Unjustified termination and claim for damages with influencer agencies
The premature transfer of influencers to other agencies poses a significant problem for influencer agencies.
The acquisition of clients and the planning of advertising campaigns can take several months, with agencies already investing considerable resources during this time.
If an influencer then resigns without justification shortly before or during a campaign, this can lead to considerable financial losses for the agency.
Commission-based cooperation and sunset clauses
In many cases, influencer agencies work on a commission basis, i.e. they receive a percentage of the income from the advertising campaigns.
If an influencer changes prematurely, the agency not only loses the expected commission, but also the investment in customer acquisition and campaign planning.
Even if the contract contains sunset clauses that guarantee the influencer a commission for a certain period after the end of the contract, these often do not go far enough to compensate for the agency’s losses.
Claims for damages according to § 280 BGB
One way for agencies to protect themselves against influencers who terminate their contracts without justification is to assert claims for damages.
The first step is to check whether the termination was actually unjustified, i.e. whether the influencer terminated the contract prematurely without good cause.
Good cause could exist, for example, if the agency breaches its contractual obligations or if the influencer is no longer able to provide the agreed services for personal reasons.
If there is no justification for termination, the agency can demand compensation in accordance with Section 280 BGB.
In particular, the loss of profit from the planned advertising campaigns as well as useless expenses for customer acquisition and campaign planning must be taken into account.
However, the influencer is only liable if he is responsible for the breach of contract, i.e. if he has acted intentionally or negligently.
Liability for culpa in contrahendo (c.i.c.)
In addition to claims for damages under Section 280 BGB, the influencer may also be liable for culpa in contrahendo (c.i.c.).
This applies if the influencer did not intend to fulfill the contract until the agreed end when the contract was concluded or if the influencer culpably raised false expectations with the agency during the term of the contract, on which the agency based its dispositions.
Contract drafting and documentation
In order to be able to effectively assert claims for damages, influencer agencies should carefully draft their contracts and, in particular, provide for notice periods, sunset clauses and contractual penalties in the event of unjustified termination by the influencer.
Detailed documentation of the expenses for customer acquisition and campaign planning can also help to quantify the damage incurred in the event of a dispute.
Conclusion
The premature change of influencers presents agencies with major challenges.
To protect themselves against financial losses, agencies should check whether an unjustified termination triggers claims for damages.
In particular, the provisions of Section 280 BGB and c.i.c. must be observed.
Careful contract drafting and documentation can make it easier to enforce claims.
Nevertheless, the assertion of claims for damages often remains a difficult undertaking, so agencies are well advised to minimize the risk of a premature change in advance by carefully selecting influencers and building long-term relationships.
