Can a Danish Influencer Promote Tobacco or Vapes? Danish Law and Platform Policy Both Say No

No. The Danish Tobacco Advertising Act bans "all forms of advertising for tobacco products" — including on the internet and social media — with only a few narrow exceptions, and the ban also covers e-cigarettes and heated tobacco. Independently of Danish law, Meta, TikTok and Google's own ad policies separately prohibit advertising tobacco, nicotine and e-cigarette products. A Danish influencer promoting tobacco or vapes is therefore blocked by two entirely separate, independently enforced systems at once.

This is practical guidance from Make Influence, not legal advice. Use it to understand the two rulebooks — get the specific legal assessment of a campaign from a lawyer.

Two separate systems, both saying no

It's worth keeping the two layers completely apart from the start, because they have different origins, different exceptions, and are enforced by different actors:

The point of this article isn't just that both say no — it's that the two bans cover different things, and that a post can be illegal under Danish law even though it would never be caught by a platform's own enforcement. That's explained in the paid-vs-organic section below.

Danish law: what "all forms of advertising" actually covers

Section 3(1) of the Tobacco Advertising Act is short and far-reaching: "Section 3 of the Tobacco Advertising Act contains a prohibition on all forms of advertising for tobacco products," as Forbrugerombudsmanden itself put it in a specific case. The law — in its current consolidated form, Consolidated Act No. 586 of 26 March 2021 on the Prohibition of Tobacco Advertising — originates from 2008 (Act No. 1021) and was substantially tightened by Act No. 2071 of 21 December 2020, effective 1 January 2021. From 1 April 2021, the ban was explicitly extended to cover heated tobacco products (such as IQOS) too — a date that later mattered directly in a real enforcement case, covered below.

Forbrugerombudsmanden's own guidance on the rules is unambiguous about how far the ban reaches: "All forms of advertising for tobacco products are prohibited with a few exceptions," and the ban applies across physical stores, print media, radio, TV, the internet, social media and email. The guidance goes further than most brands assume: simply running a business social media page or sending newsletters about tobacco products is "fundamentally contrary to the advertising ban" — regardless of whether consumers have consented to receive the content. Online, a retailer may provide neutral product information and pricing, but can't show images of tobacco products (except pipes) or use health or taste claims such as "healthier."

There's a separate, narrower rule on visible display: Order No. 570 of 11 February 2021 bans visible placement and display of tobacco products in retail, unless the business specialises in pipes, pipe tobacco and cigars. Ordinary retailers have to keep the products hidden — for example under the counter or behind a curtain or door.

Penalties and enforcement

Violations of Sections 3–5a of the Tobacco Advertising Act are punishable by a fine, and companies and other legal entities can face corporate criminal liability under Chapter 5 of the Danish Penal Code. The law is enforced by Forbrugerombudsmanden, which can bring cases before the courts.

The real case: Philip Morris fined DKK 3 million

Forbrugerombudsmanden's own case against Philip Morris shows the ban is enforced in practice, not only on paper. On 26 June 2025, the Copenhagen City Court fined the tobacco producer DKK 3 million for illegal tobacco advertising after 1 April 2021 — the date heated tobacco formally came within the law's scope. The case concerned the company's use of so-called "IQOS experts" for in-store product demonstrations, advertising the electronic heating devices on its own website, in newsletters and on cigarette packaging, and describing the products as "a less harmful alternative to cigarettes." The company was acquitted for advertising before the amendment but convicted for advertising after 1 April 2021 — and separately convicted on an unrelated count, where an IQOS expert sold a device to a 15-year-old, in breach of the general ban on selling to anyone under 18. The case shows two things at once: even a professional, well-resourced marketing effort was caught by the ban's broad wording, and the law doesn't distinguish between cigarettes and newer products like heated tobacco or e-cigarettes when it comes to advertising.

E-cigarettes and nicotine pouches: a parallel, equally strict rulebook

E-cigarettes aren't regulated directly by the Tobacco Advertising Act (which covers tobacco products specifically), but by their own law: the Act on Electronic Cigarettes, etc., most recently Act No. 1633 of 18 June 2021 (originally Act No. 426 of 7 June 2016). That law regulates advertising, minimum sales age, cross-border distance selling, and the quality and composition of e-cigarettes and nicotine liquids — with an advertising ban that follows essentially the same logic as the Tobacco Advertising Act: e-cigarettes can't be advertised to the public, regardless of channel.

