“Sponsored Post” is not sufficient as advertising label

In this article, I have already dealt with the question of whether the term “sponsored post” is sufficient to meet the requirements of influencer case law.

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

the opinion of the media authorities, the advertising labeling tools provided by YouTube, Instagram and Facebook (“Contains paid promotion”, “Paid partnership with …” or “Paid”) are not suitable on their own to make the advertising nature of a post sufficiently clear.

However, these tools can be used in addition to the above-mentioned advertising labeling.

Almost as a continuation of the Heilbronn Regional Court’s case law on #ad, the media authorities have also taken a position on the question of whether English-language labels are sufficient:

For posts on German-language channels/accounts, the English-language labeling terms (e.g. “ad”, “sponsored by” or “PR Sample”) are not sufficiently clear as advertising labeling in the opinion of the
media authorities.

Of course, the media authorities have no legislative power or are courts in that sense.
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.