribute fake indicators of social media influence.”

188. NRF Cmt. at 3.

189. Id. at 3-4. The Commission elsewhere addresses whether § 465.2 applies to a business allowing reviews to be posted or published on its web page or to retailers sharing reviews with third-party platforms. See infra Section IV.B.5 of this document.

190. See, e.g., Kouichi Taniguchi v. Kan Pac. Saipan, Ltd., 566 U.S. 560, 566 (2012); Tanzin v. Tanvir, 592 U.S. 43, 48 (2020) (“Without a statutory definition, we turn to the phrase's plain meaning at the time of enactment.”); Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling, 584 U.S. 709, 715 (2018) (“Because the Bankruptcy Code does not define the words `statement,' `financial condition,' or `respecting,' we look to their ordinary meanings.”).

191. Disseminate, Dictionary.com , LLC, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/disseminate (last visited July 5, 2024) (defining “disseminate” as “to scatter or spread widely, as though sowing seed; promulgate extensively; broadcast; disperse”); Disseminate, Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disseminate (last visited July 5, 2024) (defining “disseminate” as “to spread abroad as though sowing seed” or “to disperse throughout”); Disseminate, Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/disseminate (last visited July 5, 2024) (defining “disseminate” as “to spread or give out something, especially news, information, ideas, etc., to a lot of people”).

192. Transparency Company Cmt. at 13.

193. TechNet Cmt. at 3.

194. Trustpilot Cmt. at 9.

195. Id. at 12.

196. If the term were only to appear in § 465.2(c), such a clarification would not be needed. This is because § 465.2(c) also covers employees and agents.

197. Family First Life Cmt. at 13.

198. Trustpilot Cmt. at 12.

199. Id.

200. Chamber of Commerce Cmt. at 7.

201. Id.

202. See infra Section IV.E.2 of this document.

203. Consumer Reports Cmt. at 4.

204. Commenters also expressed concern about or sought guidance on the meaning of the term “procure” as used in proposed § 465.2(c), but they did not expressly suggest that the Commission define the term. The use of the term “procure” in § 465.2 is discussed below in the context of that substantive provision. See infra Section IV.B.4 of this document.

205. See Procure (def. 1), Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/procure (last visited July 5, 2024) (establishing that the word “procure” means, among other things, “to get possession of (something)” or “to obtain (something) by particular care and effort”).

206. Amazon Cmt. at 7. As discussed below, other commenters also argued that § 465.2 should not apply to merely hosting reviews. See infra section IV.B.5 of this document.

207. Id. at 7.

208. See infra section IV.B.5 of this document.

209. See, e.g., William Hardy, Cmt. on NPRM (July 31, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0002 ; Eric Beback, Cmt. on NPRM (Aug. 1, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0005 (“Beback Cmt.”); Hippensteel Cmt.; Anderson Cmt.; Nathan Wilson, Cmt. on NPRM (Aug. 2, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0008 ; fred foreman, Cmt. on NPRM (Aug. 6, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0012 ; Ravnitzky Cmt. at 1; Fribance Cmt.; Ian wolk, Cmt. on NPRM (Aug. 15, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0020 ; Edborg Cmt.; Anonymous 5, Cmt. on NPRM (Aug. 18, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0030 ; Anonymous 1 Cmt.; Steven Osburn, Cmt. on NPRM (Aug. 22, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0033 (“Osburn Cmt.”); Ludlam Cmt.; Janette Ponticello, Cmt. on NPRM (Sept. 5, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0042 ; Hannah Abbott, Cmt. on NPRM at 1 (Sept. 20, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0051 (Abbott Cmt.).

210. Pasabi, Cmt. on NPRM at 2 (Sept. 29, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0103 .

211. Mark Cuban, Cmt. on NPRM (Sept. 25, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0066 .

212. Transparency Company Cmt. at 9.

213. See 15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1)(C) .

214. IAB Cmt. at 3.

215. Id.

216. Id. at 4 & n.12.

217. Complaint at 8-11, 17-18, FTC v. NextGen Nutritionals, LLC, No. 8:17-cv-2807 (M.D. Fla. filed Nov. 20, 2017) (testimonials in ads made specific quantified claims of weight loss and blood pressure reduction); In re Esrim Ve Sheva Holding Corp., 132 F.T.C. 736, 737 (2001) (testimonial made specific quantified claims about increased mileage and decreased harmful pollutants); In re Computer Bus. Servs., Inc., 123 F.T.C. 75, 78 (1997) (endorsers made specific quantified earnings claims); In re Twin Star Prods., Inc., 113 F.T.C. 847, 849-51, 853-54 (1990) (endorsements made regarding a weight-loss product, a baldness treatment, and an impotency treatment); In re National Sys. Corp., 93 F.T.C. 58, 61-62 (1979) (testimonials about jobs obtained by graduates of respondents' schools).

218. IAB Cmt. at 6; NRF Cmt. at 6.

219. NPRM, 88 FR 49373 .

220. A virtual influencer is a computer-generated fictional character that can be used for a variety of marketing-related purposes, but most frequently for social media marketing, in lieu of human influencers. See, e.g., Koba Molenaar, Discover the Top 12 Virtual Influencers for 2024—Listed and Ranked!, Influencer MarketingHub (Mar. 29, 2024), https://influencermarketinghub.com/virtual-influencers/ .

221. ANA Cmt. at 12.

222. Id.

223. Id.

224. Id.

225. Beback Cmt.

226. Id.

227. See Endorsement Guides, 16 CFR 255.1(g) .

228. TINA Cmt. at 8.

229. Albert Cmt. at 3.

230. Id.

231. IAB Cmt. at 6.

232. Amazon Cmt. at 6.

233. Computer & Communications Industry Association, Cmt. on NPRM at 3 (Sept. 29, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0110 (“CCIA Cmt.”).

234. Wilson Cmt.

235. Osburn Cmt.

236. See 15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1)(A) (establishing that the recovery of civil penalties requires a showing of “actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances that such act is unfair or deceptive and is prohibited by such rule”).