The rules were tightened further in 2026. From 1 April 2026, per Erhvervsstyrelsen (sik.dk, formerly Sikkerhedsstyrelsen), only nicotine pouches flavoured tobacco or menthol/mint may be sold — every other flavour, including fruit and candy variants, is banned. At the same time, an individual pouch is capped at a maximum of 9.0mg of nicotine, and nicotine pouches are now subject to standardised-packaging requirements: the same brownish-green colour, the same typeface, no logos or illustrations. This article was unable to read Erhvervsstyrelsen's own page directly (the page could not be retrieved during research), but the three specific figures — 1 April 2026, tobacco/menthol as the only permitted flavours, and the 9.0mg cap — are confirmed consistently across multiple independent e-cigarette/nicotine-product trade sources, each citing the authority's own announcements. Excise taxes on smokeless tobacco, nicotine products and nicotine liquids are set out in Act No. 2616 of 28 December 2021 and Act No. 832 of 14 June 2022.

The platforms' own rules: tobacco and vaping are banned regardless of what Danish law says

Even if Danish law momentarily allowed tobacco advertising, Meta, TikTok and Google would still ban it — each of the three platforms maintains its own, independent ad policy that excludes tobacco and vaping entirely:

• Meta (Facebook and Instagram) states directly in its advertising standards: "Ads must not promote the sale or use of tobacco or nicotine products and related paraphernalia," and the ban explicitly extends to electronic nicotine devices — "electronic cigarettes, vaporizers, or any other products that simulate smoking" — as well as products that contain no tobacco or nicotine at all but simply simulate smoking.
• TikTok states in its ads policy: "We do not allow ad content and landing pages to show, promote, or sell tobacco, nicotine, or related products," naming cigarettes, cigars, e-cigarettes, vape pens and vape oils/cartridges as examples. The policy allows a narrow exception for anti-smoking campaigns and for listing lighters, as long as the content doesn't reference smoking or tobacco.
• Google Ads prohibits ads for tobacco and products containing tobacco, as well as "products designed to simulate tobacco smoking" — a category that explicitly names electronic cigarettes. Google treats e-cigarettes as prohibited because they simulate smoking, independent of whether the product actually contains nicotine.

There's an important structural difference in how Meta treats alcohol and gambling by comparison: both of those categories have a conditional, permitted route through Meta's own branded content tool (age-gated targeting for alcohol, written permission for real-money gambling). This article found no equivalent conditional permission for tobacco or vaping in Meta's public branded-content rules — tobacco appears only on Meta's general list of fully prohibited product categories, with no route to get an influencer tag approved, unlike the pathway that exists for alcohol and gambling.

The nuance that matters: paid advertising vs. organic content

The three platform quotes above are all specifically about paid advertising — content run through the platform's own ad system (Ads Manager, TikTok Ads, Google Ads) or, at Meta, tagged through the branded content tool. That isn't the same as all content on the platform.

Danish law reaches further. Forbrugerombudsmanden's own wording in the Philip Morris case — that the ban covers "any action with a commercial purpose that promotes the sale of tobacco products" — isn't limited to content run as a paid ad through a platform's own system. In practice, that means an influencer's organic post about a vape — no ad budget, no branded content tag, nothing a platform's own ad system would ever see — can still be a fully illegal tobacco advertisement under Danish law, if the post was made in exchange for a benefit (payment, a free product, an affiliate commission) and therefore carries a commercial purpose. A platform's failure to enforce against such a post isn't the same thing as it being lawful.

Comparison: tobacco is regulated more strictly than alcohol or gambling

Tobacco sits alongside alcohol and gambling in a cluster of age-restricted product categories an influencer might encounter — but the three aren't regulated with equal strictness:

See can a Danish influencer advertise alcohol? and Denmark's gambling advertising reform for the other two categories' rules in depth — each has its own dedicated article, because the three are regulated by three different authorities and should be assessed separately.

Decision framework: assessing a tobacco or vape inquiry

IF an influencer or brand approaches you about a collaboration involving cigarettes, e-cigarettes, vapes or heated tobacco → decline it. Danish law offers essentially no lawful route to paid or organic advertising for the product, however carefully the content is worded.

IF you're considering whether a "product review" or "personal experience" post about a vape can avoid counting as advertising → remember that what matters under Danish law is whether there's a commercial purpose (a benefit received), not whether the word "advertising" is used. A free product or an affiliate code makes the content commercial.

IF the product is nicotine pouches → from 1 April 2026, check whether the flavour variant (only tobacco/menthol permitted) and nicotine content (max. 9.0mg) is even lawful to sell in Denmark before any marketing question becomes relevant.

