Marketing Health Services Through Influencers: Denmark's "No Live Video" Rule

Short answer: video is banned off your own website — even when an influencer makes it

A health service — a clinic, a practitioner, or a specific treatment — cannot be marketed using moving images (video or film) anywhere except the provider's own website. That comes directly from the Danish Patient Safety Authority's (Styrelsen for Patientsikkerhed, STPS) own guidance to the Act on Marketing of Health Services: "Der må ikke anvendes levende billeder bortset fra på egen hjemmeside" ("Moving images may not be used except on [the provider's] own website"). The rule explicitly covers "authorised and non-authorised health professionals" who carry out health services commercially, and "persons who carry out marketing on behalf of health professionals, e.g. influencers" — STPS names the category directly. A social media profile does not count as a provider's own website: the authority states plainly that "profiles on social media are not considered the same as the treatment provider's own website." In practice: an influencer video showing or discussing a specific treatment, clinic or programme is unlawful marketing if it's posted to the influencer's own Instagram or TikTok profile — no matter how accurate the content otherwise is.

This is practical guidance from Make Influence, not legal advice. Use it to understand where the line sits — get a specific campaign assessed by a lawyer or directly by the Danish Patient Safety Authority, especially in a borderline case.

What counts as a "health service" here?

The Act covers services carried out commercially by a health professional — authorised or not — for the purpose of examining, diagnosing, treating, preventing or caring for a patient. That reaches broadly: a dental clinic, a physiotherapist, a chiropractor, a cosmetic clinic performing Botox or fillers, a medically staffed weight-loss clinic, and a psychologist or therapy practice are all health services in the Act's sense. The line is drawn by whether the service requires or involves a health-professional assessment or treatment — not by whether the provider calls itself a "clinic" or a "studio."

The rule in practice: what's allowed where

Even on the provider's own website, video is not a free pass: the content must still meet the Act's general requirement that marketing "must not be improper, incorrect, misleading or incomplete," in STPS's own wording. A video that overstates a treatment's effect or omits its risks is unlawful even in the one place video is otherwise allowed.

One caveat worth knowing: STPS's own pages on this rule name specifically "moving images," not still photographs, as the banned category — which supports reading a still image on social media as subject only to the general factuality requirement, not the video-specific ban. But STPS's own page on factual marketing does not itself explicitly confirm still images as a distinct, permitted category separate from moving images — it only describes the general factuality requirement. Treat the still-image/video distinction as the most reasonable reading of the rule's wording, not a verbatim-confirmed exception, and check directly with the Danish Patient Safety Authority in a genuine doubt case.

Why does the rule exist?

The Danish Patient Safety Authority grounds the ban in a protective rationale: moving images are generally regarded as a very powerful medium, and the rule exists to stop patients and consumers from being unduly influenced in choosing a health service through a format that is harder to assess critically than text or a still image. It's the same underlying logic behind the general requirement that health-service marketing — unlike marketing for ordinary goods — must not be "as assertive or consumption-stimulating," in the authority's own words.

Two real, dated cases that show the rule is actively enforced

This isn't a theoretical rule. The Academy's own Ozempic/Wegovy article already documents a case, reported by Radio4 on 1 December 2025, in which three named Danish weight-loss clinics — Velform ApS, Warberg-klinikken and Fitway — advertised weight-loss programmes in Instagram video ads. Marketing lawyer Daniel Mathias Bagger, of the Danish Consumer Council (Forbrugerrådet Tænk), stated directly: "There's a fundamental ban on advertising health services in videos on the internet" — except on the provider's own website. Health-law expert Kent Kristensen confirmed that all three clinics "clearly violate the rules." That is a direct, dated, on-the-record confirmation of exactly the rule this article describes, applied to video ads rather than an influencer's own content — but the underlying rule and its "except on your own website" exception are identical either way.

A second, earlier case shows the influencer-specific angle, though on a different legal basis. TV2 reported in April 2024 on how the then-operating weight-loss clinic Embla approached influencers to promote its weight-loss programme. Per TV2's own reporting, influencer Camilla Jørgensen was offered payment to join the programme and talk about it to her followers — but was asked not to mention that the programme included prescription medication, only to discuss coaching and other parts of the programme. A second influencer, Malene Langvad, was asked to film herself reading a script praising the programme without ever having tried it. Kent Kristensen called the approach misleading, because the communication attributed the weight loss to something other than the medical treatment actually driving it. Embla stopped its influencer marketing after the story broke.

It's important to keep the two legal issues separate: the violation TV2's sources pointed to in the Embla case was misleading marketing — omitting a material fact (the medication) about a health service, which falls under the Act's general factuality requirement, not specifically the moving-images rule confirmed in the Radio4 case above. But the case also illustrates how easily both rules could be broken at once: if the planned video with Malene Langvad was intended for her own Instagram profile rather than the clinic's website, the video format itself would independently also breach the moving-images rule — entirely separate from whether the script's content was misleading. That specific reading of the Embla case is Make Influence's own analysis of the publicly reported facts, not a conclusion TV2 or the Danish Patient Safety Authority itself drew about that case.

