Influencer Marketing Disclosure Rules in Denmark and the EU

Short answer: yes, if there's a benefit — and it has to come first

Hidden advertising is banned in Denmark. The rule sits in Markedsføringsloven § 6(4) (the Danish Marketing Practices Act), which Denmark's consumer ombudsman, Forbrugerombudsmanden, states plainly: "the commercial intent of any form of business practice, including advertising, must be clearly disclosed." In practice, that means the audience has to see it before they start reading or watching — not buried in a caption, not left as a hashtag at the bottom.

The rule applies whether the influencer received money, a free product, commission through a link, or simply a loan of clothing. EU consumer law — the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive — sets the same baseline across the whole EU, so a Danish influencer with an international audience is covered twice, not by whichever is more convenient.

What actually triggers the disclosure duty?

What matters is not whether a written agreement exists. What matters is whether the influencer received a benefit in exchange for the mention. Forbrugerombudsmanden is explicit on this: it counts as advertising if an influencer receives a gift in exchange for mentioning the company or product — regardless of whether they were asked to mention it.

Note that commission and affiliate links sit on exactly the same line as a paid partnership. The distinction between influencer marketing and affiliate marketing is about relationship and curation — not about whether the disclosure duty applies. It applies to both.

How to disclose correctly, per Forbrugerombudsmanden

Forbrugerombudsmanden's guidance on advertising identification sets specific requirements, and they're stricter than most influencers assume:

• Write "reklame for [company]" or "annonce for [company]" ("advertisement for [company]") as the first element of the post — not in the middle, not at the end.
• Mark every post individually. Marking the first post in a series and assuming the rest are covered is not enough.
• Use text in a size and colour that doesn't blend into the background — the disclosure has to be readable without effort.
• For video, the disclosure must appear in the title or be visible in the opening frames — not hidden in a description no one opens.
• For links: write "reklamelink" ("ad link") directly above or beside the link, every time it's used.

What is NOT enough

• A hashtag alone, such as #ad or #sponsored, with no other marking
• Disclosure placed only at the end of a long caption
• Marking the first post in a series and leaving the rest unmarked
• Relying solely on the platform's built-in label (e.g. Instagram's "Paid partnership") without the creator's own disclosure

That last point catches a lot of people out. The platform's own tool is a support, not a substitute for the influencer's own disclosure — Forbrugerombudsmanden deliberately treats them as two separate things.

A stricter standard for content aimed at children

There is a heightened clarity requirement when advertising targets recipients under 18. The more vulnerable the audience is to commercial influence, the less room there is for ambiguity about what's an ad.

The EU rules: the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive

At EU level, influencer marketing is governed by the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD), the core consumer protection law across the single market. Article 7(2) of the directive treats a failure to disclose the commercial intent behind a practice as a misleading omission. The European Commission classifies influencers who conduct commercial activity — promoting brands and receiving compensation — as "traders" under the directive, which means they're subject to the same transparency requirements as any other advertiser.

The European Commission's Influencer Legal Hub spells the requirement out further: disclosure must be clear, unambiguous and easily visible, and it must be apparent before the audience engages with the content — the same principle as the Danish rule that disclosure has to come first. The requirement applies across every platform and all three common monetisation models: paid partnerships, gifted products and affiliate marketing.

How badly is compliance actually failing?

On 14 February 2024, the European Commission and consumer authorities from 22 EU countries published the results of a joint sweep of 576 influencers' social media posts. The findings: 97% of the influencers had posted commercial content, but only around 20% disclosed it systematically as advertising. 38% failed to use the platforms' own labels (such as Instagram's "Paid partnership") and instead used vague wording like "collaboration," "partnership," or a general thank-you to the brand. 358 influencers were flagged for further investigation by national authorities.

The numbers aren't unique to one country. The European Commission's Influencer Legal Hub highlights, among other findings, a Spanish market review in which 77.75% of the content reviewed did not meet disclosure requirements.