IF you're unsure whether a product actually falls under the Tobacco Advertising Act's definition (for example a borderline product like a nicotine inhaler with no tobacco) → get the classification confirmed before the campaign is planned — the Philip Morris case shows that even a professional legal assessment can misjudge exactly when a new product comes within the law's scope.

Make Influence's operational perspective

In our experience, the most common misunderstanding in this category isn't a brand deliberately trying to work around the rules — it's the assumption that because a platform's own ad system won't catch an organic post, the post is therefore lawful. That's wrong, and it's the central point of this article: Danish law's concept of advertising is broader than the platforms' own concept of an ad, and a post can sail straight through a platform's automated review and still be a violation of the Tobacco Advertising Act if a benefit was received. Our clear recommendation is that tobacco, e-cigarettes, vapes and heated tobacco don't belong in a brief as a possible category at all — not even as an "organic, unpaid" option.

FAQ

Can a Danish influencer even mention that they smoke or vape themselves without it being advertising?

Yes — a purely personal mention with no benefit received and no commercial purpose isn't itself covered by the advertising ban. What triggers the ban is the commercial purpose: a payment, a free product, an affiliate code or another benefit received from the business behind the product.

Does the ban also apply to foreign tobacco brands not sold in Denmark?

This article didn't find a direct answer to that specific question. The Tobacco Advertising Act's ban is aimed at advertising for tobacco products as such, not at a particular market — the cautious assumption is that advertising aimed at a Danish audience is covered regardless of where the product is sold, but get a specific legal assessment if the question is a live one.

Are nicotine-free e-cigarettes covered too?

Under Google's and Meta's own ad policies: yes — both platforms explicitly ban products that simulate smoking, regardless of whether they contain nicotine. Under Danish law, it depends on the product's specific classification under the Act on Electronic Cigarettes, etc. — get the classification confirmed if the product contains no nicotine.

Can an influencer be personally prosecuted, or only the company?

The Philip Morris case was brought against the company behind the advertising, not an individual. The Tobacco Advertising Act allows for corporate criminal liability for companies and other legal entities under Chapter 5 of the Penal Code — but the law doesn't itself rule out that a person who independently runs a business (as an influencer typically does) could also be held liable for their own marketing, in the same way that's already been established for ad-disclosure marking in Ostre Landsret's ruling on missing ad disclosure.

What was the difference between the two outcomes in the Philip Morris case?

The company was acquitted for advertising before 1 April 2021, because heated tobacco (IQOS) wasn't yet covered by the law's definition at that point. Once the amendment took effect, the same marketing activity fell within the ban, and the company was convicted for the period after that — plus a separate, unrelated count involving a sale to a minor.

Does this article also cover selling tobacco and e-cigarettes, not just advertising?

No. This article is specifically about the advertising ban. Minimum sales age, in-store display bans, and the technical requirements for nicotine pouches and e-cigarettes (flavour, strength, packaging) are separate rulebooks, partly mentioned here but not covered in full depth.

Is there an equivalent article on alcohol and gambling?

Yes. See alcohol advertising rules for Danish influencers and Denmark's gambling advertising reform — each of the three categories has its own regulator and rulebook, and should be assessed separately rather than as one combined "age-restricted products" check.

Does the broader Section 11 framework on children and young people also apply to tobacco?

Yes, on top of the near-total advertising ban covered here. Content aimed at children and young people under 18 is subject to a separate, broader framework that among other things covers "other products unsuitable for minors" — see marketing to children and teenagers through influencers for the full Section 11 framework.

Sources and further reading

This article is built on Consolidated Act No. 586 of 26 March 2021 on the Prohibition of Tobacco Advertising and Order No. 570 of 11 February 2021 (both retsinformation.dk), Forbrugerombudsmanden's own guidance on tobacco products and nicotine products plus its press release and case summary on the Philip Morris case (26 June 2025), Act No. 1633 of 18 June 2021 on Electronic Cigarettes, etc., and Meta's, TikTok's and Google's own ad policies for tobacco and related products. The information on nicotine pouches' flavour ban and nicotine cap from 1 April 2026 is based on converging trade sources that themselves cite Erhvervsstyrelsen's (sik.dk) own announcements — the authority's own page couldn't be accessed directly during research. See influencer marketing in regulated industries for the equivalent rules in alcohol, finance and pharma, and influencer marketing disclosure rules for the general ad-disclosure duty that applies on top of every industry-specific rule.