What matters is something in return!

According to the latest BGH ruling, influencers no longer have to mark their content with advertising. You can find out which content this is the case with here in this article.

The Association of Social Competition had complained about inadmissible surreptitious advertising by 3 influencers and demanded a cease and desist and warning costs. The BGH has now rejected these allegations in two cases. The BGH only saw the accusation of surreptitious advertising in the case of one influencer. It was an Instagram post about a raspberry jam. This post was probably “not sufficiently clearly” marked as advertising.⁣ The influencer received something in return for the post.

The whole thing ended well for the other 2 influencers, including Cathy Hummels. Neither influencer received anything in return for their post contributions! And that is the crucial difference! After the decision, influencers on the Internet are now allowed to refer to companies in photos with products, without any reference to advertising - provided it does not become too promotional and there is no consideration.

This ruling is therefore in line with the new influencer law.

This is what Cathy Hummels says after the verdict:

“If I spend money on a product, i.e. my own money, on which I have also paid taxes, then I would like to be able to recommend it out of my own convictions. The television media is allowed to do that, and the print media is allowed to do that too. And I see myself as a women’s newspaper.”

Summary

• Paid advertising and barter deals must always be marked!
• If you simply refer to products, brands or websites without receiving anything in return, the advertising labeling requirement does not apply.