Is a Creator Publishing News-Style Content Subject to Denmark's Media Liability Law?

Short answer: not by default — but that can change, and a new authority is coming specifically for those it doesn't cover

Ordinary influencer and creator content on social media is not, by default, subject to Denmark's Media Liability Act (Medieansvarsloven), because it rarely meets the law's requirement of periodic, editorially processed news reporting. But a creator who publishes regularly and editorially — a podcast, a news-style blog, a recurring investigative YouTube series — can choose to register with Pressenævnet (the Danish Press Council) voluntarily, and that changes both liability and protection significantly. At the same time, a new media ombudsman is on its way, aimed specifically at "alternative media actors" like influencers and bloggers who are not registered — a political agreement from December 2025, out for hearing in 2026, not yet passed into law.

What defines a "mass medium" under the Media Liability Act?

Section 1 of the Media Liability Act sets out three categories:

Category 3 is the relevant one for an influencer, blogger, podcaster or YouTuber: digital media are not automatically covered the way licensed print, TV and radio are. Without registration, the content falls outside the Act's protections and duties, no matter how much it resembles journalism.

Does ordinary influencer content fall under this?

Pressenævnet's own guidance on its competence sets out two practical criteria, both of which must be met:

• Periodic — the content must appear regularly, not as one-off content. The guidance cites a blog with 215 posts in one year as meeting the regularity requirement.
• News reporting — there must be independent editorial processing, not merely technical relaying of information. That excludes automated feeds and unedited comment sections.

In practice, that means ordinary, unedited comment sections, single videos, and internal corporate content fall outside the scope — as does social media as a platform in itself (a profile's own Facebook page requires separate registration to be covered). But an individual blogger, podcaster or creator who publishes periodically, with editorial processing and a news-like character, can meet §1(3) — if they choose to register.

Can a creator choose to register voluntarily?

Yes. Registration happens through Pressenævnet's own registration portal (pressenaevnet.dk/Tilmelding.aspx) and brings a package of rights and duties that doesn't exist for an ordinary, unregistered Instagram post:

• Editor liability instead of platform liability — it is primarily the journalist/photographer and the editor-in-chief who can be held liable if the medium has acted contrary to the law or been ordered to pay damages by courts — not necessarily the company behind it.
• Source protection — a registered medium generally cannot be required to disclose its sources' identity, with narrow exceptions. That's a real protection for investigative content that an unregistered medium doesn't have.
• Right of reply (Chapter 6, §§36-40) — the flip side is a duty: a request for a reply concerning factual information likely to cause someone economic or other significant damage must generally be granted, unless the accuracy of the information is undisputed. The request must be submitted in writing to the editor within 12 weeks of publication, and the reply must be published free of charge and without undue delay.
• Right to complain to Pressenævnet — a complaint can be filed against the medium with Pressenævnet, which can issue criticism if the medium acted contrary to good press practice.

An important pitfall: if a digital medium is simultaneously registered under the data protection legislation's §6(1), that registration takes precedence — the medium is then not covered by the Media Liability Act regardless of any Pressenævnet registration, losing both the Act's benefits and its obligations.

Registered vs unregistered: what changes

The new media ombudsman: aimed specifically at unregistered influencers

In December 2025, the Danish government, SF and Enhedslisten reached a political agreement to establish a media ombudsman — an independent body that, per the agreement, is specifically meant to hold "alternative media actors" such as influencers, bloggers, online newspapers and podcasts accountable. DKK 9.3 million is allocated in 2026 and DKK 18.7 million annually from 2027, and the government's 2025/2026 legislative programme pointed to a bill in February 2026 following up on the Media Responsibility Committee's (Medieansvarsudvalget) January 2025 recommendations. The bill has been out for public hearing during 2026 — it has not yet been passed into law, and the status should be checked directly on ft.dk before relying on anything here as current law.

The most notable design choice in the agreement: the ombudsman will not pursue cases against media already registered with Pressenævnet — per the Ministry of Culture, a deliberate choice to "encourage even more to join" the council, because the arrangement "works well." In practice, that means Pressenævnet registration functions as an opt-out from the ombudsman's direct powers (orders, civil cases) — the ombudsman can, at most, refer cases of principal significance onward to Pressenævnet.

Tougher defamation rules on the way — but only a recommendation so far

The Media Responsibility Committee has also recommended extending the Criminal Code's tougher penalty framework for serious defamation — today reserved for content published in a mass medium — to also cover "new media actors (for example influencers and bloggers)." That would mean a fine or imprisonment of up to two years, and that the public prosecutor could bring the case, easing both the cost and the process for the wronged party. This is a committee recommendation, not current law — it still needs to become a bill and be passed before it has legal effect.

Decision framework: should a creator consider registering?

IF the content is periodic, editorially processed and has a news-like character (a regular podcast, a recurring investigative YouTube series) → registration can offer real protection (source protection, editor liability) in exchange for a clear duty (right of reply, good press practice).

IF the content is occasional posts with no fixed editorial line → the content likely doesn't meet the periodicity requirement, and registration doesn't offer meaningful protection.

IF the creator is already registered under the data protection legislation's §6(1) → clarify the relationship with that registration first, since it takes precedence over the Media Liability Act.

IF a creator wants to avoid the upcoming media ombudsman's direct powers → Pressenævnet registration is the only route, under the agreement's current design — but the agreement is still in the legislative process and can change.

Frequently asked questions

Is an influencer who makes sponsored posts automatically covered by the Media Liability Act?

No. Ordinary sponsored posts typically meet neither the periodicity nor the news-reporting requirement in §1(3), and the influencer has to actively register with Pressenævnet for the Act to apply.

Does registration grant a press card or special rights toward authorities?

This article doesn't cover the press-card scheme specifically — registering with Pressenævnet is a separate process with its own set of rights and duties under the Media Liability Act, primarily source protection and editor liability, as described above.

Can a brand become liable for a registered creator's content?

The Act places liability primarily with the journalist/photographer and the editor-in-chief — that is, with the creator themselves, not with a brand that has entered a commercial collaboration. That doesn't change the fact that ordinary marketing-liability rules, including the ad-disclosure duty, still apply alongside it.

Is the new media ombudsman already a reality?

No. There is a political agreement from December 2025 and allocated funding in the finance law, but the bill has been out for hearing in 2026 and hasn't been passed yet. Check ft.dk for the current status before relying on this.

Do the tougher defamation rules for influencers already apply?

No, that's still only a recommendation from the Media Responsibility Committee. It requires a separate bill amending the Criminal Code before it becomes law.

What does this have to do with brand safety?

If a creator you work with publishes investigative or news-style content about other companies or industries themselves, their registration status can affect how a dispute over that content is handled legally — worth knowing if you use that type of creator in a collaboration. See the brand safety checklist for influencer partnerships and trend-jacking and newsjacking for related risks as a creator's content moves closer to news reporting.

Make Influence's perspective

Very few of the creators we see in ordinary brand collaborations publish content that comes anywhere near the periodicity and news-reporting requirement — ordinary sponsored posts and product reviews aren't what the Media Liability Act targets. But for creators who genuinely run something resembling a news channel (a regular podcast, a recurring investigative series), our recommendation is to get Pressenævnet registration clarified as its own question — separate from the ordinary ad-disclosure duty, and especially now that a media ombudsman aimed specifically at unregistered "alternative media actors" is on its way. If a collaboration with that kind of creator goes wrong publicly, the general principles in our PR crisis-management guide are still the starting point, regardless of the creator's registration status. This is practical guidance from Make Influence, not legal advice — seek specific legal counsel if a real case is relevant.