237. Slezak Cmt. at 1.

238. TINA Cmt. at 6 n.23.

239. NRF Cmt. at 5.

240. CCIA Cmt. at 3.

241. NRF Cmt. at 4; ANA Cmt. at 12; IAB Cmt. at 4; Amazon Cmt. at 7.

242. NRF Cmt. at 4.

243. Id. at 5.

244. Id. at 5-6.

245. See §§ 465.5(a), (b), and (c), 465.6, and 465.7(b) of the rule.

246. One industry commenter expressed a general concern that was not tied to a specific provision “that the Proposed Rule imposes liability on companies for the dissemination and/or display of fake reviews that clashes with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. ” TechNet Cmt. at 3. As discussed below, the Commission is including exemptions for mere consumer review hosting in §§ 465.2 and 465.5. See infra section IV.B.5 of this document.

247. See, e.g., NRF Cmt. at 5-6; IAB Cmt. at 6; Amazon Cmt. at 7-9; CCIA Cmt. at 3; Abbott Cmt.

248. TechNet Cmt. at 2; IAB Cmt. at 5; NRF Cmt. at 7. A trade association also requested a “safe harbor” but did not tie it to any specific provision of the proposed rule. NADA Cmt. at 4.

249. NRF Cmt. at 6.

250. IAB Cmt. at 4.

251. ANA Cmt. at 12-13.

252. Prompting the submission of consumer reviews that must be positive in order to obtain an incentive could violate § 465.4. Moderation of consumer reviews that results in the suppression of some of them based upon their ratings or their negative sentiment could violate § 465.7(b).

253. Chamber of Commerce Cmt. at 4.

254. Id.

255. Id.

256. Transparency Company Cmt. at 11.

257. Poole Cmt. at 2.

258. IAB Cmt. at 5-6; NRF Cmt. at 2-5; NADA Cmt. at 3-4; Chamber of Commerce Cmt. at 2-3; TechNet Cmt. at 2.

259. TechNet Cmt. at 2.

260. Id.

261. Amazon Cmt. at 8; ANA Cmt. at 13; Trustpilot Cmt. at 5, 8; NRF Cmt at 3; Family First Life Cmt. at 5-8.

262. Amazon Cmt. at 7-8; ANA Cmt. at 12-13; NRF Cmt. at 2-5. One trade association commenter disagreed, asserting that the “knew or should have known” standard the Commission proposed for § 465.2 will “not unduly burden review platforms.” Travel Tech Cmt. at 4.

263. NRF Cmt. at 3.

264. Amazon Cmt. at 9; IAB Cmt. at 5.

265. Amazon Cmt. at 9.

266. Id.

267. Poole Cmt. on at 1.

268. Albert Cmt. at 3.

269. Annie Horgan, Cmt. on NPRM at 1-2 (Sept. 22, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0058 .

270. Consumer Reports Cmt. at 4.

271. Id. at 4-5. An individual commenter disagreed, stating that “the complete removal of a knowledge requirement in favor of a strict liability approach would almost guarantee situations of unwarranted punishment under the proposed rule.” Poole Cmt. at 3.

272. See supra section IV.B.5. of this document.

273. The final rule would therefore not require a business that is merely hosting consumer reviews on its platform to prove that the reviews it is hosting are legitimate.

274. Other Commission rule provisions with a “knew or had reason to know” requirement include § 460.8 of Labeling and Advertising of Home Insulation (commonly known as the R-Value Rule), which prohibits non-manufacturers of home insulation from relying on R-value data provided by the manufacturer if they “know or should know” the data is false or not based on proper tests. 16 CFR 460.8 ; see also 16 CFR 460.19(e) (non-manufacturers are liable only if they “know or should know that the manufacturer does not have a reasonable basis for the claim”); 16 CFR 436.7(d) (franchise sellers must notify prospective franchisees of any material changes “that the seller knows or should have known occurred”).

275. IAB Cmt. at 5-6; ANA Cmt. at 13. An individual commenter said that the Commission should “provide some clear and objective criteria or indicators for identifying fake reviews, such as the use of bots, scripts, templates, or multiple accounts, or the lack of verifiable purchase or experience, or the inconsistency with other reviews or information” and this “would help businesses and consumers to distinguish between genuine and fake reviews.” Ravnitzky Cmt. at 1.

276. IAB Cmt. at 5-6; ANA Cmt. at 13. As explained above, these concerns are unwarranted given that the “should have known” standard has no bearing here on the imposition of civil penalties, for which the Commission must prove that a defendant met the higher knowledge standard of section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act.

277. Taylor V, Cmt. on NPRM at 2 (Sept. 22, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0062 (“Taylor V. Cmt.”).

278. EPIC Cmt. at 3.

279. Consumer Reports Cmt. at 5.

280. Family First Life Cmt. at 6.

281. Paying for or giving other incentives in exchange for consumer reviews expressing a particular sentiment regarding the product, service, or business that is the subject of the review would violate § 465.4 of the rule.

282. Transparency Company Cmt. at 11.

283. Trustpilot Cmt. at 10.

284. Complaint at 2-5, In re Google, LLC, Nos. C-4783 and C-4784 (F.T.C. Feb. 8, 2023).

285. Trustpilot Cmt. at 9-10.

286. Id.

287. Anonymous 3 Cmt.

288. Foster Cmt. at 2.

289. Frieling Cmt. at 2; see also Anonymous 6, Cmt. on NPRM (Sept. 29, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0082 .

290. Wilhelmina Randtke, Cmt. on NPRM at 1 (Sept. 26, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0068 .

291. Fake Review Watch Cmt. at 2-3.

292. Consumer Reports Cmt. at 3.

293. Trustpilot Cmt. at 3, 7.

294. ADA Cmt. at 2.

295. Albert Cmt. at 4; see also Yanni Kakouris, Cmt. on NPRM at 1, 3 (Sept. 22, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0055 . The commenter also expressed concerns that “violators are too difficult to track,” asserted that civil penalties would somehow deter consumers from posting honest, negative comments about a business, and misunderstood the purpose and use of civil penalties, thinking that a large portion of civil penalties would go to businesses maligned by false comments. Id. at 1-2. A review platform commenter said that the proposed rule “upholds legitimate consumer speech by ensuring that, `proposed § 465.2 does not limit legitimate reviews to reviews by purchasers or verified purchasers' ” and “by preserving anonymous reviews.” Tripadvisor LLC, Cmt. on NPRM at 4-5 (Sept. 29, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0092 (“Tripadvisor Cmt.”).

