No More Fake Reviews - So Who’s Gonna Tell Us What To Buy?

It should change, based on the ruling. Assuming there are any teeth involved and resources to police/implement the ruling. It cuts pretty deep if you read the whole thing, beyond the basic sub-title:

The rule will allow agency to strengthen enforcement, seek civil penalties against violators, and deter AI-generated fake reviews

Is it even worth the risk for some of our guys, I mean our niche is so small, the majority of small reviewers can't be making much money out of it even with the occasional manufacturers' swag bag thrown in. 

I hope it doesn't change too much in our industry, other than a couple of obvious violators I don't think there's much wrong with it as it stands... Just my opinion and I could be wrong (again).

@jayctoy I think the argument made is that being honest and truthful doesn't go hand-in-glove with being paid: "As long as the reviewer is honest and truthful. Perks benefits is ok with me." 

I suspect nothing much will happen until someone we know is made an example of. Then everything will change.

Don't forget that the ruling also includes provisions that protect reviewers from retaliation by manufacturers, per Erin, Tekton, the Goldensound guy, and a couple others who escape mind. This has to be positive, right?

@cleeds I think 'consumer reviews' means reviews for the consumer not specifically 'reviews by a consumer', so professional reviewers generate consumer reviews and are affected by the ruling. You could also consider that many consumers who are unpaid generate reviews, but I can't see a situation where a consumer who isn't being paid for the review could do or say anything that would lead to prosecution by the FTC.
As far as I can see it's mostly positive on the side of us, the consumer, and the only downside I can foresee is the loss of some of the reviewers' channels on youtube, etc, when they figure out that it just isn't worth the risk and they don't have enough traffic to support other means to generate revenue. But what the heck do I know.. lol.

I’ve been verklempt ever since hearing about this ruling but I do think the FTC has captured the gestalt of the issue and I support any drive for improved transparency for audiophiles.

@curiousjim 

So in conclusion, I feel that if they tell you upfront that they bought the item at a greatly reduced price or that they were outright given the piece, there shouldn’t be a problem.

...and I think that's pretty much exactly what the FTC are saying they should do...

@gs5556 

You said:

If a reviewer states that he was given or purchased the product at a discount then to me the manufacturer wrote the review.

I think that's a safe default position. But consider this, which I think is a common scenario:

I'm a reviewer. Company A sends me a product to be reviewed. Both parties expect the product to be returned once the review is finished. I write the review and it's glowing, extremely positive, because I really like the product, so much so that I would like to keep it in my reference system. I contact Company A and they say fine, you can have our standard industry accommodation, (say -40%) and it's yours to keep. The only stipulation is that you can't sell it for 12 months from the date of purchase.

I write the review, and I say the usual: I liked this product so much that I decided to buy it....blah blah.

Is that still considered a tainted, or 'paid for' review?