Guide
Pricing & Negotiation
Brands
Yes — a brand can write a non-compete clause into an influencer contract that restricts a creator after the collaboration ends, but Denmark's specific rules on maximum duration and mandatory compensation only apply to employees, not to a self-employed influencer. The old aftaleloven § 38 that used to cover this was repealed in 2016. For a self-employed creator, the main protection is the general unreasonableness rule in aftaleloven § 36, plus a narrow exception in § 11(3) of the 2016 Act on Restrictive Employment Clauses.
Yes — a brand can write a non-compete clause into an influencer contract that restricts what the creator may do for competing brands after the collaboration ends. But a self-employed influencer invoicing through their own business isn't covered by the same protections as an employee. The specific rules on maximum duration and mandatory compensation that apply to an employee sit in Denmark's Act on Restrictive Employment Clauses (ansættelsesklausulloven) — and that Act only covers employees. For a self-employed creator, the main protection instead comes from the general unreasonableness rule in the Contracts Act (aftaleloven) § 36, plus a narrow, often-overlooked carve-out in § 11(3) of the same 2016 employment-clauses Act.
This is a general legal overview from Make Influence, not legal advice for a specific situation. Any actual clause should be reviewed by a lawyer before it's signed or enforced.
Exclusivity clauses in influencer contracts cover what the creator can and can't do for competitors while the collaboration is active. A non-compete clause after contract end is a separate obligation: it binds the creator after the contract has expired or been terminated, typically for a period of a few months to a year. One doesn't replace the other — some contracts carry both, with different durations and scope, and the two should be negotiated and priced separately.
Most Danish guidance on non-compete clauses is written for employees, because that's the situation the law was primarily built to regulate. An influencer invoicing through their own registered business generally isn't an employee in the legal sense — see employee or self-employed: how Denmark classifies an influencer's income for how that distinction is drawn. That doesn't mean a non-compete against a self-employed creator is unenforceable — it means it isn't automatically covered by the same protective rules an employee is entitled to.
Before 1 January 2016, the general regulation of non-compete clauses sat in aftaleloven § 38, which voided a clause that went further than necessary to protect against competition, or that unreasonably restricted the bound party's access to their trade. That provision was repealed effective 1 January 2016, the same date the Act on Restrictive Employment Clauses took effect. An old, still-circulating claim that "non-compete clauses are governed by aftaleloven § 38" is therefore outdated — that provision no longer exists in that form.
The Act on Restrictive Employment Clauses (in force since 1 January 2016) is written to regulate an employee's non-compete and non-solicitation clauses — but the Act contains one provision that reaches further. According to several Danish law firms' own published reviews of the Act, § 11(3) extends one specific, narrow protection from § 11(1)-(2) to "others than employees" — for example partners, shareholders, executives and others who have taken on an obligation not to run a certain type of business, or take employment in one, after a relationship ends.
The specific protection § 11 concerns is this: if the party who would have benefited from the clause is the one who ends the relationship, without the bound party having given reasonable cause for it, the clause lapses. For an employee, that means: if the employer terminates without the employee having given reasonable cause, the non-compete clause can no longer be enforced. § 11(3) means the same logic — the clause lapses if the counterparty itself ends the relationship without reasonable cause — can also apply to a self-employed party under an equivalent non-compete obligation.
Important caveat: whether a self-employed influencer under a brand-imposed non-compete specifically falls within "others than employees" in the provision's sense isn't settled in publicly available sources — the examples named in the legal commentary are partners, shareholders and executives in a business-ownership relationship, not a freelance marketing-services supplier. Treat § 11(3) as a real, documented line of argument — not as a guaranteed protection.
What § 11(3) does not do matters just as much: the provision doesn't extend the Act's maximum-duration or mandatory-compensation requirements to self-employed parties. Those requirements remain scoped to employees only.
With § 38 repealed, the general unreasonableness clause in aftaleloven § 36 is the main protection left for a self-employed party in a Danish contract, including an influencer under a non-compete. § 36 applies, under settled practice, both between private parties and between professional/business parties — but courts apply it restrictively in purely commercial relationships, where freedom of contract carries real weight. Setting aside or modifying a clause between two business parties typically requires a qualified imbalance — for example a markedly unequal bargaining position, an information asymmetry, or a term that is unusual compared to normal industry practice.