296. Taylor V. Cmt. at 2.

297. Osburn Cmt.

298. TINA Cmt. at 6.

299. Chamber of Commerce Cmt. at 2.

300. See, e.g., IAB Cmt. at 7-8; ANA Cmt. at 14; Chamber of Commerce Cmt. at 5-6; Trustpilot Cmt. at 10; Consumer Reports Cmt. at 5-6; Amazon Cmt. at 10; CCIA Cmt. at 3; NRF Cmt. at 7-8; Ravnitzky Cmt. at 2.

301. See supra sections I.C. and IV.A.2.j of this document.

302. One minor modification is changing “Rule” to “part.”

303. Amazon Cmt. at 6.

304. IAB Cmt. at 8.

305. Alex Rooker, Cmt. on NPRM (Aug. 15, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0019 .

306. Frieling Cmt. at 2.

307. Anonymous 7, Cmt. on NPRM (Aug. 15, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0021 .

308. NPRM, 87 FR 49389 .

309. Transparency Company Cmt. at 12.

310. Family First Life Cmt. at 8-9.

311. Id. at 10-11.

312. In re AmeriFreight, Inc., 159 F.T.C. 1626, 1627-30 (2015).

313. Id. at 1628.

314. NRF Cmt. at 8.

315. ANA Cmt. at 8.

316. Id.

317. Consumer Reports Cmt. at 6.

318. TINA Cmt. at 10. An individual commenter described the pressure they felt to leave a positive review of a car dealership in order to receive a gift card and said that proposed “§ 465.4 should . . . address both explicit and implied conditions of incentivization.” Anonymous 8, Cmt. on NPRM at 3-5 (Sept. 22, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0061 .

319. As the Commission explained in the NPRM, “Review gating occurs when a business asks past purchasers to provide feedback on a product and then invites only those who provide positive feedback to post online reviews on one or more websites.” See NPRM, 88 FR 49379 .

320. NRF Cmt. at 9. The commenter went on to ask that “the Rule be revised to only prohibit companies from `. . . provid[ing] compensation or other incentives in exchange for . . . consumer reviews explicitly required to express a particular sentiment, whether positive or negative. . . .' ” (emphasis in original). Id.

321. See Endorsement Guides, 16 CFR 255.2(d) and (e)(11) .

322. Trustpilot Cmt. at 11.

323. Frieling Cmt. at 3.

324. See FTC Policy Statement on Deception, 103 F.T.C. at 180 (“[ P ] ro forma statements or disclaimers may not cure otherwise deceptive messages”); Removatron Int'l Corp. v. FTC, 884 F.2d 1489, 1497 (1st Cir. 1989) (“Disclaimers or qualifications in any particular ad are not adequate to avoid liability unless they are sufficiently prominent and unambiguous to change the apparent meaning of the claims and to leave an accurate impression. Anything less is only likely to cause confusion by creating contradictory double meanings.”); Joint FCC/FTC Policy Statement for the Advertising of Dial-Around and Other Long-Distance Services to Consumers (Mar. 1, 2000), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/297751/000301jpsdeceptoveads.pdf (“If a claim is false, a disclosure that provides contradictory information is unlikely to cure the deception.”); FTC v. Direct Marketing Concepts, Inc., 624 F.3d 1, 12 n.9 (1st Cir. 2010) (“A statement that studies prove a product cures a certain disease, followed by a disclaimer that the statement is opinion and the product actually does not cure the disease, leaves an overall impression of nonsense, not clarity.”).

325. Endorsement Guides, 16 CFR 255.5(b)(2) , (3) , (7) , (8) , (9) , and (11) .

326. Hammacher Schlemmer Cmt. at 3-4.

327. Endorsement Guides, 16 CFR 255.2(e)(9) .

328. Id. (emphasis added).

329. ANA Cmt. at 8.

330. Anonymous 3 Cmt; Yelp Cmt. at 5-6.

331. Ravnitzky Cmt. at 1.

332. Endorsement Guides, 16 CFR 255.5(a) & (b)(6)(ii).

333. Camp-Martin Cmt. at 4-5; Yelp Cmt. at 7.

334. Anonymous 4 Cmt.

335. Endorsement Guides, 16 CFR 255.2(d) .

336. Due to an inadvertent drafting error, the regulatory text of proposed § 465.5(a), which addressed an officer or manager of a business writing or creating a consumer review or consumer testimonial about the business or its products or services, only referenced disclosure of the officer's but not the manager's relationship to the business. The Commission clearly intended that proposed § 465.5(a) require disclosure of the manager's relationship as well. See NPRM, 88 FR 49379 (“Proposed § 465.5(a) would prohibit an officer or manager of a business from writing or creating a consumer review or consumer testimonial about the business or its products or services if the consumer review or consumer testimonial does not have a clear and conspicuous disclosure of the officer's or manager's relationship to the business.”).

337. Proposed § 465.5(b) and (c) are being renumbered as final § 465.5(b)(1) and (c)(1).

338. Anonymous 9, Cmt. on NPRM (Aug. 16, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0023 .

339. Anonymous 5 Cmt.

340. Transparency Company Cmt. at 13.

341. Family First Life Cmt. at 13.

342. Id.

343. Id. at 3.

344. NRF Cmt. at 9.

345. Amazon Cmt. at 11.

346. Id.

347. IAB Cmt. at 9.

348. NRF Cmt. at 9.

349. Id. at 11; TechNet Cmt. at 3.

350. Trustpilot Cmt. at 5-6.

351. RILA Cmt. at 6.

352. Chamber of Commerce Cmt. at 7.

353. NRF Cmt. at 9.

354. IAB Cmt. at 10.

355. See infra section IV.E.4 and 5 of this document.

356. NRF Cmt. at 10.

357. Amazon Cmt. at 11.

358. NRF Cmt. at 11; IAB Cmt. at 10; TechNet Cmt. at 3.

359. Amazon Cmt. at 11.

360. IAB Cmt. at 9.

361. See NPRM, 88 FR 49374-75 .

362. IAB Cmt. at 10.

363. See supra section IV.B.2 of this document.

364. NADA Cmt. at 6.

365. Trustpilot Cmt. at 13.

366. RILA Cmt. at 6.

367. The Commission has slightly modified this clause, changing “did not instruct the prospective reviewer to disclose clearly and conspicuously that relationship” to “did not instruct that prospective reviewers disclose clearly and conspicuously their relationship to the business” for purposes of clarity.

