Well if you take a company like Amazon they know everything about you already, including if you actually purchased the item you are reviewing. And that should be a simple first "hurdle" for a reviewer to be legit. They already have a way of sorting them out and labeling them in place. So I would assume this means if you don't have that label your review doesn't go live. They can then add more qualifiers to prove they know the reviewers are real, since this seems to put the onus of proof on the company not that FTC.
Edit - some words
But as stated during the trial, the reason he wanted to hide the Stormy stuff was to protect his campaign. So by making a deal with National Enquiry to catch and kill the story to protect his campaign, not his family, means it was a campaign finance violation because he tried to do it on the DL instead of declaring it the legal way.
And you're right that paying someone to stay silent isn't illegal (as long as the thing you're having them stay silent about itself is legal), but doing it in furtherance of his campaign without properly reporting it is illegal. So pretending it's just a casual falsified business records case is downplaying the election interference by trying to hide payouts to protect his campaign bid (electability).
Edit - it was the 2nd crime (election interference) that made each count a felony instead of a misdemeanor.