Recovered memory therapy (RMT) is viewed by memory experts as highly suggestive, and has long generated debate among advocates and critics. Less is known concerning how the public perceives RMT, as participants have generally been provided with brief or incomplete information about RMT in studies investigating beliefs about false memories. We examined whether the public recognizes the suggestive nature of RMT, and judges the competence of the therapist and the veracity of the memories accordingly. In addition, we investigated whether judgments surrounding RMT and therapist conduct depend on whether participants know the therapy ultimately led to a false memory. A total of 263 undergraduate students were randomly assigned to 1 of 8 conditions in a completely between-subjects factorial design that crossed 4 levels of therapy suggestiveness (control/suggestion/guided imagery/hypnosis) with 2 levels of outcome information about the memory report (foresight/hindsight). Participants with prior knowledge that the therapy produced a false memory (i.e., hindsight) rated the therapist as more responsible for the false memory and less competent than foresight participants. Foresight participants rated the RMT as more suggestive, but did not rate memory veracity or therapist competency any lower. Perceptions of memory veracity were only negatively impacted by the hindsight information. These findings suggest that individuals fail to connect suggestive recovery practices with memory veracity, and that perceptions of therapist competence and responsibility are largely attributable to knowledge of the harmful outcome of the therapy, rather than the techniques employed. Implications for RMT, therapist liability, and vulnerability to risky practices are discussed.