368. See infra section IV.E.5 of this document.

369. TechNet Cmt. at 3.

370. Travel Tech Cmt. at 4.

371. Consumer Reports Cmt. at 8.

372. Trustpilot Cmt. at 5, 8.

373. NRF Cmt. at 9.

374. Family First Life Cmt. at 15.

375. NADA Cmt. at 3; Amazon Cmt. at 11.

376. Amazon Cmt. at 11.

377. Id.

378. IAB Cmt. at 9.

379. Id. at 10.

380. Anonymous 3 Cmt.

381. TINA Cmt. at 6 and 8.

382. Consumer Reports Cmt. at 7-8.

383. Two modifications are changing “Rule” to “part” and, as discussed above, changing “its products or services” to “the products and services it sells.” See supra section IV.B.4. of this document.

384. Chamber of Commerce Cmt. at 6; Amazon Cmt. at 12; Trustpilot Cmt. at 4-5.

385. Chamber of Commerce Cmt. at 6.

386. Id.

387. Consumer Reports Cmt. at 9.

388. Amazon Cmt. at 12. The commenter suggested that the Commission “clarify the regulatory language to make clear that it covers only reviews authored by the owner company or its agents.” Id. The Commission is not adopting this approach because § 465.6 is not limited to websites with reviews. It also applies to organizations or entities that misrepresent that they provide independent reviews or opinions ( e.g., seals) about a category of businesses, products, or services including the business or one or more of the products or services it sells.

389. NRF Cmt. at 11-12.

390. Hammacher Schlemmer Cmt. at 5.

391. Trustpilot Cmt. at 5.

392. RILA Cmt. at 7.

393. Hammacher Schlemmer Cmt. at 6-7 (proposing that the Commission adopt § 465.6 with the addition of the following clause: “unless the business discloses that there is a relationship or affiliation between the business and the website, organization, or entity that it controls, owns, or operates and why the reviews or opinions are `independent', including the steps that the business takes to ensure objectivity or independence in obtaining such reviews or opinions.” (emphasis omitted)); Frieling Cmt. at 4.

394. CCIA Cmt. at 3.

395. NPRM, 88 FR 49375 .

396. Id.

397. CCIA Cmt. at 3.

398. Chamber of Commerce Cmt. at 6.

399. “Endorsements by organizations, especially expert ones, are viewed as representing the judgment of a group whose collective experience exceeds that of any individual member.” Endorsement Guides, 16 CFR 255.4(a) .

400. One modification is changing “Rule” to “part.”

401. Anonymous 10, Cmt. on NPRM (Aug. 3, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0009 ; TT in PA, Cmt. on NPRM (Aug. 9, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0016 (“TT in PA Cmt.”); Kurt Braun, Cmt. on NPRM (Aug. 17, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0026 ; Superguest Cmt.; Tripadvisor Cmt. at 5-6; Consumer Reports Cmt. at 9-10; State AGs Cmt. at 2.

402. Transparency Company Cmt. at 14; Family First Life Cmt. at 15.

403. Family First Life Cmt. at 15.

404. See supra section IV.A.2.l of this document.

405. NFIB Cmt. at 4.

406. Trustpilot Cmt. at 17.

407. Consumer Reports Cmt. at 10.

408. See Intimidate (def. 3), Dictionary.com, LLC, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/intimidate (last visited July 5, 2024) (establishing that the word “intimidate” means, among other things, “to force into or deter from some action by inducing fear”).

409. Trustpilot Cmt. at 17.

410. NFIB Cmt. at 4.

411. Id. at 5.

412. ANA Cmt. at 10.

413. Id. at 9-10.

414. Id.

415. Yelp Cmt. at 7; CCIA Cmt. at 4.

416. NRF Cmt. at 12.

417. Id.

418. See Endorsement Guides, 16 CFR 255.2(d) .

419. Consumer Reports Cmt. at 9. Although it does not involve § 465.7(a), a business urged the Commission to “deter meritless legal threats by platforms against providers and users of pro-consumer tools.” Mozilla Cmt. at 6. Such threats are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

420. ADA Cmt. at 1.

421. Id. at 1-2.

422. One modification, discussed above, is changing “its products or services” to “the products and services it sells.” See supra section IV.B.4. of this document. Another modification discussed above is changing “person” to “individual.” See supra section IV.A.2.b of this document. As it has done elsewhere in the rule, the Commission is limiting the misrepresentations prohibited to “material” misrepresentations. Nonetheless, in the context of § 465.7(b), the Commission believes that all such misrepresentations would likely always be material.

423. Hippensteel Cmt.

424. Superguest Cmt.

425. Ravnitzky Cmt. at 2.

426. TT in PA Cmt.

427. State AGs Cmt. at 3.

428. Amazon Cmt. at 12.

429. Transparency Company Cmt. at 14.

430. IAB Cmt. at 11.

431. Id.

432. NPRM, 88 FR 49376 .

433. Yelp Cmt. at 7-8.

434. Id.

435. NRF Cmt. at 12.

436. An individual commenter said it would be helpful to have rule language “around a business being allowed to highlight specific testimonial reviews on their website as long as there is a disclaimer or prominent indication that the page does not represent all reviews for the business.” Anonymous 3 Cmt. The rule does not prohibit such “highlighting” of specific reviews or testimonials, but the creation of a safe harbor for such highlighting is beyond the scope of the rule. In addition, the Commission believes that the wording of the proposed disclosure is likely inadequate.

