Is “Sponsored Post” enough as an advertising label?

At the moment I have a case in which the question arises whether the word “sponsored post” is sufficient as an advertising label, e.g. for influencers. This, of course, goes along with the Heilbronn Regional Court decision I discussed in this post.

It is true that in this day and age, when many people are already confronted with the English language on a daily basis, one can argue excellently about the language. However, it is now a consensus that only the word #ad is not enough. In addition, some lawyers do not consider the pure labeling with “Ad” as sufficient, because it does NOT indicate that it is possibly a posting/video that is not pure advertising, like a commercial of a brand manufacturer, but a mixture of editorial content with advertising components. This could be used argumentatively to mean that the word “sponsored post” or “sponsored by” would comply with a labelling requirement. This is also true because the term is less well hidden in a cascade of hashtags (especially if it is clearly appropriate). However, as far as I can judge, this has not been decided. It is, of course, questionable whether it is who to argue about the language used.

As a rule, labelling should be carried out in the same way as the rest of the content. The note should therefore have the same language as the video and/or text and it should also be available at these points. For example, it can also be a problem if a video is only marked in the video description, in the case of “framing” a video, when viewing the video outside of YouTube, there is no indication.

In the meantime, there are countless stumbling blocks in influencer marketing, from the way in which you do this legally, to how to deal with warnings, to things like dealing with authorities, permits, and ultimately things like taxes. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.