The codes do not all draw the line in the same place, so the review card does not treat them the same. The APA code (5.05), the NASW code (4.07(b)), and the AAMFT code (9.2, in the revision that took effect this January) stop at current clients and at anyone whose circumstances leave them open to undue influence. The ACA code (C.3.b) goes further and names former clients as well. Oregon settles it for counselors and for marriage and family therapists by rule: OAR 833-100-0011(1) adopts the 2014 ACA code as the code of professional conduct, so an Oregon LPC or LMFT is held to C.3.b whether or not they hold an ACA membership.
So the intake asks which code you practise under, and the site is built to match. Under the APA, NASW, or AAMFT codes the card is on: it asks after care ends, asks everyone the same way, and routes the request to Google's public form, so nobody picks who is invited. Under the ACA code, and for every Oregon LPC and LMFT, the card turns itself off. Not softened, not moved into an email, not replaced with a hint: there is no invitation of any kind on your site, because C.3.b bars asking a former client and I would rather the product answer that than leave it to you to remember. If you told me only that you hold to your board's own code, or to one I have not read, the card stays off as well, because a code nobody has read is not permission. Say which one applies and I will set it. The setting sits on your record and I will change it if your situation does.
None of that is what the FTC's 2024 review rule is about. That rule (16 CFR part 465) bans fake reviews, paying for a particular sentiment, and burying the ones you did not like. It prescribes no way of asking, and this design does none of those three things.
Your copy is checked before it reaches you for the phrases boards flag: guaranteed results, "best," "leading," cure. Not because you would write them, but because a template might, and it should not be your job to catch it.
