Digital Fairness Act Monitor
Influencer marketing disclosure
Influencer marketing can be a commercial practice when content promotes products or services. Existing EU consumer and audiovisual rules already address hidden commercial intent and advertising disclosure in relevant circumstances. The operational task is to identify the commercial relationship, make disclosure clear at first exposure and retain campaign evidence, not to wait for a future DFA rule.
- Current issue
- Commercial intent and clear disclosure
- Journey
- Discovery, recommendation, landing page and checkout
- DFA
- Future text and any new duties remain unknown
Statements and evidence
Source comparisons and retained baselines are identified separately; no personal legal review is implied. Data coverage and date meanings.
Influencer marketing disclosure: Legal fact
Influencer marketing can be a commercial practice when content promotes products or services. Existing EU consumer and audiovisual rules already address hidden commercial intent and advertising disclosure in relevant circumstances. The operational task is to identify the commercial relationship, make disclosure clear at first exposure and retain campaign evidence, not to wait for a future DFA rule.
Status: Current law
Earlier source baseline: 2026-08-09. Source comparison: 2026-09-14. 14 September comparison added current institutional context. Several underlying EUR-Lex provision texts could not be retrieved, so the detailed legal mapping retains its earlier baseline. No new full-text or personal legal review is claimed.
Revision: eu-influencer-disclosure@f5423f9c266cfac855dabfba93f1c925cc40f60625c12e47debbdc41ac29a4dd
- Unfair Commercial Practices Directive: supports. UCPD Article 7(2), Annex I points 11 and 22; AVMSD Article 9
- Audiovisual Media Services Directive: qualifies. Context and qualifications in the linked source; see the article source list.
- Digital Fairness Act: call for evidence for an impact assessment: qualifies. Context and qualifications in the linked source; see the article source list.
What evidence should teams retain?
Keep the brief, compensation or benefit record, approved disclosure, published version, date and platform placement. Capture the first user exposure rather than only the expanded caption. Unfair Commercial Practices DirectiveAudiovisual Media Services Directive
What can make a disclosure ineffective?
Ambiguous labels, a disclosure after the promotional claim, low contrast, language mismatch or a format that disappears can all undermine the practical clarity of commercial intent. Unfair Commercial Practices DirectiveAudiovisual Media Services Directive
What does this look like in a customer journey?
Illustrative example 1 · Paid live-stream recommendation
A fictional creator demonstrates a paid-for skincare product during a live stream, uses a purchase link and mentions “thanks to my friends at the brand” only after several promotional claims have already been made.
Why it may matter: Viewers may not recognise the commercial intent at first exposure and may give the recommendation weight they would not give a clearly identified advertisement.
Illustrative example 2 · Child-facing game promotion
A fictional gaming creator unboxes a gifted in-game bundle in a video aimed at younger viewers, calls it a personal favourite and places the gift disclosure only in the collapsed description below the video.
Why it may matter: A young viewer may not distinguish entertainment from commercial communication, especially where the disclosure is remote from the endorsement and purchase route.
Interface comparison
My new everyday favourite. Tap to buy · partnership detail hidden in the expanded caption
Paid advertisement for Fictional Brand. The creator was paid for this demonstration · Tap to view product details
What is a fairer or lower-risk alternative?
Identify the material relationship and commercial intent at first exposure, in language the expected audience can understand. Keep disclosure perceptible across formats, edits and reposts, link campaign evidence to the published version, and review the responsibilities of the trader, creator and platform separately.
What is regulated, proposed or still open?
| Evidence layer | Status | What the source supports |
|---|---|---|
| Current law | Current law | The UCPD can address hidden commercial intent and misleading presentation where its scope and tests are met. The AVMSD contains sector-specific audiovisual commercial-communication rules; it is not a horizontal rule for every creator, platform or post. Unfair Commercial Practices DirectiveAudiovisual Media Services Directive |
| Officially announced | Officially announced | Problematic influencer practices are expressly named in the Commission’s official DFA preparation material. Naming the topic does not create new creator, trader or platform duties. Review of EU consumer law2030 Consumer Agenda and action plan for consumers in the Single Market |
| Under consideration | Under consideration | Possible policy measures remain at impact-assessment and consultation stage. The call for evidence does not select a final allocation of responsibility or disclosure format. Digital Fairness Act: call for evidence for an impact assessment |
| Stakeholder proposal | Stakeholder proposal | The Commission-reported children’s survey says 69% of respondents preferred influencer-related product-safety or appropriateness protections. These reported preferences are not legislative provisions or a Commission position. Commission survey shows children want better rules to ensure digital fairness for all |
| Editorial analysis | Editorial analysis | The Fitness Check evaluates digital consumer-law evidence and policy gaps, including commercial practices in changing online formats. Its findings support review, not an automatic infringement conclusion for a post or campaign. Fitness Check of EU consumer law on digital fairness |
| Unknown | Unknown | Whether the proposal will add duties for influencers, advertisers, agencies or platforms, and any scope, format, monitoring, remedy or application date, remains unknown. Commission work programme 2026: Europe's Independence MomentDigital Fairness Act: call for evidence for an impact assessment |
What should teams review?
- Review and document the decisions described in “What evidence should teams retain?”.
- Review and document the decisions described in “What can make a disclosure ineffective?”.
Evidence to retain
- Current issue: retain the source, decision record and reviewed journey state for commercial intent and clear disclosure.
- Journey: retain the source, decision record and reviewed journey state for discovery, recommendation, landing page and checkout.
- DFA: retain the source, decision record and reviewed journey state for future text and any new duties remain unknown.
Evidence base
Sources
- Unfair Commercial Practices DirectiveEuropean Parliament and Council of the European Union · Primary · checked 2026-08-09 · Directive 2005/29/EC; CELEX 02005L0029-20220528
- Audiovisual Media Services DirectiveEuropean Parliament and Council of the European Union · Primary · checked 2026-08-09 · Directive 2010/13/EU; CELEX 02010L0013-20181218
- Digital Fairness Act: call for evidence for an impact assessmentEuropean Commission · Primary · checked 2026-08-09 · Initiative 14622; Ares(2025)6275573
- Review of EU consumer lawEuropean Commission, Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers · Primary · checked 2026-09-14
- 2030 Consumer Agenda and action plan for consumers in the Single MarketEuropean Commission · Primary · checked 2026-08-09 · COM(2025) 848 final; CELEX 52025DC0848
- Commission survey shows children want better rules to ensure digital fairness for allEuropean Commission, Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers · Primary · checked 2026-08-09
- Fitness Check of EU consumer law on digital fairnessEuropean Commission · Primary · checked 2026-09-14 · SWD(2024) 230 final
- Commission work programme 2026: Europe's Independence MomentEuropean Commission · Primary · checked 2026-09-14 · COM(2025) 870 final; CELEX 52025DC0870; Annex I item 30