Using Influencer Content as a Testimonial: What Danish Law Requires You to Document

Short answer: it's the documentation requirement, not the disclosure rule, that decides it

When a brand reuses an influencer's post or quote as a testimonial in its own marketing — on its website, in an ad, or in a "customers say" section — Markedsføringsloven § 13, Denmark's documentation requirement, decides what the brand is allowed to say. Any concrete, measurable claim about an effect, a result or a comparison ("my skin got 40% smoother", "98% of my followers loved it") must be documentable before it's reused — or the claim has to be dropped or rewritten as a clear personal opinion. That applies whether or not the original post was correctly disclosed as an ad.

This is practical guidance from Make Influence, not legal advice. Get a specific legal assessment if you're unsure about a particular claim.

This isn't about ad disclosure

It's easy to conflate the two. The ad-disclosure rules decide whether a post has to be marked as advertising — whether the audience can tell there's a commercial interest behind it. The documentation requirement is a separate question: it decides whether what the post actually says is allowed to stand as a claim, regardless of whether the post is correctly labelled. A post can be perfectly disclosed as an ad and still contain a claim the brand can't document — and a testimonial a brand reuses can trigger the documentation requirement even if the original post was never paid at all.

The two duties stack. Most reused testimonials have to satisfy both.

The documentation requirement: Markedsføringsloven § 13

Section 13 of the Danish Marketing Practices Act states plainly: "The trader must be able to document the accuracy of information about factual matters." The provision implements an EU-level principle: Article 12 of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (Directive 2005/29/EC) gives Member States' courts and administrative authorities the power to require a trader to furnish evidence of a factual claim's accuracy — and to treat the claim as inaccurate if the evidence isn't furnished or is insufficient.

Forbrugerombudsmanden (the Danish Consumer Ombudsman) has spelled out what the requirement means in practice through its own case-handling standard: a trader must have certainty that a factual claim is correct at the point the marketing takes place — or certainty that the documentation can be produced. If the documentation isn't produced within the deadline the Ombudsman normally sets during an inquiry, the authority treats the claim as false. In other words, "we'll figure it out if someone asks" isn't good enough — the documentation has to be ready when the claim is used, not only once it's challenged.

The same logic already sits behind the Academy's own article on environmental and sustainability claims: Forbrugerombudsmanden's green-marketing recommendations interpret Sections 5, 6 and 13 of the Marketing Practices Act together. Testimonial documentation is the same duty applied to a different kind of claim — not "the product is green," but "it worked," "I got this result," or "we're the best."

What counts as a "factual claim" — and what's just an opinion?

The documentation requirement only applies to factual matters — something that can, in principle, be checked. A pure, subjective opinion isn't covered.

The line isn't always sharp in practice. An influencer saying "I think my skin looks better" edges closer to an effect claim the more concrete and measurable the wording gets — "looks better" is an opinion, "40% smoother" is a number someone has to be able to stand behind.

When does an influencer's post become the brand's own claim?

The question that matters isn't who originally wrote the words — it's who is using them as their own marketing. Three situations, in increasing order of the brand's exposure:

1. The influencer's own, unreused post. The post sits only on the influencer's own account. This is mainly governed by the rules on the influencer's own responsibility for their marketing (see the disclosure rules) — but if the brand asked for or approved the specific wording, it's in the picture from the start.
2. The brand reposts, quotes or features the statement as its own. Put the quote on your website under "what our customers say," repost the Story, or use it in marketing material, and it's now unambiguously your own marketing — the documentation requirement applies in full, regardless of who originally phrased the sentence.
3. The brand whitelists or boosts the post as a paid ad. Run the post as a Partnership Ad or Spark Ad, and you're putting budget and targeting behind it as your own campaign — even though the ad technically runs from the influencer's profile. That makes it your marketing for documentation purposes too.

A concrete distinction Forbrugerombudsmanden has drawn in dietary-supplement cases illustrates the difference well: if an ordinary follower or an influencer leaves an undocumented comment about an effect they personally experienced, that's generally protected speech, and the company's correct response is a disclaimer, not deleting the comment. But if the company tags the content itself, or turns it into its own post, the undocumented claim is now the company's own — and it has to be removed or documented. Reusing a testimonial is exactly the same transition: from the influencer's speech to the brand's own claim.

