When Is an "Organic" Review Actually Hidden Advertising Under Danish Law?

Short answer: a commercial benefit has to surface — no matter how independent the review looks

The basic disclosure duty covers a post everyone already knows is sponsored, but which isn't marked correctly. This article covers something different: content built to look like an independent, unprompted review — a review portal, a "personal favourite" story, a "we tested it" article — that actually has a commercial purpose behind it. Forbrugerombudsmanden has repeatedly established that it's the commercial benefit that triggers the disclosure duty under Markedsføringsloven § 6(4) — not how "personal" or "objective" the content is written to sound.

This is practical guidance from Make Influence, not legal advice. Have the specific setup checked by a lawyer if there's any doubt.

Two rulings that show where the line sits

Case 1: the gaming-portal case (2019) — commission turned reviews into advertising

Two gambling operators had agreements with five casino review portals to pay for traffic generated from the portals' reviews of the operators and their products. Payment was commission-based — the portals earned money for every click, every registration and/or every purchase that came through the link. Forbrugerombudsmanden found that this payment structure gave the portals an incentive to write positively about the operators and to use the reviews themselves as a vehicle for driving traffic to the paid links — and that it wasn't clearly evident from the reviews that a commercial purpose sat behind them. The decision (cases 18/05040 and 18/05041, 12 June 2019) was made under § 6(4) combined with § 8 (the deception must be capable of affecting the consumer's economic behaviour).

Case 2: Obsidian Media ApS (2025) — false "we tested it" claims

On 2 July 2025, Forbrugerombudsmanden reported the company Obsidian Media ApS to the police. It operated five websites (forbrugsguiden.dk, forbruger-test.dk, senge-testeren.dk, bomagasinet.dk and bedste10.dk) presented as independent consumer guides. The sites used language like "test," "our recommendation" and "best practical choice," plus pros-and-cons lists, to create the impression of a genuine product evaluation — but the products were never physically tested by the company. The information instead came from manufacturers' own specifications and other people's reviews, while the revenue came from affiliate links to retailers. Consumer Ombudsman Torben Jensen stated that the company "camouflaged its commercial purpose and concealed that no actual testing had taken place." The case was brought under § 5 (prohibition on misleading statements) and § 6 (commercial purpose must be clearly disclosed, and material information may not be omitted).

The two cases show two different routes to the same conclusion: in the gaming-portal case, the problem was that the commercial relationship didn't surface at all. In the Obsidian case, the problem was twofold — the commercial relationship was hidden, and the reviews claimed something untrue (that the products had been tested).

The three-part test — Make Influence's own synthesis of the practice

There isn't one formal, named three-part test from Forbrugerombudsmanden for "organic" reviews. But across the cases described above, and the already-established practice around sponsored posts, the same three questions keep recurring. This is Make Influence's own synthesis for practical use — not a quote from a ruling:

1. Does the sender have a commercial benefit? Commission, a free product, payment for placement or traffic, a discount arrangement — any benefit counts, whatever the size.
2. Does the content present itself as independent or unprompted to the recipient? No disclosure, language like "my personal favourite" or "I tested this," no visible link to the sender's economic interest.
3. Could it affect the consumer's economic behaviour? The § 8 requirement — it has to be capable of making someone act differently than they otherwise would.

If the answer is yes to all three, it's hidden advertising — regardless of whether the sender is a single influencer, a review portal or a "best products" blog.

Already settled: an agreement is not a precondition

In a separate case (24/05922 and 24/06344, 8 October 2024), Forbrugerombudsmanden already established the principle this article's test builds on: "There is no requirement for an actual agreement before there is advertising." If an influencer receives a free product, a discount, an event invitation or a clothing loan in connection with a mention, there's a commercial benefit — and therefore a disclosure duty — regardless of whether the company asked for the mention. The same principle applies to an "organic" review: it isn't an excuse that nobody asked for it, if a benefit still sits behind it.

Comparison: a known sponsored post vs an "organic" review

Decision framework: does this content trigger the disclosure duty?

IF the sender receives a commercial benefit of any kind (commission, a free product, payment for traffic or placement) → the content has to be marked as advertising, however personal or independent it's written to sound.

IF the content claims to be based on an independent test or experience that didn't actually happen → that's a separate breach of § 5 on top of the disclosure duty, as in the Obsidian case.

IF a later post reuses an affiliate link or discount code from an earlier, correctly marked campaign → the later post has to be marked again. Every post has to be marked individually, regardless of whether an earlier post in the same collaboration was correctly disclosed.

IF the product was bought at full price and there's no agreement or benefit involved → no disclosure duty, no matter how positive or detailed the review is.

Illustrative example: the "organic" post that's still advertising

The scenario below is a made-up example for illustration — not a real Make Influence customer case.

