What Happens to an Influencer Contract When the Brand Is Acquired or Merges With Another Company?

A brand you have an ongoing agreement with gets acquired or merges with another company — and you're left wondering whether your contract still stands. The answer depends on the type of deal. In a share deal (the buyer acquires the company's shares), the same legal entity remains the party to your contract, so the agreement continues as a starting point, unchanged. In an asset deal (the buyer acquires selected assets — a brand name, a product line, specific contracts), your contract doesn't automatically come along with the sale — assigning the contract itself generally needs your consent as the creditor. That's the same distinction that decides what happens to your usage rights and your ongoing collaboration.

This is general legal orientation based on common principles of Danish contract and company law, not advice on your specific situation. For a significant acquisition or a complex merger, a lawyer is the right next contact.

Share deal vs. asset deal — the first question to ask

Danish company acquisitions typically happen one of two ways, and which one it is decides almost everything about your contract's fate.

The point that catches people off guard: who "owns" the brand in practice and who is formally a party to your contract aren't necessarily the same thing after a deal. A brand can change its entire leadership and strategic direction through a share deal without a single line of your contract formally changing — while an apparently smaller asset deal involving just one product name can mean your agreement effectively needs renegotiating with a brand-new counterparty.

The default rule: substituting your counterparty needs your consent

A basic principle of Danish contract law is that one party to an agreement can't simply put a new party in its place — a substitution of the debtor (the party owing performance) — without the other party's consent. That principle holds unless one of three things is true: there's specific statutory authority for it (such as the tenancy act or the business-transfer act discussed below), the contract itself contains a clause allowing assignment without further consent, or you, as the other party, agree to the substitution afterwards. Absent any of those, a brand's new owner — or a buyer of selected assets — isn't automatically entitled to step into your agreement and demand it be honoured, and conversely, you're not automatically bound to continue with a new, unfamiliar counterparty you never agreed to work with.

Why Denmark's business-transfer act doesn't help you here

Many people know of Denmark's Act on the Legal Position of Employees on the Transfer of Undertakings (lovbekendtgørelse nr. 710 af 20. august 2002, implementing the EU's Directive 2001/23/EC) and assume it also protects their contract during an acquisition. It doesn't — the act guarantees that employees automatically transfer to the new employer on unchanged terms when a business, or part of one, changes hands. It applies specifically to employment relationships, not commercial agreements between two independent parties. An influencer invoicing through a registered business or paid as self-employed income with no employment contract isn't covered by this act in this context — your contract is an ordinary commercial agreement, and it's the consent rules above, not the business-transfer act, that decide its fate.

What an assignment and change-of-control clause should actually say

The real protection isn't legislation — it's the contract's own wording. Two related but distinct clauses are worth knowing:

• Assignment clause: decides whether the brand may assign the contract to a buyer without your consent, or whether that requires your approval on a case-by-case basis.
• Change-of-control clause: triggers specifically on a share deal or other ownership-change transaction, and gives you the right to be notified, renegotiate the terms, or terminate the agreement within a set window if the underlying ownership behind the brand changes materially — even though, per the table above, your formal counterparty doesn't actually change in a share deal.

Neither clause is one of the 12 baseline terms an influencer contract normally needs to address — see the 12 terms an influencer contract should cover for the rest of the contract's basic building blocks. But the longer and more valuable the collaboration — a multi-month ambassador deal rather than a one-off post — the more both clauses are worth asking for.

Your specific risk as a creator: representing a brand you never agreed to

The most concrete risk lands on exclusivity clauses. Say you've agreed not to promote competing haircare brands for six months in exchange for a fixed fee — see exclusivity clauses in influencer contracts for how that's normally priced. If, four months into the deal, the brand gets acquired by a group that also owns a direct competitor, a real question arises that most contracts never explicitly address: does your exclusivity now extend to the group's other brands, which you never negotiated over? And the reverse: can you still freely work with other brands under that same group that you were previously barred from as "competitors", now that they effectively share an owner with your own brand?