Decision framework: can you reuse it?

IF the statement is a clear, subjective opinion ("I love it," "my new favourite") → no documentation duty, reuse it freely.

IF the statement is a concrete, measurable claim, and it stays as the influencer's own, unreused post → assess it under the ordinary rules on the influencer's own liability; still consider a disclaimer if the brand asked for the wording.

IF you repost, quote or feature the statement as your own testimonial → you have to be able to document the specific claim before reusing it — or not use that particular wording.

IF you whitelist or boost the post as a paid ad → the same requirement applies in full; it's now your marketing.

IF the claim concerns a dietary supplement, a health effect, or an environmental/sustainability property → stricter, specific rules apply on top of the general documentation requirement — see influencer marketing in regulated industries and environmental and sustainability claims.

Practical checklist before reusing a testimonial

• Ask for the underlying basis of any concrete, measurable claim before reusing the quote — a user survey, a test result, sales figures.
• Save the exact wording and date of the original post, so you can document what was actually said.
• If the claim can't be documented → rewrite it as a clear, subjective opinion, or drop it entirely.
• Be especially careful with "typical results" phrasing — one person's experience doesn't document an average across all users.
• Build the documentation check into the same step where you consider reposting, quoting or whitelisting a post — alongside ad disclosure as an item in the contract.
• Agree in the contract that you can ask for the underlying basis of any concrete claim the influencer makes about your product — see UGC usage rights for how the separate right to reuse the content at all needs its own agreement.

Hypothetical worked example

This is a fabricated example for illustration — not a real Make Influence customer case. A skincare brand wants to repost an influencer's Reel where she says, "my skin was 40% smoother after 3 weeks," onto the brand's own Instagram and product page. The brand hasn't run its own test and hasn't asked the influencer to document the 40% figure. Reused as-is, the quote is now the brand's own, undocumented effect claim — and it doesn't clear Markedsføringsloven § 13. The brand has three real options: (1) commission an independent user test or obtain the influencer's own documentation before using the quote, (2) ask the influencer to rephrase it as a clear opinion ("I felt my skin was smoother"), or (3) repost the video without highlighting the specific figure. Only option (1) lets the original, concrete number stand.

Make Influence's perspective

In our experience, this is one of the easiest documentation duties to miss, precisely because the words aren't the brand's own. We recommend running any influencer quote you plan to repost, whitelist, or feature as a testimonial through the same approval step as ad copy your own marketing team wrote — before it's reused, not only once someone asks about it. It's cheaper to ask the influencer for the underlying basis while the collaboration is still active than to have to document a claim months later if Forbrugerombudsmanden requests it.

FAQ

Does an ordinary "I love it" post need documentation?

No. A pure, subjective opinion isn't a "factual matter" under the Marketing Practices Act, so the documentation requirement doesn't apply. That changes the moment the statement becomes concrete and measurable.

Does it still apply if the influencer has deleted the original post?

Yes, if you've kept a copy and reuse the quote anyway. It's your use of the claim that triggers the documentation requirement — not whether the original post is still live.

Is this the same as the ad-disclosure rule?

No. Ad disclosure is about whether the post has to be marked as advertising. This is about whether what the post actually says is allowed to stand as a claim. A testimonial you reuse typically has to satisfy both rulebooks.

What if the testimonial is about a dietary supplement or a health effect?

Then stricter rules apply on top of the general documentation requirement — only EU-approved health claims may be used about foods and supplements, no matter how convincing an influencer's personal experience sounds. See influencer marketing in regulated industries.

Does the same apply to a testimonial about an environmental or sustainability property?

Yes — and from 27 September 2026, a defined set of undocumented environmental claims become automatically misleading, whether they come from the brand itself or are reused from an influencer's testimonial. See environmental and sustainability claims.

Who enforces the documentation requirement?

Forbrugerombudsmanden, the same authority that enforces the ad-disclosure rules. If a business can't produce documentation within the deadline the authority sets during an inquiry, the claim is treated as false.