An influencer collaborates with a skincare brand on one correctly marked post: "Ad for [brand]", with an affiliate link in bio. Three weeks later, the influencer shares an Instagram Story captioned "one of my current go-to favourites" — same product, same affiliate link, no disclosure. Even though the second story feels personal and unprompted, the same commercial benefit (the commission from the affiliate link) still attaches to it. Under § 6(4), that post has to be marked too — the original campaign's disclosure doesn't automatically cover a later, standalone post.

The most common mistakes

• Assuming "I wasn't asked to mention it" is an excuse. Forbrugerombudsmanden has already established that an agreement isn't a precondition for advertising.
• Assuming "personal" language exempts a post from the disclosure duty. It's the commercial benefit that decides the case — not the wording.
• Assuming a review portal or comparison blog is exempt because "we're not the brand itself." The gaming-portal case shows the opposite.
• Reusing an old affiliate link in new content without re-disclosing it. Every post has to be marked on its own.
• Claiming to have tested a product you only read about. That's a separate deception on top of the missing disclosure.

Make Influence's perspective

In our experience, the "organic" review is actually the one carrying the greatest legal risk — precisely because it's designed not to look like advertising. A correctly marked post is a closed matter legally, even if someone disagrees with the content. A post that deliberately avoids disclosure to appear more credible is exactly the behaviour Forbrugerombudsmanden has shown it actively pursues — because that's where the consumer is genuinely misled about why the recommendation exists at all. Our recommendation to both brands and creators: treat any product mention where a commercial benefit exists — however small or indirect — as something that needs disclosure, unless the opposite can clearly be documented.

FAQ

Does this only apply to influencers on social media, or also to "best products" blogs and review portals?

It applies to any commercial sender with a benefit behind the review — the 2019 gaming-portal case was specifically about review portals, not individual influencers.

Can an influencer ever mention a free product without disclosure if they weren't asked to mention it?

No. Forbrugerombudsmanden has already established (cases 24/05922 and 24/06344) that there's no requirement for an agreement before there's advertising — if the influencer receives a benefit, the disclosure duty applies.

Is a review with no affiliate link or payment still covered?

No, not if the product was bought at full price with no agreement or other benefit involved — see the comparison with an ordinary purchase in the basic disclosure-rules article.

Is it worse to claim you tested a product when you didn't?

Yes. That's a separate breach of § 5's prohibition on misleading statements, on top of the missing disclosure under § 6 — exactly what the Obsidian Media case was about.

Does the rule apply differently if the review is negative rather than positive?

No. The disclosure duty is about whether the commercial relationship is hidden — not the tone of the review. A paid but negatively framed post has to be disclosed exactly the same way as a positive one.

Is this the same rule as the basic disclosure duty for sponsored posts?

It's the same legal basis (§ 6(4)), but a different practical situation. See influencer marketing disclosure rules in Denmark and the EU for the basic disclosure duty on a known collaboration.

Is there a difference between this and using a discount code or tracking link without disclosure?

No — both are a commercial benefit that triggers the disclosure duty, whether it comes as direct payment, a free product or commission via a link. See discount codes vs tracking links for how the two mechanics work.

Can an affiliate network or affiliate influencer also be caught by this rule?

Yes. Commission via an affiliate link is a commercial benefit in exactly the same way as a flat fee — see affiliate influencer marketing: how the model works for how that mechanic works.

Who's responsible if a review portal uses an agency or ghostwriter to write the text?

Responsibility follows the commercial relationship, not who physically wrote the words — see ghost-posted influencer content: who's actually responsible for disclosure for how that plays out in practice.

Should a brand check its influencers' posts for this kind of "organic" reuse?

Yes — it belongs naturally in the ongoing follow-up on a collaboration. See a brand safety checklist for influencer partnerships and how to check an influencer's audience before you pay them for what else belongs in that review.

Is this the same as Forbrugerombudsmanden's "ja tak" ruling?

No. The "ja tak" ruling is about whether an offer you have to comment for is a genuine saving. This article is about whether the content itself has to be marked as advertising at all. See Forbrugerombudsmanden's "ja tak" offer ruling for that separate rule.

Does this same test apply to a review posted on Trustpilot?

The test in this article still governs whether the review counts as hidden advertising under Danish law, but Trustpilot layers its own, stricter platform rule on top: an incentivized reviewer is ineligible to write the review at all, disclosure or not. See incentivized and sponsored reviews on Trustpilot for how the two rulebooks differ.

Is this the same as the EU's ban on fake or manipulated reviews?

No, it's a related but separate question. This article covers whether content that presents itself as independent has to be labelled as an ad at all. A separate EU rule targets something different — whether a review's content is genuine, regardless of labelling: submitting or commissioning a false review, or misrepresenting an endorsement. See fake and manipulated reviews: what the EU Omnibus Directive bans for that rule and a real Danish court case.