437. IAB Cmt. at 11.

438. Id. at 11-12.

439. Id. at 12.

440. NRF Cmt. at 13.

441. IAB Cmt. at 11; Technet Cmt. at 3; Amazon Cmt. at 12; NRF Cmt. at 13.

442. Amazon Cmt. at 12. A different commenter gave the example of a snowstorm “obstruct[ing] the delivery of a package to a buyer who could claim failure to deliver on time.” TechNet Cmt. at 3. The Commission does not agree that this is a legitimate reason for suppressing consumer reviews.

443. IAB Cmt. at 12; Amazon Cmt. at 12; NRF Cmt. at 13.

444. IAB Cmt. at 11; TechNet Cmt. at 3; Amazon Cmt. at 12; NRF Cmt. at 12-13.

445. Anonymous 4 Cmt.

446. NFIB Cmt. at 5.

447. Trustpilot Cmt. at 18.

448. Madeline D'Entrmont, Cmt. on NPRM at 1 (Sept. 22, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0064 .

449. Id.

450. See Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016 § 2(b)(2)(C)(i), 15 U.S.C. 45b(b)(2)(C)(i) .

451. RILA Cmt. at 4.

452. Endorsement Guides, 16 CFR 255.2(e)(8)(ii) .

453. Consumer Reports Cmt. at 10.

454. Id.

455. State AGs Cmt. at 4.

456. Id.

457. TechNet Cmt. at 3.

458. Superguest Cmt.

459. Ravnitzky Cmt. at 2.

460. Rob Levy, Cmt. on NPRM at 2 (Sept. 22, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0057 .

461. Trustpilot Cmt. at 18.

462. Consumer Reports Cmt. at 11.

463. Anonymous 11, Cmt. on NPRM (Aug. 16, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0022 .

464. Anonymous 4 Cmt.

465. Endorsement Guides, 16 CFR 255.0(g)(1) and 255.1(b) .

466. One modification is changing “Rule” to “part.” Another modification, discussed above, is changing “persons” to “individuals.” See supra section IV.A.2.b of this document.

467. ANA Cmt. at 17-18.

468. Amazon Cmt. at 13.

469. IAB Cmt. at 13.

470. Hammacher and Schlemmer Cmt. at 7.

471. Amazon Cmt. at 13.

472. IAB Cmt. at 13.

473. Id. at 12.

474. NRF Cmt. at 13.

475. Consumer Reports Cmt. at 11.

476. Id.

477. IAB Cmt. at 13; Amazon Cmt. at 13.

478. IAB Cmt. at 13.

479. NRF Cmt. at 2-3, 13-14; IAB Cmt. at 5, 15. IAB also raised this issue in the context of the informal hearing discussed above in section I of this document. See, e.g., Petition by Interactive Advertising Bureau to Designate Disputed Issues of Material Fact (Feb. 12, 2024), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/r311003iabpetition20240212.pdf . As noted above, the presiding officer at that hearing found that IAB had not shown that compliance costs would be more than minimal.

480. Camp-Martin Cmt. at 2-3.

481. Slezak Cmt. at 3.

482. Transparency Company Cmt. at 6-9.

483. 141 S. Ct. at 1352.

484. 15 U.S.C. 53(b) .

485. See ANPR, 87 FR at 67425, 67425 n.1 (discussing AMG Cap. Mgmt. ).

486. See 15 U.S.C. 57b(a)(2) (“If the Commission satisfies the court that the act or practice to which the cease-and-desist order relates is one which a reasonable man would have known under the circumstances was dishonest or fraudulent, the court may grant relief.”).

487. Certain statutes, such as the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act, 15 U.S.C. 8401-05 , include provisions that treat violations of the statute as a violation of a rule for purposes of section 19(a)(1). See 15 U.S.C. 8404(a) .

488. Fed. Trade Comm'n, Notice Announcing Ten-Year Regulatory Review Schedule and Request for Public Comment on the Federal Trade Commission's Regulatory Review Program, 76 FR 41150 , 41150 (July 13, 2011), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2011-07-13/pdf/2011-17513.pdf (“all rules and guides are scheduled to be reviewed ten years after implementation and ten years after completion of a regulatory review.”)

489. See, e.g., Dina Mayzlin, Promotional Chat on the Internet, 25(2) Mktg. Sci., 155-63 (2006).

490. See, e.g., Chrysanthos Dellarocas, Strategic Manipulation of Internet Opinion Forums: Implications for Consumers and Firms, 52(10) Mgmt. Sci., 1577-93 (2006), https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/20110630.pdf ; Michael Anderson & Jeremy Magruder, Learning from the Crowd: Regression Discontinuity Estimates of the Effects of an Online Review Database, 122(563) Econ. J., 957-89 (2012); Michael Luca & Georgios Zervas, Fake It Till You Make It: Reputation, Competition, and Yelp Review Fraud, 62(12) Mgmt. Sci., 3412-27 (2016), https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/22836596 ; Jonathan Zinman & Eric Zitzewitz, Wintertime for Deceptive Advertising?, 8(1) Am. Econ. J. Applied, 177-92 (2016), https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.20130346; Imke Reiners & Joel Waldfogel, Digitization and Pre-purchase Information: The Causal and Welfare Impacts of Reviews and Crowd Ratings, 111(6) Am. Econ. Rev., 1944-71 (2021), https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20200153 .

491. In October 2021, the Commission authorized a Notice of Penalty Offenses concerning endorsement practices that the FTC determined to be unfair or deceptive in prior administrative cases, including falsely claiming an endorsement by a third party; misrepresenting whether an endorser is an actual, current, or recent user; and failing to disclose an unexpected material connection with an endorser. See, e.g., Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm'n, FTC Puts Hundreds of Businesses on Notice about Fake Reviews and Other Misleading Endorsements (Oct. 13, 2021), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2021/10/ftc-puts-hundreds-businesses-notice-about-fake-reviews-other-misleading-endorsements . The notice allows the agency to seek civil penalties pursuant to section 5(m)(1)(B) of the FTC Act against a company that received the notice and then engages in conduct that the Commission previously determined to be unfair or deceptive. 15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1)(B) .