Practical: how to check whether a campaign is in the danger zone

• Is the partner a health professional or running a health service (clinic, practitioner, therapist) — authorised or not? Then the rule applies.
• Does an influencer need to make a video about a specific treatment, clinic or programme, to be posted to their own profile? That's banned, regardless of how accurate the content is — exactly the finding in the December 2025 Radio4 case above.
• Will the video instead be published only on the clinic's own website? That's allowed, but the content still needs to be factual, correct and complete.
• Is it a still image instead of video? Then only the general factuality requirement applies — but confirm directly with STPS if there's any doubt about where the line sits.
• Does the content omit a material fact about the service (e.g. that a medical treatment is involved)? That's an independent misleading-marketing risk, regardless of format.

Decision framework

IF you're considering an influencer video about a specific health service, and the video will run on the influencer's own social profile → drop the video format. Use a still image, a text-based recommendation instead, or move the video content to the clinic's own website and have the influencer link to it.

IF the video will run only on the clinic's own website → it's allowed, but review it for factuality, correctness and completeness before it goes live.

IF you're unsure whether the partner even counts as a "health service" under the Act → clarify it with your regulatory or legal adviser before planning the campaign — the line (e.g. between a wellness product and an actual treatment) isn't always obvious.

How this differs from the Academy's other Danish health-marketing rules

This article is about the format used to market a health service — not about a specific product. It's easy to confuse with two related but separate rule sets:

• Botox and fillers is a product ban: Botox is prescription medicine and cannot be advertised at all, regardless of format, while hyaluronic-acid fillers are a medical device where advertising is allowed but must be substantiated.
• Ozempic and Wegovy is another product ban: prescription medicine cannot be advertised to the public, regardless of format or channel — and it's this article's own reporting on the Radio4 case that surfaced the video-ban confirmation used above.
• This article is about the service itself — the clinic visit, the treatment programme, the consultation — and the ban applies specifically to moving images, not to the service as such. A clinic can therefore lawfully be discussed in text or a still image, where a specific prescription medicine cannot be mentioned in any form at all.
• See also influencer marketing in regulated industries for the broader picture of Denmark's alcohol, finance and pharmaceutical rules, and influencer disclosure rules for the general disclosure duty, which applies on top of, not instead of, the rule described here.

Make Influence's perspective

In our experience, health services are one of the categories where a brand fastest assumes that ordinary influencer practice — a Reel, a TikTok, a Story — simply carries over, and where that assumption is wrong at a basic, format level, not just a content level. Our recommendation is to establish whether the partner counts as a health service under the Act as the very first step in campaign planning — before the brief is written, and in any case before the format (video vs. still image vs. text) is locked in. If there's uncertainty about the classification, a call to the Danish Patient Safety Authority is cheaper than a campaign that has to be pulled.

FAQ

Does the rule apply even if the influencer isn't a health professional themselves?

Yes. The rule explicitly covers persons who carry out marketing on behalf of a health professional, and the authority's own guidance names influencers directly as an example of that category.

Can an influencer mention a clinic in a video at all?

The rule bans moving images that market the health service — not every mention in every context. The line between an actual marketing video and a neutral, non-commercial mention isn't sharply defined in the source material this article draws on; if the collaboration is paid or otherwise commercial, assume video falls under the ban unless clarified otherwise with STPS.

Is a clinic video on the clinic's own website automatically lawful?

No. It only escapes the moving-images ban — the content still has to meet the general factuality requirement and must not be incorrect, misleading or incomplete.

Can a clinic re-share an influencer's video if it was originally posted to the influencer's own profile?

That doesn't change the fact that the video was initially published outside the clinic's own website. The sources behind this article don't address the rule's precise application to re-sharing — clarify the specific scenario with the Danish Patient Safety Authority if it's relevant to your campaign.

What was the actual violation in the Embla case — was it the moving-images rule?

TV2's sources pointed to misleading marketing (omitting the medication's role in the weight loss) as the core issue, not specifically the moving-images rule. The two rule sets are separate, but both could be breached in the same campaign if a misleading influencer video is also published outside the clinic's own website. The December 2025 Radio4 case above is the one that confirms the moving-images rule itself, on the record.

Does the rule apply to every kind of health service, or only cosmetic treatments?

It applies broadly to any commercially provided health service carried out by an authorised or non-authorised health professional — not just cosmetic treatments. A physiotherapist, a dentist and a medically staffed weight-loss clinic are all covered exactly like a cosmetic clinic, and the Radio4 case above involved weight-loss clinics specifically, not a cosmetic provider.