Governing Law and Dispute Resolution Clauses in Influencer Contracts: Mediation, Arbitration or Danish Courts?

An influencer contract without a governing-law and dispute-resolution clause isn't a contract with no rules — it's a contract that hands the rules over to the legal system's default answer. That default answer is rarely the one a Danish brand would have picked if actually asked: it often points to the creator's home country, not your own, and it gives you neither confidentiality, speed, nor a judgment that automatically enforces abroad. An explicit clause replaces that guesswork with a deliberate choice.

This is practical guidance from Make Influence, not legal advice. Use it as a framework for what the clause needs to address — have the actual wording reviewed by a lawyer, particularly once a collaboration crosses borders or involves a significant amount.

Three separate questions, not one

What to put in an influencer contract lists "governing law and confidentiality" as a single checklist line. In practice, that line covers three independent questions, each of which can be answered differently:

• Governing law — which country's substantive law is used to interpret the contract if the parties disagree about what a term means?
• Jurisdiction/venue — which country's courts (or which institution) actually has the authority to hear the case?
• Dispute-resolution form — should a disagreement go to an ordinary court, to arbitration, or be attempted through mediation first?

All three can point to different places, even within the same contract. A clause that only says "Danish law applies" has settled the first question — not where the case must be filed, or whether it goes to a court at all.

What happens if the contract is silent?

Governing law by default: the Rome Convention, not the Rome I Regulation

Most EU countries today use the Rome I Regulation (593/2008) to decide which country's law applies when the parties haven't agreed. Denmark is not covered by the Rome I Regulation — the country's opt-out from EU justice-and-home-affairs cooperation means Denmark instead still applies the older 1980 Rome Convention, implemented into Danish law by Act No. 188 of 9 May 1984. A December 2015 referendum on converting that opt-out into an opt-in was rejected, so this difference persists.

The Rome Convention's starting point resembles Rome I's, but it's a presumption rather than a fixed category: absent an agreed choice of law, the contract is governed by the law of the country it's most closely connected to — and that connection is presumed to lie with the party performing the contract's "characteristic obligation." For an influencer contract, the characteristic obligation is the content production — the creator's performance, not the brand's payment. In practice, that means: without a governing-law clause, a Danish brand's agreement with a German influencer will, by default, be assessed under German law, not Danish — the opposite of what most Danish brands would intuitively assume.

Jurisdiction by default: the retsplejeloven's home-court rule

Section 235 of the retsplejeloven (Danish Administration of Justice Act) sets the main rule: a case is filed at the defendant's home court — the court district where the defendant resides, or, for a company under § 238, where its head office is located. If a Danish influencer sues a foreign brand, it's the brand's own country, as a starting point, where the case has to be brought — not Denmark.

Within the EU, the picture is more nuanced, because Denmark — unlike its opt-out on governing law — has chosen to participate in the EU's rules on jurisdiction and the recognition of judgments. Through a 2005 parallel agreement between the EU and Denmark, the Brussels I rules (and the later "recast" version) effectively apply to Denmark too. That means a judgment from a Danish court is, by default, recognised and directly enforceable in another EU country without a separate enforcement procedure. Outside the EU — against a US or, post-Brexit, a UK-based creator, for instance — no equivalent automatic mechanism exists: a Danish judgment must generally be independently recognised under the receiving country's own rules, which is far from guaranteed.

Court, arbitration or mediation — compared

Why arbitration is often chosen in cross-border agreements

Arbitration in Denmark is governed by the Danish Arbitration Act (voldgiftsloven, Act No. 553 of 24 June 2005), which is based on the UN's UNCITRAL Model Law and so follows an internationally recognised standard. Denmark acceded to the New York Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in 1972, and per the convention's own sources, Danish courts are not reluctant to enforce an arbitral award from another contracting state, unless the award conflicts with fundamental Danish public policy (ordre public).

The practical case for arbitration is rarely that arbitration is generally "better" than the courts — for a purely Danish agreement between a Danish brand and a Danish influencer, the ordinary courts are often the simplest and cheapest choice. The case for arbitration strengthens specifically when at least one of three factors applies: the collaboration crosses a border (especially into a country outside the EU, where enforcing a Danish judgment is uncertain), the parties want confidentiality about the dispute's existence or content (for instance, around the size of a fee), or the matter needs a decision that can't be dragged through multiple further court instances on appeal.

The Danish Institute of Arbitration (Voldgiftsinstituttet) — Denmark's established arbitration institution — offers simplified and express arbitration alongside its regular procedure for smaller or more urgent cases, plus its own mediation rules for parties who want to attempt a settlement first. Per the Institute's own published rates (checked 2026-08-25), a fixed registration and administration fee of DKK 9,700 (EUR 1,300) applies regardless of the case's value, plus an arbitrator's fee that depends on the case's complexity: DKK 10,000–15,000 for a single arbitrator, and DKK 30,000–35,000 for a three-member tribunal.

