Marketing to Children and Teenagers Through Influencers: What Danish Law Actually Requires

Short answer: Section 11 applies whether the post is paid or organic

Section 11 of the Danish Marketing Practices Act (markedsføringsloven) imposes special requirements on any commercial practice aimed at children and young people under 18 — whether it's a paid ad or a post the influencer chooses to make with no payment at all. The law bans three things specifically: encouraging dangerous or reckless behaviour (subsection 1), depicting alcohol and other products unsuitable for minors (subsection 2), and marketing via or featuring children under 15 (subsection 3). On top of that sits a fourth, even stricter rule from the law's blacklist: an absolute, strict-liability ban on directly urging a child to buy a product or to talk their parents into it. This article covers all four rules, when they're triggered, and — the point most often missed — who is actually liable if they're broken.

This is practical guidance from Make Influence, not legal advice. Use it to get an overview of the rules — get the specific legal assessment of a campaign from a lawyer, particularly if you're unsure whether your audience counts as "aimed at children and young people".

When does marketing actually count as "aimed at" children and young people?

It isn't only campaigns for toys and candy that the rules reach. Forbrugerombudsmanden's (the Danish Consumer Ombudsman's) own enforcement practice shows that marketing is treated as aimed at children and young people if just one of the following applies:

• The product itself appeals to children — the classic case (toys, candy, children's clothing).
• A "not insignificant share" of the influencer's followers are under 18 — and the bar sits lower than most brands assume. In one case, 12% underage followers was enough to prohibit an influencer from advertising tattoos.
• The platform's demographics are young in themselves — on TikTok, around 49% of users are between 12 and 18, which according to enforcement practice takes very little to trigger the rules on that platform.
• The sender (the influencer) is themselves under 18.
• The content's design — language, subject matter, visual devices — specifically appeals to a vulnerable, young audience, regardless of the product.

Age filters can exempt content — but only if they're real

Some platforms, such as Instagram, offer technical age filters that can restrict a post's visibility to users over 18. Used effectively, such a filter can take content outside the scope of the rules, because it genuinely doesn't reach an audience under 18. Forbrugerombudsmanden has, however, established that a plain text label — such as "18+ followers only" in a caption — is not enough. It requires a real, technical restriction on who can see the content, not just a request to the audience to respect an age limit they're free to ignore.

The three prohibitions in Section 11 — overview

Subsection 1: a real case about dangerous behaviour

On 23 October 2025, Forbrugerombudsmanden issued a formal reprimand to an influencer who, in YouTube and TikTok videos aimed at children and young people under 18, made nature content in which they taste-tested toxic mushrooms, berries and plants. Even though the content was framed as nature education, Forbrugerombudsmanden concluded there wasn't a sufficient educational justification to warrant the dangerous behaviour in front of a young audience — a breach of § 11(1). The influencer removed four videos and reviewed the rest of their content, which Forbrugerombudsmanden weighed in the outcome: the case ended in a formal reprimand, not a fine or police referral, because the response came quickly.

Subsection 3: why "natural context" is a narrow exception

A child under 15 appearing in a video because the video is about the child themselves or their life is not the same as a child naturally illustrating a product. The exception is meant for situations like an ad for toys or children's clothing, where the child is the natural model for the product — not a general licence to feature children in content just because the audience is families. Parental consent doesn't change this; it's the content's function, not the parents' permission, that decides whether the exception applies.

The absolute rule: directly urging children to buy

Beyond Section 11, the Marketing Practices Act carries a blacklist of commercial practices that are always considered unfair — with no case-by-case assessment of actual harm. The rule sits in Section 9, which refers to Annex 1, and Annex 1, point 28 states: a commercial practice that directly exhorts children to buy, or to persuade their parents or other adults to buy, the products advertised, is prohibited. That's what makes point 28 particularly strict: while most other rules in the Marketing Practices Act rest on a reasonableness assessment, point 28 is an absolute, strict-liability rule — there's no assessment of whether the exhortation was "reasonable" in context. It's simply prohibited.

The October 2024 case

On 9 October 2024, Forbrugerombudsmanden published a press release about a marked step-up in enforcement: the authority had referred several influencers to the police for a combined 9 violations of the Marketing Practices Act, and issued formal reprimands to further influencers for a combined 31 violations, spread across five categories — alcohol/energy drinks aimed at minors, dangerous situations, direct purchase exhortations to children, using children under 15 without natural context, and missing ad disclosure. In three specific cases (24/06341, 24/06340 and 24/06342, decided 8 October 2024), influencers had used phrasing urging an immediate purchase and remarks that a product was "almost sold out" — textbook examples of point 28's absolute prohibition. The influencers had themselves removed the problematic wording before the case was decided, and received a formal reprimand; no fine was issued in these three cases.