The Digital Services Act: the platform's role

Since the Digital Services Act (DSA) took effect on 17 February 2024, large platforms (Article 26) must give users — including influencers — a way to declare that a post contains commercial communication, and the platform must then make that clearly recognisable to other users in real time. It's worth being precise here: the DSA obliges the platform to provide the tool. The underlying legal duty to disclose still sits with the influencer and the brand, grounded in the UCPD and national law like Markedsføringsloven — not in the DSA itself.

Coming rules: the Digital Fairness Act (a proposal, not yet law)

The European Commission's 2026 work programme includes a Digital Fairness Act, expected as a legislative proposal in the fourth quarter of 2026. The initiative explicitly names hidden advertising by influencers and the promotion of potentially harmful products (such as dietary supplements or cosmetic procedures) among the problems it aims to address.

It's important to be precise about status: this is a proposal, not current law. A first draft is expected in autumn 2026, and even with political agreement between Parliament and Council, binding national implementation is realistically not expected before 2029. Until then, it's Markedsføringsloven and the UCPD that apply — the Digital Fairness Act is something to watch, not something to comply with today.

Decision framework: does this specific post need to be marked?

IF the influencer received money, product, commission or anything else of value in connection with the post → mark it, whether or not a written agreement exists.

IF the product was bought at full price with no agreement or expectation of a mention → no disclosure duty, but be careful if the brand sent the product unsolicited anyway.

IF the post contains an affiliate link or discount code the influencer earns from → mark it as an ad link, regardless of whether a separate fee was also paid.

IF the content is part of a series (multiple stories, multiple posts) → mark every single one, not just the first.

IF the audience includes recipients under 18 → use the clearest, most unambiguous disclosure, not the bare minimum.

Make Influence's recommendation for brands and creators

In our experience, most disclosure mistakes aren't a deliberate attempt to hide anything — they happen because neither side explicitly discussed it before the post went live. We recommend treating ad disclosure as a standing item in the pre-collaboration expectations conversation — alongside deliverables, timing and usage rights — rather than something the influencer is left to remember afterwards. Write the exact wording into the brief itself, not just the requirement to disclose.

The same applies when part of the deal is a hybrid arrangement with both an upfront fee and commission: the commission component triggers the disclosure duty just as reliably as the fee does, and it's easy to overlook if only the fee gets labelled "the payment."

Finally: correct disclosure doesn't cost performance. A post that clearly states "ad for [brand]" up front converts on the quality of the content, not on whether the audience discovers later that it was paid. The alternative — getting caught in a hidden-advertising case — costs both trust and, eventually, a name in one of Forbrugerombudsmanden's press releases.

FAQ

Do I need to disclose a post if I only got the product for free — no payment?

Yes. Forbrugerombudsmanden is explicit: a free product received in exchange for a mention is a benefit, and it triggers the disclosure duty the same way payment does.

Is a hashtag like #ad or #sponsored enough?

Not on its own. Hashtags don't count as sufficient disclosure unless they're accompanied by a clear disclosure as the first thing the audience sees — for example, "ad for [brand]" at the top of the post.

Who is responsible — the influencer or the brand?

Both can be held responsible. If the influencer operates as a business, they're independently responsible for their own marketing, and the brand can simultaneously be responsible as the party that commissioned the advertising.

Do the rules also apply to Stories, TikTok and YouTube — not just feed posts?

Yes. The prohibition on hidden advertising applies across all media and platforms. The practical requirements for how the disclosure should look are adapted to the format — for example, video must be marked in the title or in the first visible frames.

Is the platform's own "Paid partnership" label enough by itself?

Not automatically, according to Forbrugerombudsmanden. It should be supplemented with the influencer's own clear disclosure, because platform labels have historically proven easy to overlook or skip.

Are new EU rules coming that I should watch for?

Yes, but they aren't in force yet. The Digital Fairness Act is a proposal in the European Commission's 2026 work programme, with a legislative proposal expected in Q4 2026 and binding national implementation realistically not before 2029. Until then, Markedsføringsloven and the UCPD apply as they do today.