Could a Danish Gruppesøgsmål Target a Brand Over Influencer-Disclosure Failures the Way US Class Actions Do?

Short answer: Yes, in theory — but no case has been brought yet, and the route is far narrower than in the US

Yes, a Danish gruppesøgsmål (group action) could in theory target a brand over influencer-disclosure failures — but this research found no case actually brought on that basis. Denmark has two separate, coexisting tracks: the general group-litigation framework in retsplejeloven kapitel 23a (in force since 2008), and a dedicated 2023 Act implementing the EU's Representative Actions Directive (2020/1828), which reserves standing to bring this type of consumer action to a short list of approved bodies — a structurally much narrower route than the US class-action model, where any consumer's own attorney can bring a proposed class action.

Two Danish tracks — not one

It's a common misconception that Denmark has a single group-litigation system equivalent to the US class action. There are actually two, with different rules for who may even bring the case:

See the 2026 US influencer-disclosure class actions for the full walkthrough of the US model this article compares against.

Who can actually bring a group action in Denmark?

The general track: retsplejeloven § 254c

Under the original 2008 group-litigation system, the court appoints a group representative from three categories: a member of the group itself (i.e. an affected consumer), an association, private institution or similar organization, provided the case falls within its stated purpose, or a public authority specifically authorized by law. An individual consumer who actually bought the product in the alleged advertisement can therefore, in principle, be appointed group representative — but neither a random third party nor a law firm alone qualifies, unless it meets the definition of a "private institution" whose stated purpose covers group litigation, which the statute doesn't explicitly settle.

The 2023 Act: approved bodies only

Act no. 406 of 25 April 2023 implements the EU's Directive on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers (2020/1828) and creates a dedicated action type specifically for consumer protection — with injunctions and redress as the possible outcomes. Here, standing is reserved to "approved bodies": authorities and organizations approved by Konkurrence- og Forbrugerstyrelsen (KFST, the Danish Competition and Consumer Authority) under the criteria in Bekendtgørelse nr. 769 af 12. juni 2023 (documentation of independence, purpose, funding and structure). Per KFST's own published list, the approved bodies at the time of writing are Forbrugerombudsmanden and Lægemiddelstyrelsen (authorities) plus Forbrugerrådet Tænk (organization) — a short list that can change, and should be checked directly with KFST before being treated as a fixed fact in any specific case.

Has a group action ever actually been brought over influencer-disclosure failures in Denmark?

No — neither under the general kapitel 23a track nor under the 2023 Act did this research find a case brought specifically over influencer-disclosure failures. The Danish enforcement the Academy has been able to document has gone an entirely different route: Forbrugerombudsmanden's own principled ruling (8 October 2024) and Østre Landsret's fine against a named influencer (21 February 2025, DKK 30,000) — both individual/administrative tracks, not a group action. See has Denmark actually fined an influencer? for the full timeline of documented Danish enforcement.

This is Make Influence's own reasoned assessment, not a confirmed fact: two structural factors likely make a group action less likely here than in the US. First, the individual consumer loss from a missing disclosure is typically diffuse and hard to price (unlike, say, a defective product), making it harder to meet the "uniform claims" requirement in § 254a. Second, the 2023 Act's track requires one of only three approved bodies to choose to prioritize influencer-disclosure specifically over other consumer matters. Neither point guarantees it will never happen — they only explain why it hasn't been seen yet.

Why the Danish model makes a group action less likely than in the US

The key structural difference is who can pull the trigger. In the US, any consumer's plaintiff's law firm can file a proposed class action without prior approval from any authority — that's exactly the mechanism behind the Gymshark, Alo Yoga and Revolve cases. In Denmark, the 2023 Act's track requires one of the three approved bodies to itself decide to proceed, and the general kapitel 23a track requires either a concrete, identifiable group member as claimant or an association whose stated purpose fits the case. That's a materially higher organizational bar than "any consumer with a lawyer."

An illustrative (hypothetical) example

Hypothetical example, not a real case: Imagine 5,000 Danish consumers each bought a DKK 300 product after seeing an influencer post with no disclosure. The combined alleged loss is DKK 1,500,000, but the individual consumer's loss is only DKK 300 — too small for any one consumer to realistically sue on their own, but exactly the kind of spread, uniform loss group-litigation rules are designed to aggregate. Whether that could actually become a group action depends on whether Forbrugerombudsmanden, Lægemiddelstyrelsen or Forbrugerrådet Tænk judged the case principled enough to prioritize — not on whether the 5,000 consumers themselves wanted it to happen.

Decision framework: what does this mean for a brand?

IF your brand markets exclusively to Danish consumers → the most likely enforcement risk remains Forbrugerombudsmanden's own direct track (criticism, an order, rarely a police referral) — not a group action. See influencer marketing disclosure rules in Denmark and the EU for the underlying rules.

IF your brand also sells to US consumers → the far more active risk right now is the US class-action mechanism, where standing requires no prior approval from anyone. See the 2026 US influencer-disclosure class actions.

IF you want to reduce risk under both systems at once → a specific, written disclosure requirement in every influencer contract, actually followed up on, is the same insurance regardless of which country's rules end up applying — see what to put in an influencer contract.

IF you run large, recurring campaigns and want an actual figure on your exposure → a legal review, possibly paired with influencer marketing liability insurance, is the natural next step.

Make Influence's perspective

We don't offer legal advice, and this article isn't an assessment of any specific case. What we can say with reasonable confidence based on the publicly available legislation: Denmark's group-litigation systems are real and have existed since 2008 (kapitel 23a) and 2023 (the dedicated consumer act) — but neither, as far as this research can document, has ever been used over influencer-disclosure failures. That makes the honest conclusion that the risk today is theoretical rather than active, while the US model has already proven itself a real, active risk channel for any brand with US customers. In our view, that's a good reason to prioritize the contract's disclosure requirement more heavily for US-facing campaigns than for purely Danish ones — not because Danish law doesn't matter, but because the route to a group action over it is structurally far narrower here.

FAQ

What's the difference between retsplejeloven kapitel 23a and the 2023 Act?

Kapitel 23a (since 2008) is Denmark's general group-litigation system and covers all types of "uniform claims," not just consumer matters. The 2023 Act is a dedicated consumer law implementing an EU directive (2020/1828) that reserves standing to a short list of approved bodies, with injunctions and redress as the possible outcomes.

Can a single consumer bring a group action against a brand over a missing disclosure?

Under the general kapitel 23a track, a group member — a consumer who is themselves affected — can in principle be appointed group representative by the court. Under the 2023 Act's track, they cannot; an approved body is required.

Who are Denmark's currently approved bodies?

Per KFST's own published list, at the time of writing: Forbrugerombudsmanden and Lægemiddelstyrelsen as authorities, plus Forbrugerrådet Tænk as an organization. The list can change and should be checked directly with KFST.

Has any case actually been brought over influencer-disclosure failures via a Danish group action?

Not that this research could find, under either kapitel 23a or the 2023 Act. Documented Danish enforcement has so far gone through Forbrugerombudsmanden's direct track and the courts, not through group litigation.

Can Forbrugerombudsmanden itself bring a group action?

Yes, in two contexts: as a public authority authorized by law under the general kapitel 23a track (typically for many small, dispersed claims, using an opt-out model), and as one of the approved bodies under the 2023 Act.

Is this legal advice?

No. This article summarizes publicly available legislation and its sources for informational purposes — not a legal assessment of any specific case. Consult a lawyer for advice on your own situation.