The UK's ASA/CAP Code vs. Denmark's Influencer Disclosure Rules, Compared

Short answer: two separate rulebooks — not just the EU's rules under another name

The UK left the EU's single market at the end of 2020, and since then has run its own, independent advertising standard: the CAP Code (the Advertising Codes), written by the Committee of Advertising Practice and enforced by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). This isn't a British translation of the EU's Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) — it's a distinct rulebook, separate from Denmark's and the EU's rules covered in influencer marketing disclosure rules in Denmark and the EU, which this article builds on rather than repeats.

There's also a newer, independent development on the enforcement side: since 6 April 2025, the underlying UK consumer-protection statute itself is no longer the EU-derived rulebook either (the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, which implemented the UCPD into UK law) — it has been replaced by a new, domestically drafted law, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC Act), whose Parts 3 and 4 came into force that date. That's a further step away from a shared starting point with the EU, not just a technical rename.

When does the CAP Code even apply? The ASA's two-part test

The ASA uses its own two-stage test to decide whether a piece of influencer content falls within the CAP Code as a so-called "advertisement feature": content "the content of which is controlled by the marketer, not the publisher, that is disseminated in exchange for a payment or other reciprocal arrangement." Both stages have to be satisfied, or the content generally falls outside the ASA's remit as an advertisement feature — though other rules can still apply.

The ASA's own page on social media remit puts the trigger this way: "if an influencer receives payment or any other incentive (requested or unsolicited) from a brand, or they are otherwise personally or commercially connected to the brand ... any content featuring or referring to the brand will need to be obviously identifiable as advertising." An affiliate link or discount code triggers the same duty — "any content referring to a product for which there's also an affiliate link/code, will count as an ad," per the same source. That mirrors, in practice, the Danish rule of thumb from the sister article: any benefit triggers the duty, whether or not a written agreement exists.

Approved vs. rejected labels: UK vs. Denmark

This is where the two systems concretely diverge. Denmark really only accepts one formulation ("reklame for [brand]" or "annonce for [brand]," as the first visible element). The UK accepts several words, but explicitly rejects a number of others — including the exact word many Danish influencers would instinctively reach for when it comes to a gift: "gifted."

It's worth noting how similar the two systems actually are on the underlying principle — clear, unambiguous, first — even though the specific approved words differ. A campaign running in both countries can't reuse one piece of wording; it needs two.

How are the rules enforced? Self-regulation plus a statutory backstop

The structural difference that matters most in practice is who sits behind enforcement. Forbrugerombudsmanden is a Danish government agency. The ASA, by contrast, is a self-regulatory, industry-funded body — not part of the UK state. The ASA can't fine anyone directly. What it can do is nearly as effective, for a different reason: a public, named list.

The ASA's public list of non-compliant influencers

The ASA maintains its own page naming influencers who are "in breach of the CAP Code for routinely failing to clearly disclose when they are advertising to consumers on their social media channels." Influencers on the list were contacted by the ASA's compliance team and asked to provide assurance of clear, upfront labelling going forward — and appear on the list because they either failed to give that assurance or later reneged on it. The earliest date this article's research found on the list is 15 July 2025; per the ASA's own page, 26 influencers have since been removed, having been "adjudged — over the period of enhanced monitoring — to have satisfactorily changed their advertising disclosure practices in conformity with rule 2.1." If the assurance isn't honoured, the ASA itself warns of "further targeted sanctions such as ASA paid ad campaigns highlighting the influencer's continued non-compliance and onwards referral to enforcement partners."

It's a different flavour of name-and-shame than Forbrugerombudsmanden's press releases — more systematic, ongoing and publicly accessible as a standing list, rather than one-off cases.

The CMA's new fining power: up to 10% of global turnover

This is where the sharpest difference sits. Since Parts 3 and 4 of the DMCC Act came into force on 6 April 2025, the UK's competition and markets regulator, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), can decide for itself whether a trader has breached consumer law — bypassing the courts — and issue a fine directly. Failing to disclose paid promotion within editorial-style content (an "advertorial") is specifically listed as Practice 12 in the DMCC Act's Schedule 20, the list of practices considered "in all circumstances unfair" — with no need to prove consumer harm case by case. The penalty for breaching such a "banned practice" can run up to 10% of annual worldwide turnover, or £300,000, whichever is higher.

