OLG Braunschweig confirms influencer jurisdiction

Key Facts

Braunschweig Higher Regional Court confirms rulings on influencers and advertising that were already discussed last year
case about an influencer who shared fitness content on Instagram and used brand links.
OLG ruled that this was inadmissible advertising as it was commercially oriented.
The defendant was not acting privately, but for image cultivation and branding purposes.
The absence of a material consideration is not sufficient to justify advertising.
Consumers were unable to recognize the advertising as such, which is considered problematic.
The ruling is not yet legally binding and could have consequences for influencer marketing.

The OLG Braunschweig just confirmed the numerous rulings around influencers and advertising that you can find on my blog, especially last year.

The case at hand involved an influencer who was active on Instagram, where she regularly shared pictures and short video sequences on sports exercises as well as fitness and nutrition tips. Clicking on the images, the names and brands of the manufacturers of the clothes worn by the influencer appeared. With another click, one was then directed to the Instagram appearances of the manufacturers.

According to the 2nd Civil Senate of the Higher Regional Court of Braunschweig, this was inadmissible advertising. By posting the images and linking them to the names and accounts of the manufacturers, the influencer was acting for commercial purposes. She runs the Instagram account not privately, but also for the benefit of image building and to build her own brand and business. The fact that it had not received any material consideration for certain advertising was not the only decisive factor. The expectation of attracting third-party interest in influencer marketing and generating revenue in this way would be sufficient, he said. After all, the defendant describes herself as an influencer. These are usually well-known and popular people who are paid to be depicted with a certain product. The fact that their posts on Instagram did not offer any editorial reason for the pictures and the manufacturer’s name also speaks in favor of commercial action.

Because the influencer had not made the commercial purpose of her actions clear, the advertising was inadmissible. Consumers would also not have been able to recognize directly from the circumstances that it was advertising. According to the 2nd Civil Senate, it is precisely in the nature of an influencer post that an apparently private and objective recommendation is made, to which the followers would attach greater importance than a labeled advertisement.

The judgment is not yet final.

Author: Marian Härtel

Marian Härtel ist Rechtsanwalt und Fachanwalt für IT-Recht mit einer über 25-jährigen Erfahrung als Unternehmer und Berater in den Bereichen Games, E-Sport, Blockchain, SaaS und Künstliche Intelligenz. Seine Beratungsschwerpunkte umfassen neben dem IT-Recht insbesondere das Urheberrecht, Medienrecht sowie Wettbewerbsrecht. Er betreut schwerpunktmäßig Start-ups, Agenturen und Influencer, die er in strategischen Fragen, komplexen Vertragsangelegenheiten sowie bei Investitionsprojekten begleitet. Dabei zeichnet sich seine Beratung durch einen interdisziplinären Ansatz aus, der juristische Expertise und langjährige unternehmerische Erfahrung miteinander verbindet. Ziel seiner Tätigkeit ist stets, Mandanten praxisorientierte Lösungen anzubieten und rechtlich fundierte Unterstützung bei der Umsetzung innovativer Geschäftsmodelle zu gewährleisten.

Tags: Blog Case law Consumer Influencer Instagram Judgments marketing