A related but less-discussed point: a morality clause typically only protects the brand against your conduct — not the reverse situation, where it's the new owner's reputation that becomes a problem for you as the creator. In our experience, that asymmetry is the thing most creators overlook until they're actually in it: a contract that gives the brand the right to walk away from you over a scandal rarely gives you an equivalent right if it's the brand's new owner that turns out to be the problem.

Decision framework

How to protect yourself in practice

• Ask for a change-of-control clause in any agreement running several months or longer — it costs nothing to ask for, and gives you a way to respond if the ownership behind the brand changes materially.
• Set a concrete deadline in the clause — for example, the right to renegotiate or terminate within 30 days of being notified of the ownership change — rather than a vague provision with no time limit.
• Address exclusivity explicitly for a change of ownership in the contract: does your exclusivity automatically extend to the new owner's whole portfolio, or only to the original brand you signed with?
• Check whether the agreement has a right of first refusal or renewal option — that kind of right can become unclear if the brand that granted it no longer exists as an independent company. See right of first refusal and renewal options in influencer contracts for how that clause is normally worded.
• Ask for written confirmation from the new owner if you're continuing the collaboration after an acquisition — even a short email confirming the current terms carry over reduces doubt later.

Worked example (hypothetical)

The figures below are a made-up example to illustrate the point — not a real customer case.

A creator signs a 12-month ambassador deal with a haircare brand worth DKK 120,000 in total, including an exclusivity clause barring competing haircare brands for a DKK 20,000 add-on fee. Four months into the deal, the brand is acquired by a group that also owns a direct competitor. The contract has no change-of-control clause. The creator can neither demand renegotiation of the exclusivity (which now effectively covers a broader, unfamiliar portfolio) nor terminate the deal without breaching it — losing the ability to decide for themselves whether the remaining eight months of exclusivity are still worth DKK 20,000, now that the situation has materially changed. Had the contract included a change-of-control clause with a 30-day response window, the creator could have used it to either renegotiate the add-on fee or exit the rest of the deal.

Make Influence's perspective

Acquisitions and mergers are far from something that only happens to the very biggest brands — we see it regularly among smaller and mid-sized DTC brands in our own network, where a fast-growing brand gets acquired by a larger player within its first or second year. Our experience is that a change-of-control clause is rarely something the brand proposes itself — it's typically something the creator has to ask for, and few do, because an acquisition is rarely the first thing on anyone's mind when signing an ambassador deal. For a one-off gifted-product collaboration, it's hardly worth the effort; for a multi-month exclusivity deal with real income at stake if the new owner turns out to be a problem, it's cheap insurance to ask for. A brand simply rebranding or changing its name, with the same ownership throughout, is a different and far less disruptive scenario — see what happens to an influencer campaign when the brand rebrands mid-partnership for that case instead.

FAQ

Does my contract automatically become invalid if the brand gets acquired?

No, not automatically. In a share deal, the contract continues unchanged as a starting point. In an asset deal, it depends on whether the contract already allows assignment, or whether that needs your consent as the creditor.

Can I demand the contract be renegotiated if the brand changes owners?

Only if the contract itself gives you that right, typically through a change-of-control clause. Without one, you don't have an automatic right to renegotiate just because the ownership has changed.

Does Denmark's business-transfer act apply to my contract as a freelance influencer?

No. The act only protects people in a genuine employment relationship. As a freelance creator invoicing through a registered business or self-employed income with no employment contract, you're not covered, and it's the ordinary consent rules on assigning a contract that decide its fate instead.

What happens to my usage rights if the brand is acquired?

Usage rights you've already granted for content already delivered and paid for aren't automatically cancelled by an acquisition as a starting point. It becomes less certain whether a new, unrelated owner can automatically use your content for future purposes you never originally agreed to, unless the contract expressly addresses it.

Should I always ask for a change-of-control clause?

It's most worth it for multi-month agreements with real exclusivity or significant financial value at stake — for a one-off collaboration, it's rarely necessary.

What's the reverse situation — what if I'm the one who sells or exits my channel?

See what happens to an influencer's brand deals when they sell or exit their channel or personal brand for the mirrored question: the same debtor-substitution rule applies, but a creator's own performance typically carries an extra, personal-service dimension a brand's performance doesn't.