492. 15 U.S.C. 57b(a)(2) . Depending on the egregiousness of the misconduct and the harm it is causing, the Commission also may seek preliminary injunctive relief in Federal court. 15 U.S.C. 53(b) .

493. See, e.g., Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm'n, Marketers of Ab Force Weight Loss Device Agree to Pay $7 Million for Consumer Redress (Jan. 14, 2009), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2009/01/marketers-ab-force-weight-loss-device-agree-pay-7-million-consumer-redress (describing a 2009 settlement of a follow-on section 19(a)(2) action against Telebrands Corp. that was brought after the conclusion of litigation over a 2003 administrative complaint alleging violations of section 5).

494. See Jesper Akesson et al., The Impact of Fake Reviews on Demand and Welfare, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 31836, Nov. 2023, https://www.nber.org/papers/w31836 .

495. See U.S. Census Bureau, Quarterly Retail E-Commerce Sales 4th Quarter 2023, Feb. 20, 2024, https://www2.census.gov/retail/releases/historical/ecomm/23q4.pdf .

496. U.S. Census Bureau, Service Annual Survey (SAS), Jan. 30, 2024, https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/sas.html (listing total revenue of $980,153,000,000 for NAICS Code 722 in 2022, the most recent year with data).

497. See Michael Luca, Reviews, Reputation, and Revenue: The Case of Yelp.com, Harvard Bus. Sch. Working Paper 12-016 (2016).

498. Twenty-five percent is likely a reasonable estimate based on the difference in revenues for new restaurants and established restaurants. A study conducted by Toast, Inc., found that new restaurants earn approximately $112,000 in average revenue per year. Justin Guinn, What is the Average Restaurant Revenue for a New Restaurant?, https://pos.toasttab.com/blog/on-the-line/average-restaurant-revenue (last visited July 5, 2024). This is approximately twenty-five percent of average revenue for restaurants overall ($486,000, according to the website Eat Pallet, see Shari Mason, How Much Do Restaurants Make in a Day? Solved, May 24, 2024, https://eatpallet.com/how-much-do-restaurants-make-in-a-day ).

499. See U.S. Census Bureau, Service Annual Survey (SAS), supra note 496 (listing total 2022 revenue of $316,350,000,000 for NAICS Code 721 and listing total 2022 revenue of $67,698,000,000 for NAICS Codes 812111 through 812199 and NAICS Code 81291.

500. See Linchi Kwok, Will Business Travel Spending Return to the Pre-Pandemic Level Soon?, Hospitality Net, Sept. 22, 2022, https://www.hospitalitynet.org/opinion/4112075.html .

501. These estimates range from the single digits to over twenty percent. See Tripadvisor, 2023 Review Transparency Report, https://www.tripadvisor.com/TransparencyReport2023 (last visited July 5, 2024) (finding that 4.4 percent of review submissions were fraudulent); Trustpilot, Transparency Report 2024, https://assets.ctfassets.net/b7g9mrbfayuu/7p63VLqZ9vmU2TB65dVdnF/6e47d9ee81c145b5e3d1e16f81bba89a/Trustpilot_Transparency_Report_2024.pdf (last visited July 5, 2024) (stating that its software removed 6 percent of reviews due to being fake); Yelp, 2023 Yelp Trust & Safety Report (Feb 28, 2024), https://trust.yelp.com/trust-and-safety-report/2023-report (stating that 16 percent of submitted reviews were marked as “not recommended” by Yelp's software); Devesh Raval, Do Gatekeepers Develop Worse Products? Evidence from Online Review Platforms, (Feb. 27, 2023), https://deveshraval.github.io/reviews.pdf (Working Paper) (finding that the share of hidden (likely fake) Yelp reviews is as high as 47 percent).

502. See Nan Hu et al., Manipulation of Online Reviews: An Analysis of Ratings, Readability, and Sentiments, 52(3) Decision Support Systems 674-84 (Feb. 2012) (finding that 10.3 percent of books sold on Amazon had manipulated reviews); Luca, Fake It Till You Make It: Reputation, Competition, and Yelp Review Fraud, supra note 490 (finding that ten percent of Boston restaurants had filtered 5-star reviews on Yelp) (Table 3, row 4); Raval, Do Gatekeepers Develop Worse Products? Evidence from Online Review Platforms, supra note 501 (finding that 9.7 percent of businesses with reviews or complaints with the Better Business Bureau are of low quality, where fake reviews inflate ratings) (Table III, column 3, row 1).

503. See, e.g., Sherry He et al., The Market for Fake Reviews, 41(5) Mktg. Sci. 896 (2022), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3664992; Dina Mayzlin et al., Promotional Reviews: An Empirical Investigation of Online Review Manipulation, 104(8) Am. Econ. Rev. 2421-55 (2014).

504. See Davide Proserpio et al., How Fake Customer Reviews Do—and Don't—Work, Harvard Bus. Rev., Nov. 24, 2020, https://hbr.org/2020/11/how-fake-customer-reviews-do-and-dont-work . The authors find that products sold on Amazon with manipulated reviews are typically in the $15 to $40 price range. The midpoint of this range ($27.50) represents 19 percent of the average product's price ($142.74, according to one study see Semrush Inc., Amazon Pricing Study: The Most Expensive Products, Category Volatility, and Seasonal Price Shifts, Mar. 22, 2022, https://www.semrush.com/blog/amazon-pricing-study ).

505. E-commerce sales increased by 7.6 percent from 2022 to 2023. See U.S. Census Bureau, Quarterly Retail E-Commerce Sales 4th Quarter 2023, supra note 495. Using growth in the past year to predict future e-commerce sales results in a more conservative estimate than using a longer time frame. E-commerce sales experienced higher annual growth rates prior to 2021 (14 percent from 2018 to 2019, 43 percent from 2019 to 2020, and 14 percent from 2020 to 2021) and grew 7.7 percent from 2021 to 2022. This analysis does not project revenues for non-e-commerce industries because linear trends during recent years are unique to the pandemic and are unlikely to be accurate for future years.

