So slowly it becomes lonely for the legal opinions that argue that Instagram posts by influencers only have to be labeled accordingly if there has really been a quid pro quo. Numerous regional courts have already come down hard on influencers, including the Itzehoe Regional Court, the Karlsruhe Regional Court, the Heilbronn Regional Court and, of course, the Berlin Regional Court. The Munich Regional Court ‘s ruling on Cathy Hummels is still pending, but the state media authorities are becoming increasingly active in YouTube matters. The matter is now also becoming increasingly clear in the higher courts, as the Higher Regional Court of Braunschweig has now also ruled alongside the Court of Appeal in Berlin, which only specified the obligations but largely ruled in favor of the Regional Court of Berlin.
The latter ruled that there would be an objective presumption that it would be advertising subject to labelling if an influencer on Instagram, without any comprehensible factual reason, had news about products of well-known brand manufacturers. would publish.
The influencer would therefore have the burden of proof to prove that the publications are in fact only editorial reporting. The court’s presumption was based mainly on the usual setup on Instagram, according to which the manufacturers’ brands appear when they click on the images presented, leading users/followers of the influencer to the manufacturer’s Instagram page by clicking on them. to become. In the present case, the design of the photos was also more reminiscent of a fashion catalogue than of editorial reporting, as far as nothing special is done.
Like the Chamber Court and, most recently, the Regional Court of Karlsruhe, the Higher Regional Court of Braunschweig is of the opinion that sneaky advertising is not dependent on a real payment, especially for one specific post.
Accordingly, the defendant is also quite prepared to accept fees from third-party companies for product placement […] It merely makes an inappropriate distinction according to whether or not it receives remuneration and considers that advertising does not have been available for as long as no material consideration is provided by the undertaking concerned.
The receipt of a consideration […] is an indication of a commercial act, but it is not alone decisive. The expectation, which is obvious in the present case, to arouse the interest of third-party companies in influencer marketing in cooperation with the defendant and thus generate sales is sufficient.
Influencers, whether on Twitter, Instagram, Twitch or YouTube, can only continue to be advised to seek qualified advice on advertising, competition law and/or setting up a business.