That stands in sharp contrast to the Danish model, where Forbrugerombudsmanden doesn't issue administrative fines directly — enforcement instead runs through guidance, injunctions and, ultimately, a criminal case through the courts. Markedsføringsloven does have its own turnover-based penalty framework in § 37 — up to 4% of turnover specifically for cross-border UCPD breaches under stk. 8-9 — but that still requires judicial process; see the EU's Omnibus Directive and the 30-day pricing rule for the full walkthrough of how that penalty framework actually works. The CMA's model is a direct, administrative decision — a structurally different route to a similar-sounding number.

Comparison: Denmark/EU vs. the UK

Decision framework: does a Danish campaign also need to satisfy the CAP Code?

IF the campaign's content is publicly accessible, AND a UK audience could reasonably be expected to see it, AND the brand paid for or exercised editorial control over the content → write a disclosure that also satisfies the ASA's requirements ("Ad" or equivalent), not just the Danish one.

IF the content is entirely in Danish and targeted at a Danish audience (language, geo-targeting, platform settings) → Danish/EU law is the rule that actually governs; the risk of the ASA acting is meaningfully lower, though not necessarily zero if the brand itself is UK-based and the content remains public.

IF you're unsure, and the collaboration is large, recurring, or involves a UK-based brand → use "Ad" or "#ad" as a supplement to the Danish disclosure. It costs nothing extra and removes the question entirely — exactly the same logic that the review of FTC rules for Danish influencers already recommends for a US brand.

Make Influence's recommendation

In our experience, the biggest practical risk in a UK-inclusive campaign isn't the disclosure itself — it's quick to fix once you know the difference — it's that a brief written for a Danish audience gets reused unchanged for UK creators, because no one explicitly flagged that the word "gifted" doesn't work in the UK. We recommend writing the target country into the brief for each individual creator, specifying the exact, approved wording for that country — exactly the same principle that already applies to the Danish disclosure duty in the sister article, just extended to cover more than one country. For a campaign running across several Nordic countries at once, the same logic applies at an even larger scale; see running an influencer campaign across the Nordics for how wording and the enforcing authority vary country by country within the Nordics.

FAQ

Is "#gifted" enough if the product genuinely was a gift with no expectation of a mention?

In the UK: no. The ASA judges that "gifted" doesn't clearly convey that the content is advertising. If there's also an expectation of a mention (the typical situation when a brand sends a product), the disclosure duty is triggered under both systems — only the actual wording differs.

Can a Danish brand be held responsible by the ASA if a campaign also reaches a UK audience?

Yes, potentially. The ASA's two-part test looks at whether the brand paid or exercised editorial control — not at where the brand itself is headquartered. A Danish brand running content that could reasonably reach UK consumers can in principle be named in an ASA ruling in the same way a UK brand would be.

Is the ASA a government agency in the same way Forbrugerombudsmanden is?

No. The ASA is a self-regulatory, industry-funded body, not part of the UK state. The statutory backstop is the CMA, which since 6 April 2025 has its own direct fining power under the DMCC Act — but that power sits with the CMA, not with the ASA itself.

What actually happens if an influencer ends up on the ASA's public list?

They face enhanced monitoring and spot checks for a period. Continued non-compliance can lead to further sanctions, including ASA-paid ads highlighting the continued non-compliance, and referral to other enforcement authorities. Per the ASA's own page, 26 influencers have since been removed from the list after changing their practices.

Do these rules still apply even though the UK is no longer an EU member?

Yes — the CAP Code and ASA enforcement are British, self-regulatory advertising regulation, independent of EU membership. That's exactly the point of this article: the rules don't derive from the EU and don't automatically track EU law when it changes — unlike Denmark, where upcoming EU initiatives like the Digital Fairness Act will directly affect the Danish legal position.

Does this article cover the other Nordic countries too?

No — this article specifically compares Denmark and the UK. See running an influencer campaign across the Nordics for a comparison of Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland, which follow a different rulebook than the UK's.

If the platform's own "Paid partnership" label is already switched on, is that enough in the UK?

Not automatically. Same conclusion as in Denmark: the ASA's guidance points to platform labels needing to be supplemented with a clear, text-based disclosure — see Meta's Paid Partnership label vs TikTok's Branded Content toggle for how the tools themselves work.