“Sponsored Post” is not sufficient as advertising label

Already in this article I have dealt with the question whether the term “sponsored post” is sufficient in the sense to meet the requirements of influencer jurisprudence.

The updated social media notes of the media outlets now contain the following passage:

According to the media outlets, the advertising labelling tools provided by YouTube, Instagram and Facebook (“Contains paid promotion”, “Paid partnership with …” or “paid”) alone is not capable of making the advertising character of a contribution sufficiently clear.

However, these tools can be used in addition to the above-you look advertising label.

Almost as an update of the case law of the District Court of Heilbronn on the subject of #ad, the media institutions have also taken a position on the question of whether English-language markings are sufficient:

For contributions on German-language channels/accounts, the English-language marking terms (e.g. “ad”, “sponsored by” or “PR Sample”) are
media outlets as advertising labels are not sufficiently clear.

Of course, the media institutions have no legislative power in this sense or are courts. However, it is very likely that other courts will agree with this hard line and also judge that both German-language terms must be used and that it is necessary to clarify exactly what is paid for in the content, i.e. whether the the advertiser’s entire release was whether the release was voluntary and whether the streamer is only supported and the like. So a paid unpackiging video on e.g. a craftsman channel would be judged differently than an exclusive Let’s Play of a new Free2Play game.

Influencer jurisprudence has become very extensive and, in order to avoid warnings, whether from competitors or from the media institutions, I can only advise you to examine exactly what one publishes, how and how and how this content might be used. are marked.

P.S: of course this also applies to “Sponsored Stream” or “Sponsored Video” etc.