Can an Influencer Legally Promote Weight-Loss Drugs Like Ozempic or Wegovy in Denmark?

Short answer

No — Danish law bans advertising prescription medicine to the public, and both Ozempic and Wegovy are prescription-only. On top of that general ban, the Danish executive order on advertising for medicines (reklamebekendtgørelsen), § 10, stk. 1, nr. 7, specifically prohibits using a person who "enjoys special esteem" in a medicine advertisement aimed at the public — and the Danish Medicines Agency's own guidance to that rule explicitly names influencers and bloggers as an example of that category. The line runs on purpose: recommending or praising the drug itself is advertising and illegal, while a person's own, neutral account of taking it is a genuine grey area, assessed case by case on content and intent.

What exactly does the law ban?

The starting point is simple: advertising prescription medicine to the public is completely banned in Denmark, regardless of channel. That covers print, TV, and — per the Danish Medicines Agency's (Lægemiddelstyrelsen) own guidance to the advertising executive order — the internet is treated on the same footing as any other medium in that assessment. An influencer post about a prescription medicine is therefore exactly as prohibited as a printed advertisement would be. This sits on top of, not instead of, the ordinary ad-disclosure rules that apply to any paid collaboration — a compliant disclosure label doesn't make an otherwise-banned medicine advertisement legal.

On top of that general ban sits a more specific rule aimed directly at the use of well-known faces: the executive order's § 10, stk. 1, nr. 7 bans using a person who enjoys "special esteem" ("særlig anseelse") in a medicine advertisement directed at the public. Per the Danish Medicines Agency's guidance to that provision, "esteem" covers both a person whose standing comes from their education or profession, and a person whose standing rests purely on personal traits or fame with no connection to health or medicine at all. The guidance gives its own examples: "That can be either publicly known persons, e.g. actors, influencers, bloggers, athletes and TV hosts, or anonymous persons in a particularly prestigious or authority-conferring profession, e.g. police officers." Influencers aren't covered by extension or interpretation here — they're named explicitly in the guidance text itself.

The definition of "advertising" is broad in its own right. Under the executive order's § 1, stk. 1, "reklame" for human medicine means "any form of door-to-door canvassing, customer solicitation or attempt to influence opinion, aimed at promoting the prescribing, dispensing, sale or consumption of medicine for human use." The sender doesn't need an economic interest in the sale — the Danish Medicines Agency's own guidance states directly that a person or company who, through public statements, unambiguously tries to influence others to buy a specific medicine is making a medicine advertisement, even if that person acts entirely independently of the manufacturer.

This research could confirm the rule's content and the examples above directly in the pharmaceutical industry's own self-regulatory body ENLI's guide to digital media (November 2022), which quotes the Danish Medicines Agency's guidance verbatim. The underlying executive order has been reissued since — always check the current section numbering directly on retsinformation.dk before relying on it in a specific case.

The advertising definition reaches independent third parties too — the Damgaard case

The most important precedent in this area isn't an influencer case, but it shows exactly how far the advertising definition reaches. In the case concerning Frede Damgaard (C-421/07), the Court of Justice of the EU ruled on 2 April 2009 that a journalist's dissemination of information about a medicine on his own website could constitute advertising — even though Damgaard acted entirely on his own initiative, had received no payment from the manufacturer, and was legally and factually completely independent of the company selling the medicine. Damgaard had written that the medicine (which wasn't authorised for sale in Denmark) could relieve pain from arthritis and was sold in Sweden and Norway. Following the CJEU's ruling, the Danish Western High Court (Vestre Landsret) fined Damgaard 10,000 kr. for unlawful advertising.

Applied to an influencer context — and this is Make Influence's own extension of the precedent, not a ruling about influencers specifically — this means an influencer who, unpaid and on their own initiative, praises a prescription medicine like Ozempic or Wegovy to their followers can in principle fall under the same rules as if a pharmaceutical company had paid for the post directly. Lacking payment or a connection to the manufacturer isn't in itself an exemption.

Ozempic and Wegovy: two approvals, the same prescription status

Ozempic and Wegovy both contain the active substance semaglutide, but are approved for different uses: Ozempic is approved for treating type 2 diabetes, while Wegovy is approved specifically for weight loss in people with obesity. Both medicines are prescription-only in Denmark — neither has an over-the-counter version. That means the total ban on advertising prescription medicine to the public applies to both, regardless of which of the two products an influencer names or shows.

Personal experience vs. advertising — where's the line?

The most common misconception is assuming a first-person experience post ("I take Ozempic myself, and it's helped me") is automatically exempt from the advertising rules simply because it's "just" a personal story. It isn't necessarily. ENLI's own guide to digital media — written for pharmaceutical companies, but built on the same broad advertising definition that applies to any sender — states plainly that it's irrelevant whether the sender themselves, a family member or an acquaintance has benefited from a medicine: if the post has the character of advertising and its purpose is to recommend the medicine, it falls under the advertising definition regardless of the personal framing.

