The Danish High Court reduced fine for covert marketing
A recent ruling from the Danish Eastern High Court demonstrates that challenging fines for covert marketing on social media in court can be worthwhile. In this case, the district court had already substantially reduced the fine from the Consumer Ombudsman’s original recommendation, and the High Court lowered it even further. Ultimately, the fine ended up being just one-quarter of what the Consumer Ombudsman had initially proposed.
Share video
An influencer was charged with failing to label advertising content in posts on Facebook and Instagram. The Consumer Ombudsman and the District Court ruled that the influencer’s posts were advertisements, as the influencer had received clothing from companies in exchange for promotion.
The district court found that the influencer qualified as a business under the Danish Marketing Act and convicted the influencer for violating the rules on hidden advertising. The Consumer Ombudsman initially recommended a fine of DKK 120,000.00, but the district court reduced it to DKK 50,000.00.
The influencer appealed the case to the Eastern High Court, arguing that some of the posts were not advertisements because they were not part of a campaign but rather personal content.
The High Court upheld the ruling that the influencer acted as a business and should have labelled the posts as advertisements. However, the fine was still reduced to DKK 30,000.
IUNO’s opinion
The ruling confirms that influencers can be subject to the rules of the Danish Marketing Act even if they do not receive a direct payment or if their posts are not part of a formal campaign.
The case also highlights that influencers should carefully assess fines based on the Consumer Ombudsman’s recommendations, as the initially proposed fine in this case was four times higher than the final ruling.
If you’re an influencer and the Consumer Ombudsman has filed a police report against you, you should always evaluate whether the recommended fine takes mitigating circumstances into account before accepting a fine.
[Eastern High Court ruling of 21 February 2025 in case S-1435-23]
An influencer was charged with failing to label advertising content in posts on Facebook and Instagram. The Consumer Ombudsman and the District Court ruled that the influencer’s posts were advertisements, as the influencer had received clothing from companies in exchange for promotion.
The district court found that the influencer qualified as a business under the Danish Marketing Act and convicted the influencer for violating the rules on hidden advertising. The Consumer Ombudsman initially recommended a fine of DKK 120,000.00, but the district court reduced it to DKK 50,000.00.
The influencer appealed the case to the Eastern High Court, arguing that some of the posts were not advertisements because they were not part of a campaign but rather personal content.
The High Court upheld the ruling that the influencer acted as a business and should have labelled the posts as advertisements. However, the fine was still reduced to DKK 30,000.
IUNO’s opinion
The ruling confirms that influencers can be subject to the rules of the Danish Marketing Act even if they do not receive a direct payment or if their posts are not part of a formal campaign.
The case also highlights that influencers should carefully assess fines based on the Consumer Ombudsman’s recommendations, as the initially proposed fine in this case was four times higher than the final ruling.
If you’re an influencer and the Consumer Ombudsman has filed a police report against you, you should always evaluate whether the recommended fine takes mitigating circumstances into account before accepting a fine.
[Eastern High Court ruling of 21 February 2025 in case S-1435-23]
