Has Denmark Actually Fined an Influencer? Every Enforcement Case, Timelined

Short answer: Yes, but only once directly against a named influencer

Yes — but only once directly against a named influencer that the Academy has been able to document: Denmark's Østre Landsret (Eastern High Court) fined an influencer DKK 30,000 on 21 February 2025 for 23 undisclosed advertising posts. Forbrugerombudsmanden (the Consumer Ombudsman) also ruled on 8 October 2024 that simply mentioning a brand can count as advertising, even with no agreement in place — a principled ruling, not itself a fine. Beyond those two, the Academy has documented four related decisions, scattered across other articles, that aren't influencer-specific but establish principles that hit influencer marketing just as directly: three GDPR decisions from Datatilsynet (the Danish Data Protection Agency) and one DKK 600,000 fine for misleading subscription marketing. This article gathers all six into a single, sourced timeline.

How this timeline was built

None of the facts below are new research. Each case has already been researched, sourced and published in its own Academy article — this article reproduces them exactly as already verified there, and gathers them chronologically in one place, so the question "has Denmark actually fined influencers?" can be answered in a single article instead of requiring six separate ones. Follow the link under each case for the full legal walkthrough.

The timeline: six documented cases, 2020–2025

Direct influencer cases vs. related precedent — a distinction worth keeping straight

It matters to keep these two categories separate, because they're used differently:

• Two cases are directly about influencer marketing: the Østre Landsret ruling (21 February 2025) is the only case in this timeline where a named influencer was actually fined. Forbrugerombudsmanden's ruling (8 October 2024) is influencer-specific and principled, but establishes an interpretation rather than imposing a fine itself.
• Four cases are related precedent, not influencer cases: DMR A/S, Hadsund Apotek and SmartResponse all involve former employees or competition entrants — not influencers. The Arca ApS case involves a fitness chain, not an influencer partner. The Academy cites them because the legal logic in each decision reaches influencer marketing just as directly, as explained below — not because they involve an influencer.

Why the four related cases matter for influencer marketing anyway

Each of the four non-influencer-specific cases establishes a principle another Academy article has already connected directly to an influencer-relevant situation:

• DMR A/S and Hadsund Apotek show how Datatilsynet actually weighs a request to delete an image used in marketing when the legal basis was (or should have been) consent. The same logic decides whether a former brand ambassador can force deletion of their own images — see GDPR's right to erasure and a former brand ambassador's likeness for the full analysis.
• SmartResponse shows that a combined competition-entry-plus-marketing-consent action can be valid if the disclosure is clear — but that retaining opted-out contacts is the real risk. The same principle applies directly when an influencer-run giveaway or lead magnet is used to build a first-party data list — see building a first-party data list through influencer-run giveaways and lead magnets.
• Arca ApS shows how seriously the courts take a missing disclosure of binding terms in marketing for trial offers and subscriptions. The exact same risk arises when an influencer writes "cancel anytime" or "no binding" about a subscription product — see the EU's one-click cancellation rule and what it means when an influencer promotes a subscription.

What the two direct influencer cases actually show

Forbrugerombudsmanden's 8 October 2024 ruling (cases 24/05922 and 24/06344) is the most frequently cited decision across the whole Academy, because it establishes a principle that recurs in almost every article about Danish disclosure law: there is no requirement for an actual agreement to exist before something counts as advertising. As soon as an influencer has received a benefit — payment, free products, an event invitation, a borrowed item — the disclosure duty is triggered, regardless of whether anything was put in writing. See the full context in what does the Danish influencer marketing market look like? and influencer marketing disclosure rules in Denmark and the EU.

Østre Landsret's 21 February 2025 ruling is the concrete consequence of ignoring that principle: a DKK 30,000 fine (reduced from Retten i Glostrup's original DKK 50,000) for 23 posts that carried only a company tag — not a clear ad marking. The court's own press release is worth quoting directly: "influencers who run a business must comply with the Marketing Practices Act on equal footing with any other business."

What this timeline is not

This article is a consolidation of cases the Academy has already documented elsewhere — not an exhaustive record of every Danish enforcement action touching influencer marketing. There are, without question, further decisions — Alkoholreklamenævnet's and Spillemyndigheden's own rulings, for instance (see alcohol advertising rules for Danish influencers) — that this article's table doesn't reproduce, because they're covered in their own dedicated articles with their own case detail. This timeline is updated whenever a future Academy article documents a new, dated decision.

Make Influence's perspective

In our experience, the most common question we hear about Danish enforcement is exactly the one this article answers: "is this actually enforced, or is it just a theoretical rule?" Based on the cases the Academy has been able to document, the honest answer is that enforcement is real but still rare, measured by the number of cases brought directly against a named influencer — just one in this timeline. That's not the same thing as low risk, in our view: Forbrugerombudsmanden's 2024 ruling shows a regulator actively setting a low evidentiary bar for when the disclosure duty applies, and the four related GDPR and marketing-law cases show a consistent line of reasoning that would very likely hit an influencer-specific case just as hard, the day one reaches court.

FAQ

Has Forbrugerombudsmanden ever fined an influencer directly?

Yes, but the fine itself was imposed by the courts (Østre Landsret, 21 February 2025, DKK 30,000), in a case Forbrugerombudsmanden most likely referred. Forbrugerombudsmanden's own 8 October 2024 ruling is principled and establishes what triggers the disclosure duty, but isn't itself a fine.

Are the GDPR cases (DMR A/S, Hadsund Apotek, SmartResponse) about influencers?

No. All three involve former employees or competition entrants — not influencers or brand ambassadors. They're included here because the Academy articles that document them explicitly connect their legal logic to influencer-relevant situations.

Why is the Arca ApS case included if it isn't influencer-specific?

Because it shows how seriously the courts take a missing disclosure of binding terms in marketing — exactly the kind of claim ("no binding," "cancel anytime") an influencer routinely writes in a sponsored post about a subscription product.

Can I be confident this is every case that exists?

No — this is every case the Academy has documented and sourced in another article at the time of writing. There are certainly further Danish enforcement cases not yet covered in a dedicated Academy article.

What was the legal basis in the Østre Landsret case?

Markedsføringsloven § 6(4), which requires that commercial intent "be clearly disclosed." The 23 posts carried only a company tag, not a direct ad marking such as "ad for [brand]."

Is there a difference between Datatilsynet's and Forbrugerombudsmanden's roles in these cases?

Yes. Datatilsynet enforces GDPR (data protection) — the three GDPR cases in this timeline. Forbrugerombudsmanden enforces markedsføringsloven (ad disclosure and misleading marketing) — its own ruling, and, indirectly, the Østre Landsret and Arca cases. They're two separate regulators applying two separate rulebooks.