506. See Pew Research Center, Online Shopping and E-Commerce, Dec. 19, 2016, https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2016/12/19/online-shopping-and-e-commerce .

507. See Int'l Post Corp., Cross-Border E-Commerce Shopper Survey 2022, Jan. 2023, https://www.ipc.be/-/media/documents/public/publications/ipc-shoppers-survey/onlineshoppersurvey2022.pdf .

508. See BrightLocal, Local Consumer Review Survey 2019, Dec. 11, 2019, https://www.brightlocal.com/research/local-consumer-review-survey-2019 .

509. Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2023 National Occupational and Wage Estimates, Unites States, https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm (listing mean hourly wage of $31.48 for all occupations).

510. See Daniel S. Hamermesh, What's to Know About Time Use?, 30 J. of Econ. Survs. 198-203 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12107 .

511. See Luca, Reviews, Reputation, and Revenue: The Case of Yelp.com, supra note 497 (finding that chain restaurants have declined in market share as Yelp penetration has increased); Gregory Lewis and Georgios Zervas, The Welfare Impact of Consumer Reviews: A Case Study of the Hotel Industry, https://economics.sas.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/filevault/u475/tawelfare.pdf (Working Paper) (finding that demand for independent hotels is more sensitive to reviews on Tripadvisor); Brett Hollenbeck, Online Reputation Mechanisms and the Decreasing Value of Chain Affiliation, 55(5) J. of Mktg. Resch. 636-54 (2018), https://www.jstor.org/stable/26966532 (finding that branded, chain-affiliated hotels' premiums over independent hotels have declined substantially largely due to online reputation mechanisms).

512. See Limin Fang, “The Effects of Online Review Platforms on Restaurant Revenue, Consumer Learning, and Welfare” 68(11) Mgmt. Sci. 7793-8514 (2022).

513. See Theodoros Lappas et al., The Impact of Fake Reviews on Online Visibility: A Vulnerability Assessment of the Hotel Industry, 27(4) Inf. Sys. Research 940-961 (2016), https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/isre.2016.0674 .

514. See U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 SUSB Annual Data Tables by Establishment Industry, https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2021/econ/susb/2021-susb-annual.html (last visited July 5, 2024) (listing 6.29 million total firms with at least one paid employee) and U.S. Census Bureau, Nonemployer Statistics, https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/nonemployer-statistics.html (listing 28.48 million firms with no paid employees) (last visited July 5, 2024).

515. Seventy-four percent of small businesses have at least one Google review. See BrightLocal, Google Reviews Study: How Many Reviews Do Local Businesses Need?, Oct. 31, 2018, https://www.brightlocal.com/research/google-reviews-study/ .

516. See Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook: Lawyers, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/legal/lawyers.htm (last visited July 5, 2024).

517. See Payscale, Average Small Business Owner Salary, https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Small_Business_Owner/Salary (last visited July 5, 2024) (reporting median base salary of $69,648 for small business owners). We assume small business owners work 2,080 hours per year.

518. See Akesson, The Impact of Fake Reviews on Demand and Welfare, supra note 494 (reviews for inferior products that had inflated star ratings but accurate written narratives caused consumers to lose $0.04 in welfare for every dollar spent).

519. NPRM, 88 FR 49388 .

520. Transparency Company Cmt. at 10.

521. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b) .

522. See infra section VIII.F of this document.

523. Camp-Martin Cmt. at 2-3.

524. NPRM, 88 FR 49388 .

525. IAB Cmt. at 1-15.

526. Id. at 2, 5-6, 8-9, 10.

527. See supra note 515.

528. See Payscale, Average Small Business Owner Salary, supra note 517.

[ FR Doc. 2024-18519 Filed 8-21-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750-01-P

Executive Orders

Reader Aids

Information.

About This Site
Legal Status
Accessibility
No Fear Act
Continuity Information

IMAGES

Let's Prepare a Harvard Personal Statement That Will Impress
Graduate School Personal Statement
Harvard Law School Personal Statement Samples in 2023
Get the best of Harvard statement of purpose example by following this
Successful Personal statement example, Example from Harvard
Personal Statement Harvard Gsd