Who's liable if the rules are broken? Not only the influencer

The most overlooked point in this entire rule set is who actually carries the liability. An influencer operating as a business is independently responsible for their own marketing under the Marketing Practices Act. But liability doesn't stop there: the company behind the collaboration — the brand — can be held liable together with the influencer, as a cooperation partner. According to Lund Elmer Sandager's own review of Forbrugerombudsmanden's stepped-up enforcement: "as a cooperation partner, your company can be held liable together with the influencer," with the risk of fines, prosecution and damage to the company's reputation. The same applies to an agency that advised the influencer on the content. For a brand working with influencer marketing, that means in practice that compliance with Section 11 and point 28 isn't the influencer's problem alone — it's a risk the brief and the contract need to address directly.

Decision framework: how to check a campaign before it goes live

IF a not-insignificant share of the influencer's followers are under 18, or the platform itself skews young → treat the campaign as aimed at children and young people, regardless of who the product was originally designed for.

IF the content is going to show alcohol, an energy drink or another product unsuitable for minors → see influencer marketing in regulated industries, and consider whether a genuine technical age filter is an option.

IF a piece of wording creates purchase pressure — "hurry", "only a few left", urging an immediate click on a link — and part of the audience is children → remove it. Point 28 allows no exceptions and no "it wasn't meant seriously" defence.

IF you're considering featuring a child under 15 in the content → confirm that the child's involvement is a natural part of illustrating the product itself — not simply that the child appears in a video for some other purpose.

IF you're unsure whether your own brand could be held liable → assume you can be. Write the Section 11 and point 28 compliance requirements directly into the brief and the contract, instead of leaving it to the influencer alone.

Commonly missed

• Organic content isn't exempt. The rules apply whether or not the influencer is paid for that specific post — what matters is whether the content is aimed at children and young people, not whether money changes hands on that particular post.
• "Not insignificant share" is a low bar. 12% underage followers was enough in one case — most brands underestimate how little it takes.
• A text warning is not an age filter. Only a genuine, technical restriction counts.
• Point 28 is stricter than the rest of the law. There's no reasonableness assessment to hang an explanation on.

Make Influence's perspective

In our experience, the risk from the children and young people rules is often underestimated precisely because it isn't tied to an industry (the way alcohol or pharma are) but to the audience's age — something that can shift from campaign to campaign, even with the same influencer. We recommend a brand always gets the influencer's follower demographics confirmed before a campaign is approved, the same way you should already check an audience for authenticity before you pay. If a meaningful share is under 18, the brief should explicitly ban purchase-pressuring language and confirm that any alcohol, energy drink or other unsuitable product is excluded from the content — and that should be in the contract, not just a verbal instruction. See what to put in an influencer contract for how this kind of requirement is written in alongside the other 12 terms a contract should cover.

FAQ

Do the rules apply if the influencer is themselves an adult, but part of their following is under 18?

Yes. What matters is who the content actually reaches and appeals to — not the influencer's own age. A "not insignificant share" of followers under 18 is enough, and enforcement practice has set that bar as low as 12% in one case.

Is it enough to write "18+ followers only" in the caption?

No. Forbrugerombudsmanden requires a genuine, technical age restriction — for example, an age filter that actually limits who can see the content. A text label the audience is free to ignore doesn't count.

Can a brand use a child under 15 in social media content at all?

Only if the child's involvement is a natural part of illustrating or showing the product itself — for example, a child playing with a toy. Parental consent doesn't change whether the exception applies.

What's the difference between this article and the alcohol rule in the regulated industries article?

That article covers the alcohol and energy-drink ban specifically (§ 11(2)) as one of three industry-specific rules. This article covers the whole § 11 framework — dangerous behaviour, alcohol/unsuitable products and children under 15 in content — plus the separate, stricter purchase-exhortation ban in Annex 1, point 28, which applies regardless of industry. See also influencer marketing disclosure rules for the general ad-labelling duty these rules sit on top of.

Can our company be held liable even though it was the influencer who wrote the post?

Yes. As a cooperation partner, your company can be held liable together with the influencer, with the risk of fines, prosecution and reputational damage. The same applies to an agency that advised on the content.

What happens if we discover a violation after the post is already live?

Remove the content as quickly as possible. In the cases Forbrugerombudsmanden has published, a fast, independent removal of the problematic content has led to a formal reprimand rather than a fine or police referral — but that isn't a guarantee, and repeated or serious violations can still trigger a harsher response.