Fixed-Fee Deals With a Foreign Creator: Who Bears the Exchange-Rate Risk?

What is exchange-rate risk in a fixed-fee deal?

A fixed-fee deal with a foreign creator typically sets an amount in one currency — say USD or EUR — at the moment the contract is signed. Payment happens later: after delivery, approval and an invoice deadline that's often weeks or months after signing. In that gap, the exchange rate can move. If the contract doesn't say which rate applies, or when it's locked, it isn't automatically clear who gets the benefit or the cost of that movement — and most parties only discover it when the accounting or the payout doesn't match what was planned at signing. This is a different question from the transfer method and its fees — this isn't about what the transaction costs in fees, it's about which rate the amount itself is calculated against.

Three ways to allocate the risk

There's no single standard solution in practice — but three clause types cover most deals, depending on how long the gap is between signing and payment, and how much predictability each side needs to budget around.

Why it matters more for retainers and longer deals

For a one-off campaign paid within a couple of weeks, the typical rate movement is often small enough that the choice of mechanism doesn't make much difference. For a retainer or ambassador relationship paid monthly over a full year, the same uncertainty compounds twelve times over — a rate that looked reasonable when the contract was signed in January can be significantly stale by the December payment. That's where a band or a standing renegotiation clause tends to make more sense than locking the entire relationship to a single rate from day one.

Is a currency-risk clause even valid under Danish law?

Yes. Danish contract law is built on freedom of contract — parties can, as a starting point, freely agree who bears a given risk, including exchange-rate risk, and how it's calculated. The one general limit is aftaleloven § 36, which can set aside an agreed term if enforcing it would be unreasonable or contrary to fair dealing — the same provision already used elsewhere on the Academy to assess other one-sided contract terms in influencer deals. A clearly worded, mutually negotiated currency clause doesn't typically raise that issue; a clause that unilaterally puts all the risk on one side with nothing in return could in theory face closer scrutiny, but that's the exception, not the rule.

How to write the clause

• IF payment happens within a couple of weeks of signing → a rate fixed at signing is usually simple enough and creates no real uncertainty for either side.
• IF there's a long gap (several months) between signing and actual delivery/invoicing → consider fixing the rate at the invoice date instead, so the amount isn't built on a stale rate.
• IF the deal is a retainer or runs over a full year → a band with a clear percentage tolerance and an agreed split rule for movement beyond it typically protects both sides better than a single fixed rate.
• IF the contract doesn't mention currency risk at all → don't assume it's implied — write it in explicitly before signing, the same way the contract should fix its other core terms.
• IF the amount is small and the collaboration is one-off → the administrative overhead of a detailed clause often outweighs the actual risk; a simple fixed-at-signing line is usually enough.

Worked example (hypothetical)

The figures and rates below are invented purely for this example. They are not a documented or expected currency movement, and this is not a real Make Influence customer case.

A Danish brand signs a fixed fee of USD 3,000 with a creator, paid in USD. The contract is signed on 1 March at an assumed rate of 6.85 DKK/USD. The invoice is issued on 1 May, two months later. Here's what the three mechanisms mean for the brand's DKK cost under two opposite, invented scenarios:

Notice that the creator's contracted amount stays exactly USD 3,000 across all three rows — the mechanism only decides what those same 3,000 USD cost the brand in DKK. There's also a second, uncontracted risk: if the creator then has to convert the USD they received into their own home currency (say EUR), that conversion happens at whatever time and rate suits them, something the brand's contract normally has no influence over at all — a risk the creator carries alone, regardless of what the brand's contract says.

Common mistakes

• Assuming "fixed fee" automatically means "fixed rate". A fixed amount in one currency says nothing about which rate converts it, unless the contract itself specifies it.
• Waiting until the invoice is already issued to decide. By then, one side's exposure has already materialised — the clause needs to be in the contract before signing.
• Confusing exchange-rate risk with transfer fees. See how to pay international influencers for the actual transfer cost — that's a separate question from which rate the amount itself is calculated against.
• Applying the same clause to a performance-based deal. A fixed exchange-rate point only makes sense for an amount known in advance — see upfront vs commission for why a commission-based deal doesn't raise the same question in the same way, since the amount only exists once the sale happens.

Make Influence's operational perspective

In Make Influence's experience, exchange-rate risk rarely comes up in the initial negotiation with a foreign creator — both sides naturally focus on the fee itself and the deliverables, and the clause only becomes a problem once the numbers don't match. Our recommendation is to treat it as a short, standing line in the default contract from the outset — not because the movement is typically large for a one-off campaign, but because writing one sentence down in advance is cheaper than renegotiating an amount after both sides already have an expectation.

FAQ

Is a currency-risk clause legal under Danish law?

Yes — Danish contract law is built on freedom of contract, and the parties can freely agree who bears exchange-rate risk. The one limit is aftaleloven § 36, which can set aside a clearly unreasonable term.

What if the contract doesn't mention currency risk at all?

Then it's unclear, and it shouldn't be left to assumption — write it in explicitly as part of the other core terms the contract should fix.

Does the same apply to performance-based or commission deals?

Not in the same way — see upfront vs commission. A commission amount only exists once the sale itself happens, so there's no fixed amount to lock a rate against in advance.

How does this relate to the payment method itself (Wise, PayPal, bank transfer)?

That's a separate question — the payment method determines the fee and how transparent the rate is inside the transaction itself, see how to pay international influencers. This article covers which rate the amount is calculated against, regardless of which method you use to send it.

Should we always use a currency-hedging clause?

No. For a small, one-off payment, the administrative overhead is rarely worth it — a band mechanism makes most sense for retainers and longer relationships, where the same uncertainty repeats month after month.

Does this have anything to do with withholding tax?

No, it's a separate question. Exchange-rate risk is about the size of the amount itself in DKK; withholding tax is about whether part of the amount needs to be withheld and reported to the tax authorities. See withholding tax (kildeskat) on payments to foreign influencers for that rule.