COMMENTS

Application Toolkit: Written Statements
For our first entry in the Real Talk series, Associate Director Nefyn Meissner shares advice on approaching the personal statement. August 6, 2020. Personal Statement Advice. The personal statement is "an opportunity to give the Admissions Committee a better sense of who you are as a person and as a potential student and graduate of Harvard ...
Writing Application Essays and Personal Statements
Some applications ask that you write an essay that draws on more personal reflections. These essays, sometimes called Personal Statements, are an opportunity to show the selection committee who you are as a person: your story, your values, your interests, and why you—and not your peer with a similar resume—are a perfect fit for this opportunity. These narrative essays allow you to really ...
Statement of Purpose, Personal Statement, and Writing Sample
Unless otherwise noted, your statement should not exceed 1,000 words. Personal Statement. Please describe the personal experiences that led you to pursue graduate education and how these experiences will contribute to the academic environment and/or community in your program or Harvard Griffin GSAS.
Application Requirements
Harvard College will require the submission of standardized test scores from applicants for admission as part of the comprehensive application process that takes a whole-student approach. The College will accept the SAT or ACT to meet the standardized testing requirement.
Application Tips
View more information on our standardized testing requirements on our Application Requirements page. ... The first section is the personal essay. Harvard requires the submission of the personal essay with your application. ... The point of the personal statement is for you to have the chance to share whatever you would like with us. Remember ...
Harvard Law Personal Statement
The length of your personal statement for Harvard Law School should be no more than two pages, double-spaced. Harvard recommends that applicants aim for a length of 750 to 1,500 words, which should provide enough space to effectively communicate your message while still remaining concise and focused. 2.
Real Talk: The Personal Statement
Real Talk: The Personal Statement. Aug 06, 2020. For our first entry in the Re al Talk series, Associate Director Nefyn Meissner shares his advice on approaching the personal statement. Some applicants feel the need to start their personal statements with a bang by throwing in a colorful personal story or dramatic hook to grab the Admissions ...
Harvard Law School Personal Statement Samples
The personal statement requirements for an application to Harvard Law School are fairly specific. Students are expected to write a two-page statement, 11-point font, 1-inch margins, double-spaced. This works out to about 500 words total. It is expected that students will use the entire two pages, but no more.
J.D. Application Components
Application Fee or Fee Waiver. The application fee is $85 (non-refundable). You may pay the fee by credit card when you submit your application (preferred) or you may mail a check or money order payable to Harvard Law School. If payment of the application fee would pose a financial hardship, we recommend applying for the Law School Admission ...
My Successful Harvard Application (Complete Common App
Personal Statement. Now known as: Personal Essay. Now, the dreaded personal statement. Boy, oh boy, did I fuss over this one. "What is the perfect combination of personal, funny, heartrending, and inspirational?" I know I was wondering this when I applied. Having read books like 50 Successful Harvard Application Essays, I was frightened. I didn ...
Harvard Personal Statement Example
Different graduate programs may have varying requirements or prompts for the personal statement. Be clear about the application instructions, word limits and the exact nature of the query. ... Sample Harvard Personal Statement. When I journey back through the corridors of my childhood memories, tracing the footsteps of my past, I invariably ...
PDF Writing a Graduate School Application Essay
Every graduate school requires applicants to submit either a personal statement or astatement of purpose (sometimes called a research statement). This handout details some of the main differences between the two types of documents, and provides ... Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Writing Instructor. Author: Dustin Gee Created Date: 12 ...
Guide to Crafting a Winning Personal Statement for Harvard
Personal Statements for Harvard: Overall Guide. Crafting a personal statement for Harvard is a complex task, requiring reflection, compelling storytelling, and a clear focus on your personal and academic journey. Your statement should convey who you are as a person, what you've accomplished, and how Harvard aligns with your future goals.
Harvard Graduate School Personal Statement Examples
Along with college essay examples, the Harvard graduate school personal statement examples found here should only be used as a template to create your own statement. The format of a personal statement is usually open-ended, but each graduate program has its own requirements, so make sure you check what they are before you start formulating an ...
How to Write the Harvard University Essays 2024-2025
First, identify one or two goals you have for the future—with just 150 words, you won't have space to elaborate on any more than that. Ideally, these should be relatively concrete. You don't have to have your whole life mapped out, but you do need to be a lot more specific than "Make a difference in the world.".
10 Successful Harvard Application Essays
Successful Harvard Essay. "You should scrub off the top layer of your skin whenever you lose a round," my debate teammate once advised me. "That's not practical," I replied. "Neither ...
10 Successful Harvard Application Essays
10 Successful Harvard Application Essays | 2023 ... Simar's essay is a great example of how personal statements don't need to universally feature "happy endings," or central notes of light ...
Personal Statement Advice
Applicants often ask us about the personal statement. As we state on our application, we see the personal statement "as an opportunity to give the Admissions Committee a better sense of who you are as a person and as a potential student and graduate of Harvard Law School.". We really believe that you are the best person to decide what to ...
Six Law School Personal Statements That Got Into Harvard
The essays below, which were all part of successful applications to Harvard Law, rely on humble reckonings followed by reflections. Some reckonings are political: an applicant grapples with the 2008 financial crisis; another grapples with her political party's embrace of populism. Others are personal: a student struggles to sprint up a hill ...
How I Wrote a Personal Statement That Got Me into Harvard Law School
There are the general requirements: grades, LSAT scores, recommendation letters, and the elusive element of luck. But, I also managed to write a personal statement that said something about who I was and why I wanted to go to law school, a statement that had nothing to do with my terrible intern experience. People think that law schools want to ...
Harvard Supplemental Essays
Requirements for the Harvard supplemental essays: 5 short-answer questions (200-word limit) Harvard application deadline: ... Harvard personal statement examples. In this guide to past Harvard personal statement examples, you can read essays from previous years. These essays answered many of the same questions Harvard asks today—except using ...
How to Write a Strong Personal Statement
Write it so that the person reading it wants to hear more. Address the elephant in the room (if there is one). Maybe your grades weren't great in core courses, or perhaps you've never worked ...
Writing a Personal Statement
A personal statement is a narrative essay that connects your background, experiences, and goals to the mission, requirements, and desired outcomes of the specific opportunity you are seeking. It is a critical component in the selection process, whether the essay is for a competitive internship, a graduate fellowship, or admittance to a graduate school program.
PDF APPLICATION DEADLINE
The information and instructions below are for applications to the Harvard Law School LL.M. program only. If you wish to apply ... ENGLISH PROFICIENCY/TOEFL REQUIREMENTS 5. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS 6. ONLINE APPLICATION FORM 7. PERSONAL STATEMENT 8. TRANSCRIPTS AND DIPLOMAS A. Instructions for Submitting Transcripts and Diplomas (2022-2023) ...
PDF HDS Handbook for Students 2024-2025
to job or course of study requirements. Harvard Divinity School condemns all forms of discrimination or harassment, whether subtle or overt, and asserts that all members of the community should join in assuring that all students are accorded the dignity and respect called for in the University Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.
PDF HBS MBA Application Guide 2023-2024
Personal Information Addresses Contact Information Citizenship Fee Waiver Learn if you are eligible for a fee waiver, or submit a request for a need-based application fee waiver. Family Information Parent and/or guardian occupation and education REFLECT Essay Submit three short essays. This is your opportunity to
Writing Your Personal Statement
Before you begin your personal statement, you need to familiarize yourself with the parameters specified by your application. Depending on the application service or school, there are different requirements and expectations for the personal statement. Character Limitations. AMCAS and AACOMAS - 5,300 characters - including spaces
Federal Register :: Trade Regulation Rule on the Use of Consumer
The proposed rule defined "celebrity testimonial" as "an advertising or promotional message (including verbal statements, demonstrations, or depictions of the name, signature, likeness, or other identifying personal characteristics of an individual) that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, or experiences of a ...