The underlying principle
The rule is short and old: marketing communications must be obviously identifiable as marketing communications. A reader is entitled to know when they are being advertised to, before they engage with the material rather than afterwards.
That principle predates social media by decades. It is the same rule that requires an advertorial in a magazine to be labelled and that prevents an advertisement from being presented as editorial. What social platforms changed was not the rule but the difficulty of applying it, because the format of a paid post and an unpaid one is identical.
Consumer protection law reinforces this. Using editorial content to promote a product where the trader has paid for it, without making that clear, is a banned practice. So is falsely representing oneself as a consumer.
The test: payment and control
The operative question for social content has two limbs, and both generally need to be satisfied for the content to be an advert under the advertising codes.
Payment. Has the brand given something of value. This includes money, but also free products, free meals, travel, hospitality, commission, or a discount code arrangement. Value is not limited to a fee.
Control. Does the brand have any control over the content. Control includes approval rights, a brief, required messages, required hashtags, sign-off before posting, or a contractual requirement to post.
Where both are present, the content is advertising and the disclosure obligation applies. Where a creator was given a product with no control at all over what they said, the position under the advertising codes is different, though consumer protection law may still require the connection to be disclosed. The joint ASA and CMA guidance for influencers sets this out in detail and is the practical reference.
| Situation | Position |
|---|---|
| Paid fee and brand control over content | Advertising, disclosure required |
| Free product or meal, with brand control | Advertising, disclosure required |
| Free product, no control at all | Different under the codes, but consumer law may still require the connection to be disclosed |
| Affiliate link or commission arrangement | Commercial relationship, disclosure required |
| Discount code provided by a brand | Indicates an arrangement, disclosure expected |
| Creator promoting their own product | Advertising for their own business, identifiability rule applies |
Structure set out by this newsroom from the published rules named in the sources below. It is not a survey, a measurement or a market study.
What a compliant disclosure looks like
The requirements are about prominence and comprehension rather than about a specific word, but the practical guidance is consistent.
The disclosure should be up front, visible before a person engages with the content rather than after. In practice that means at the start of a caption rather than after a fold, in the video itself rather than only in a description, and on every part of a multi-part piece of content.
It should be clear. Recognised labels such as ad or advert are understood. Vaguer formulations such as thanks to a brand, in collaboration with, or a bare mention of a partnership are consistently treated as insufficient because the audience does not reliably read them as identifying advertising.
It should be prominent, not buried among other hashtags, not in a colour that blends into the background, and not so brief on screen that it cannot be read.
Platform tools that add a paid partnership marker are helpful, but the guidance position is that they may not be sufficient on their own, since their prominence varies by platform and by how the content is viewed.
Why food content is a particular case
Food creates specific complications that other categories do not.
Hospitality and free meals are a common form of value, and they are less obviously a payment than a transfer of money, which makes them easy to overlook. Recipe content frequently features products, and the line between a recipe that uses an ingredient and a recipe that promotes one is a matter of the arrangement behind it rather than of the content.
Health and nutrition wording is a further layer. Where a creator makes a claim about a food and health, the nutrition and health claims regime applies to the marketing communication, which means a claim outside the authorised register is a problem regardless of whether the disclosure is correct.
And a creator's own product is still advertising. Content promoting something the creator sells is a marketing communication for their own business, and the identifiability rule applies.
Who enforces this
The ASA handles complaints under the codes and publishes rulings, and it has taken a visible interest in influencer disclosure. The CMA acts under consumer protection law, where hidden advertising and false representation as a consumer are banned practices, and its powers were strengthened by the DMCC Act 2024.
Responsibility sits with both the brand and the creator. A brand cannot delegate compliance by not asking, and a creator cannot avoid it by pointing at the brief.
What a reader can do
Look at the first line of a caption and the first seconds of a video, since a compliant disclosure will be there. Treat vague partnership language as an indication that there is a commercial relationship whether or not it is labelled correctly. Note discount codes and tracked links, which almost always indicate a commercial arrangement. And treat any statement connecting a food to a health effect as a claim that would need to be authorised, whoever is making it.
Where this stops
This article describes disclosure rules. It names no creator, no brand and no platform, and makes no allegation about any content. Complaints go to the Advertising Standards Authority, which publishes its rulings.
Elsewhere on Feedworthy. Traceability in UK food law: one step back, one step forward.