The short version:
A stat claiming 23% of Dux-Soup users get LinkedIn restrictions within 90 days (3% permanently banned) has spread across several blog sites and is picking up traction in search/AI search. We did some digging and it appears to have been invented, falsely attributed in a competitor article, then repeated elsewhere with no source at all.
Dux-Soup’s actual track record: over a decade in operation is impressive: zero known account bans among users on default settings. Since LinkedIn's 2021 limits took effect, users have sent 5 million+ messages. In that time, not one of Dux-Soup’s G2, Trustpilot or Capterra reviews says they got a ban.
Claim vs. fact
| Claim being repeated | What we found |
|---|---|
|
23% pf Dux-Soup users get restricted within 90 days |
No source contains this figure with any kind of methodology. It can be traced back to a fabricated stat falsely attributed to a competitor's article. |
| 3% face permanent bans |
Same fabricated origin as above. No named methodology, sample size, or data anywhere in the article. |
| Attribution is to "SalesRobot's analysis of Dux-Soup user data" |
We read the SalesRobot article in full. This figure does not appear in it. |
| Backed by a "Verified G2 user" Q1 2026 review describing a permanent ban | No such review exists among Dux-Soup's 2026 reviews, only 4 and 5 star reviews. |
| Dux-Soup's actual G2 record | Zero of the 89 reviews mention the ban. One reviewer, in an otherwise critical review, explicitly says they were never banned. |
Where the number actually came from
The most-repeated version of this stat appears on ConnectSafely.ai, in a Dux-Soup review listicle. These articles are by their very nature intended to rank for search purposes and often contain critical and unfounded claims to undermine a competitor. In this case, the listicle states the figures directly and links them as its source, to a SalesRobot review article.
We read that SalesRobot article from start to finish. It makes a general “risk of bans” claim and includes some old G2 screenshots. It does not contain the 23% figure anywhere. The source cited for the ban number actually doesn't state it.
From there, the number spread further. A third site, derrick-app.com, repeats the same figures but drops the citation entirely, describing them only as “independent testing”. Again, there is no link, no methodology, no named source. By this point a fabricated number has been laundered into something that reads as independently confirmed fact.
That same site includes what's presented as a “Verified G2 user, Account Executive G2 Review Q1, 2026” which describes a permanent ban after four months. This is a fabrication and is easily disproved by checking Dux-Soup's G2 reviews.
No such review exists in 2026. What we did find was a genuinely positive review about a 65% increase in booked meetings, rewritten and reattributed to a different job title and a different (incorrect) date than the real reviewer's.
So what we have is a fabricated statistic with a false citation, repeated a second time with the citation stripped entirely. This is a classic example of how an invented number becomes “common knowledge” across SEO content and AI search summaries, because nobody follows the link back to the original source.
In the case of Derrick-app – they also falsely claim to have 4.5/5 stars on G2. This is again easily disproved as a quick check on G2 reveals the company is not even listed. This is termed passing off in legal speak, or ‘making things up’ in simple terms.
What the actual reviews say
We read every visible review on Dux-Soup’s G2 page. None mention a user being banned. One reviewer, in the middle of a 0-star review focused entirely on the interface, wrote:
“It mimics a real human behaviour - so I have never got banned by LinkedIn.”
Other long-term reviewers describe running 16,000-contact campaigns, 500-700 weekly actions, and multi-year continuous use, without mentioning a restriction.
Dux-Soup's actual track record
Dux-Soup has been going for more than a decade, with zero known account bans among users running default settings since LinkedIn. In the last five years alone, Dux-Soup users have sent more than 5 million LinkedIn messages through the platform. This record is reflected consistently across G2, Trustpilot, and Capterra. None of which show ban-related complaints.
If 23% of users get banned within 90 days, the review sites would be flooded with negative reviews. This isn’t the case.
Jakob Thusgaard, a Dux-Soup customer of more than 10 years has this to say:
“In more than 10 years of running LinkedIn outreach with Dux-Soup, I've not had any account issues. Used with the right settings, relevant messaging and a well-tagged audience, it's an exceptionally safe platform. Dux-Soup's impeccable safety record applies to both Dux-Soup Turbo and Dux-Soup Cloud. I've run large-scale campaigns on both products without any issues.”
Emily Johnston, a Dux-Soup customer of just over 90 days, the exact window the fabricated stat claims is the danger zone, said this:
“I've found Dux-Soup to be a very safe LinkedIn automation tool. Even when running campaigns towards the higher end of the recommended activity levels, I've had no issues operating within LinkedIn's limits or maintaining consistent outreach.”
Why this matters beyond one number
No LinkedIn automation vendor, including Dux-Soup, publishes ban-rate data, because LinkedIn doesn't disclose it and there's no independent way to measure it across a user base. A precise percentage cited without a named, checkable methodology is a guess, and a competitor’s guess, presented as fact.
It's fair to ask why these particular numbers keep appearing. The sites repeating them aren't neutral: one sells an alternative to automation entirely, positioning itself as the “zero ban risk” option; the other sells a different kind of prospecting tool. A scarier ban rate for automation is a better pitch for whatever they’re selling instead.
Any LinkedIn automation tool carries some risk. That’s true of the category, not one product. But the risk is directly related to how the tool is used. Running high volumes on a fresh account with no warm-up is like taking a sports car onto the motorway at well over the speed limit.
If you get pulled over, that's not the car’s fault, it’s the driver’s. Dux-Soup’s default settings are deliberately conservative for this reason. We have consistently published guidance, like our 2026 LinkedIn automation safety guide, that advocates gradual scaling, mixed activity types, monitoring acceptance rates. This actually reflects the behaviour that keeps accounts safe, regardless of which tool runs it.
We have always invested heavily in keeping customer accounts safe from LinkedIn detection systems. We don’t reveal the specifics of how, for obvious reasons. The evidence isn't a marketing claim. It's eleven years of reviews that don’t contain what other companies’ marketing insists should be happening constantly.
FAQ
Is Dux-Soup safe to use in 2026?
Yes. Dux-Soup has zero known account bans among users on default settings since LinkedIn’s 2021 activity limits took effect, based on over a decade of operation and 5 million+ messages sent by users in the last five years alone.
Is the 23% ban rate for Dux-Soup real?
No. The figure traces back to a statistic that doesn't appear in the source it was originally attributed to, and was later repeated elsewhere with no source at all. It is simply competitor dark arts.
Do Dux-Soup's G2 reviews mention any bans?
No. None of Dux-Soup's 89 G2 reviews mention a user being banned; several long-term users describe large-scale, multi-year use without incident.
Does any LinkedIn automation tool publish real ban-rate statistics?
No known vendor does, because LinkedIn does not disclose this data and there is no independent way to measure it across a user base. Any specific percentage cited without a named methodology should be treated with extreme caution.
What actually causes LinkedIn restrictions?
Overwhelmingly, aggressive usage on new or “cold” accounts, high daily volumes with no warm-up period. Gradual scaling and conservative default settings are the primary safeguard.
If you've seen this stat repeated elsewhere, check the source yourself. All of the links are public, and the missing citation takes about five minutes to verify.