What follows is Make Influence's own, cautious reading of how the two research-confirmed principles (the broad advertising definition and the "special esteem" ban) likely apply in practice — not an official ruling about influencer posts on Ozempic or Wegovy specifically, which this research found none of:

• Points toward advertising: recommending the product, urging followers to "ask your doctor about it," linking to a clinic or supplier, showing the product repeatedly in a positive light, or receiving the product free or paid from a clinic or pharmaceutical company.
• Points away from advertising: a single, neutral mention of one's own medical treatment with no call to purchase — closer to the kind of health/illness information the Danish Medicines Agency generally exempts from the advertising definition when the purpose isn't promotional.
• Doesn't work: a disclaimer saying "this isn't a recommendation" or "ask your own doctor" doesn't, per ENLI's own guidance, change whether a post genuinely has the character of advertising — content and intent decide the case, not a disclaimer.

Two real Danish cases from 2024 and 2025

While this research found no published Danish Medicines Agency or ENLI ruling about an influencer and Ozempic or Wegovy specifically, there are two real, dated Danish cases about weight-loss clinics and influencer marketing of treatment programmes that contain exactly these medicines — and they show the space is under active scrutiny from both consumer-law experts and the authorities.

Note that both cases legally run on the rules governing marketing of health services (the treatment programme, not the medicine itself) — a different legal route from the executive order's § 10 ban on "special esteem" in the medicine advertisement itself, described in this article's opening section. The two rulebooks reinforce each other: a clinic can breach the health-service marketing rules even if it never names the medicine — and the underlying medicine remains completely off-limits to advertise directly if it is named to the public.

Decision framework

IF the campaign names Ozempic or Wegovy and recommends the product to the public → banned, regardless of whether the influencer is paid, and regardless of how carefully it's worded.

IF the campaign promotes a clinic or treatment programme that involves the medicine without naming it → still high risk, per both cases above — get a specific legal review before the campaign goes live.

IF an influencer, unprompted and unpaid, wants to share a personal experience → lower risk, but not zero — avoid purchase-encouraging language, tags to the clinic or manufacturer, and repeated positive mentions.

IF the influencer is a healthcare professional (e.g. a doctor or nurse) → the general distinction between advertising to the public and professional communication to healthcare professionals still applies; a public, follower-facing recommendation isn't automatically exempt just because the sender has a medical background.

Make Influence's operational perspective

Our clear recommendation is that a paid influencer campaign should never be built around a named prescription medicine like Ozempic or Wegovy for a Danish public audience — the rule is a total ban, not a question of wording. It's the same underlying pattern this Academy documents for other regulated verticals — see finfluencers in Denmark for how a similarly innocent-looking personal recommendation can cross into a regulated-conduct breach in a completely different industry. If a brand partner is a clinic or treatment provider rather than the pharmaceutical company itself, we recommend treating that campaign exactly as strictly: the 2024 and 2025 cases show that "we didn't name the medicine" isn't a defence, legally or reputationally. See also the brand safety checklist for influencer partnerships for where this kind of risk belongs in an ordinary approval process.

FAQ

Can an influencer mention taking Wegovy or Ozempic at all?

It depends on the purpose and form. A single, neutral mention with no call to purchase sits closer to lawful health information, while a recommendation, repeated positive mentions or an "ask your doctor" prompt pull the post toward the advertising definition — regardless of whether the influencer is paid.

Does it matter whether the influencer is paid for the post?

Not decisively. As the Damgaard case shows, a post can constitute advertising even when the sender is neither paid by nor connected to the manufacturer. Payment makes the case clearer, but it isn't a precondition for the rules to apply.

Do the rules apply to Instagram Stories and TikTok too, not just formal "ads"?

Yes. Per the Danish Medicines Agency's own guidance, the internet — including social media — is treated on the same footing as other media in this assessment. The format (a Story, a video, a post) doesn't change whether the content is genuinely advertising.

What's the penalty for breaking these rules?

Under the Danish Medicines Act's rules on unlawful advertising of prescription medicine to the public, the penalty range is a fine or up to 4 months' imprisonment, per ENLI's own guide to the advertising code. In the Damgaard case, it historically ended with a 10,000 kr. fine.

Are weight-loss dietary supplements covered by the same rules?

No — a dietary supplement is legally a food product, not a medicine, and is governed by a completely separate rulebook under the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration. See dietary supplements and influencer marketing: what Danish food-advertising law requires for that full regime.

Can a healthcare professional who is also an influencer recommend the medicine publicly?

No, not to the public. The distinction in the rules turns on whether the message is aimed at the public or specifically at other healthcare professionals in a closed forum — not on whether the sender themselves has a medical qualification. A public recommendation to followers generally is covered by the ban, regardless of the sender's background.

How does this article differ from the general regulated-industries article?

The general article covers the overarching ban on advertising prescription medicine to the public across all medicines. This article goes one level deeper on the influencer-specific angle: the ban on using a person of "special esteem" — where influencers are named explicitly in the guidance itself — plus two real, dated 2024-2025 cases about weight-loss clinics and influencer marketing. See influencer marketing in regulated industries: alcohol, finance and pharma in Denmark for the broad overview.

Can a pharmaceutical company not use influencer marketing in Denmark at all?

Only for over-the-counter (OTC) medicine, and only with content that meets the same balance and product-information requirements as any other advertisement for the medicine. Ozempic and Wegovy are both prescription-only, so that option isn't relevant for them.