What the clause should actually specify

• Governing law — name the country directly ("This agreement is governed by Danish law"), not just "applicable law."
• Dispute-resolution form — court, arbitration, or a staged model where mediation is attempted first and arbitration or court follows if it fails.
• Institution and seat — for arbitration: name the specific institution (e.g. the Danish Institute of Arbitration), the number of arbitrators, and the seat of arbitration (which determines whose procedural law supports the arbitration).
• Venue — for court proceedings: name the specific city/court, not just "Danish courts."
• Language — which language the proceedings are conducted in, particularly relevant against a foreign counterparty.

Decision framework

• IF both parties are Danish and the collaboration doesn't involve a significant amount THEN a simple Danish-law-and-Danish-courts clause is normally enough — arbitration's extra fixed fee rarely pays off for a small, purely domestic case.
• IF the creator or brand is based outside the EU THEN an arbitration clause referencing the New York Convention is typically the more robust choice, since enforcing a Danish judgment there is otherwise uncertain.
• IF the fee or commission structure is commercially sensitive THEN arbitration's closed hearings weigh more heavily than the courts' openness.
• IF the likely disagreement is a single, narrow issue (e.g. late payment) rather than a matter of principle THEN a mediation clause as a first step is often the cheapest route to a resolution.

Worked example: what a dispute costs (partly hypothetical)

The court-fee and Danish Institute of Arbitration rates below are real, published figures (Danmarks Domstole and the Institute's own rates, checked 2026-08-25) — only the size of the dispute in the example itself is invented to illustrate the point.

Assume a disagreement over an unpaid fee of DKK 150,000. At a Danish court, filing the case costs a court fee of DKK 1,500, since the amount exceeds DKK 100,000 — on top of that comes a further hearing fee (berammelsesafgift) for the main hearing itself, which scales with the case's value (see the exact rate at domstol.dk), plus your own legal costs, which typically far exceed the court fee itself. At the Danish Institute of Arbitration with a single arbitrator, the fixed registration/administration fee of DKK 9,700 applies plus an arbitrator's fee in the DKK 10,000–15,000 range — roughly DKK 19,700–24,700 in total institutional fees, with no equivalent hearing fee. The point isn't that arbitration is always cheaper — legal costs, often the largest line item on either track, aren't counted here — but that arbitration's fixed institutional fees are known and predictable upfront, where the courts' full cost depends on how the case unfolds.

Make Influence's perspective

In our experience, the governing-law and dispute-resolution clause is the one brands most often copy in from an old template without reconsidering whether it still fits — particularly once an agreement that started as a purely Danish collaboration later expands to include international creators. A clause written for one Danish influencer doesn't necessarily suit a subsequent collaboration with a creator in a country outside the EU, where enforcing a Danish judgment is a materially different risk. Our recommendation is to revisit the clause every time a collaboration crosses a new border, rather than assuming the template's old wording still covers the new situation.

FAQ

Is a governing-law and jurisdiction clause a legal requirement in an influencer contract?

No, but without one, the law's default rules apply instead — as described above, often to the disadvantage of whichever party assumed their own home country's rules automatically governed.

Can we just write "Danish law and Danish courts apply" and leave it at that?

That settles governing law and jurisdiction, but not whether court is the right dispute-resolution form at all. For a purely Danish collaboration, it's often fully sufficient; for an international collaboration, you should consider arbitration as described above.

Is an arbitral award just as binding as a court judgment?

Yes — under the Danish Arbitration Act, an arbitral award is final and generally cannot be appealed to the ordinary courts, unlike a district court judgment, which can be appealed to the High Court.

What's the difference between arbitration and mediation?

Arbitration functions like a private court — an arbitrator issues a binding award. Mediation is a facilitated negotiation with no binding outcome by itself; the parties have to reach agreement themselves, and that agreement then has to be formalised separately to become binding.

Does a small, one-off collaboration agreement need this clause too?

It costs nothing to address it, even in a short agreement — but for a one-off collaboration with a low fee and no international elements, a simple Danish-law-and-Danish-courts clause is normally more than enough; see what to put in an influencer contract for when a lighter agreement form is generally sufficient.

Does the same apply if the brand goes bankrupt, or the creator can't pay?

No, that's a different question. A governing-law and jurisdiction clause decides where, and under which country's rules, a disagreement gets resolved — not what happens if the other party genuinely doesn't have the funds to pay. See what happens to an influencer contract when the brand goes bankrupt for that situation.

What if we hire an international creator as staff instead of freelance?

Then it's no longer a purely contractual governing-law question — the employment law of the creator's own country will typically apply on a mandatory basis regardless of what the contract says. See Employer of Record vs. direct contract for the difference between the two situations.

Where do we find the exact rates for an arbitration case?

The Danish Institute of Arbitration has a public cost calculator on its own website where you can enter the case's value and get a concrete estimate — use that rather than this article's general ranges for an actual case.