In practice, that means: a non-compete clause that runs indefinitely, covers an unreasonably broad geography, or blocks the influencer from working with almost any brand category at all, with no compensation whatsoever, stands weaker under a § 36 assessment than a clause that is time-bound, narrowly defined and reasonably compensated — even though no statute sets a bright line for a self-employed party the way the Act on Restrictive Employment Clauses does for an employee.
| Question | Employee (Act on Restrictive Employment Clauses, §§ 5-9) | Self-employed influencer (aftaleloven § 36 + § 11(3)) |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum duration | 12 months for an ordinary non-compete, 6 months if combined with a customer clause — a statutory ceiling | No statutory ceiling — assessed case by case as part of an overall § 36 reasonableness test |
| Mandatory compensation | Yes — at least 40% of salary for a clause of up to 6 months, at least 60% for 6-12 months or for a combined clause; the first 2 months paid as a lump sum | No statutory percentage — the absence of any compensation is, however, one factor that can support an unreasonableness argument under § 36 |
| Minimum prior tenure requirement | At least 6 months of employment before the clause can take effect | Not applicable — no equivalent rule exists for a collaboration agreement |
| Clause lapses if the counterparty ends the relationship without reasonable cause | Yes — § 11(1)-(2) | Possibly — if § 11(3) applies (unsettled for this relationship type, see above) |
The sources behind the employee column are convergent reviews of the Act's own provisions from several Danish legal-advisory sites — not the statute text itself on retsinformation.dk, which blocks automated access. Treat the specific percentages as well-corroborated, not as a direct quotation of the statute, and check the current text if a real case turns on the exact figure.
IF the influencer invoices through their own registered business and isn't employed by the brand → the Act's duration and compensation requirements don't apply automatically; negotiate the clause as an ordinary contract term, and consider negotiating compensation in anyway.
IF the clause is indefinite, covers a broad set of competitors, or effectively makes it impossible for the influencer to work in their niche at all → that's exactly the kind of clause that stands weak under a § 36 assessment; shorten and narrow it.
IF the brand itself ends the collaboration without the influencer having given reasonable cause → check whether § 11(3) can be argued to make the clause lapse.
IF you're unsure whether a specific clause is enforceable → get it reviewed by a lawyer before signing it or trying to enforce it.
The figures below are a made-up example for illustration only — not a real customer case.
An influencer signs a one-year ambassador deal worth DKK 240,000 (DKK 20,000/month). The brand wants a 6-month non-compete after the contract ends, blocking the influencer from working with any other brand in the same category. Had the influencer been an employee, the Act's minimum requirements — 40% of salary for a clause of exactly 6 months — would have produced a compensation floor of 40% × DKK 20,000 × 6 months = DKK 48,000 for the period, with the first two months paid as a lump sum. Because the influencer is self-employed, that figure isn't a legal obligation on the brand — but it's a sensible negotiating anchor: a clause with zero compensation at all is exactly the kind of term that strengthens a future § 36 challenge, not a theoretical risk the brand can ignore.
In our experience, few brands ask for a post-contract non-compete in an ordinary campaign deal — it mostly shows up in longer-running ambassador agreements, where the influencer genuinely becomes identified with the brand. When the question does come up, we always recommend that the influencer (or their representative) ask for a time limit and some compensation, even though no statute requires it for a self-employed party — it's by far the easiest way to avoid a later dispute over whether the clause is reasonable. That's our operational experience negotiating contracts, not a legal conclusion.
The Act's core requirements on maximum duration and mandatory compensation (§§ 5-9) apply only to employees. A narrow exception in § 11(3) may extend one specific protection — the clause lapsing if the counterparty terminates without reasonable cause — to a self-employed party, but that isn't settled for this relationship type specifically.
Yes, in principle — but a court can set aside or modify the clause under aftaleloven § 36 if it's unreasonable. Courts typically weigh whether there's a qualified imbalance between the parties, and whether any compensation was offered at all.
No. It was repealed effective 1 January 2016, the same date the Act on Restrictive Employment Clauses took effect.
No. Exclusivity applies while the collaboration is running — see exclusivity clauses in influencer contracts. A post-contract non-compete binds the influencer after the contract has ended.
Potentially, if the brand holds a significant market share in its category — see does an exclusivity clause risk competition law? for the assessment, which applies in the same basic way to a post-contract clause.
Yes — it should be explicit in the contract, as one of the terms the contract checklist covers, with clear duration, scope and any compensation stated — not left to a verbal understanding.
It depends why the termination happens — see kill fees and early termination clauses in influencer contracts for how an early termination is handled contractually, and the § 11(3) section above for when the non-compete itself can lapse as a result of that termination.
No — this article assumes a self-employed creator invoicing through their own business. If you're an ordinary employee with an influencer side project instead, the relevant question while you're still employed is your right to secondary employment and your duty of loyalty, not a contractual non-compete — see bibeskæftigelse: can an employee become an influencer alongside their day job in Denmark?
No — a non-compete restricts who the creator can work with after the contract ends, not what they can say. That's a separate obligation — see non-disparagement clauses in influencer contracts for how that clause is worded and where its own limits sit under Section 36.
Make Influence
Find creators with real audience data, run collaborations in one place, and see clicks and sales per creator while the campaign is live.
Book a demoCreate accountMake Influence
Apply to campaigns from brands that are actively looking, follow your own clicks and sales, and get paid without chasing invoices.
Create creator profileMore creator guidesMake Influence
Briefs, agreed terms, tracking links and results sit together — so brands and creators see the same numbers.
See how it worksBrowse the Academy
