Scroll through any feed and you will see someone well known holding a product, wearing a brand, or describing a skincare routine with evident enthusiasm. Some of it is spontaneous. A good deal of it is not. The line between the two matters, partly because it affects how much you should trust the recommendation, and partly because in the UK it is governed by a clear principle: if it is an advertisement, people should be able to tell.
The principle
The UK’s advertising code, which covers non-broadcast marketing including social media, requires that marketing communications be “obviously identifiable” as such. That is the heart of it. A post that is, in substance, an ad must not be dressed up as a personal opinion. The rule is not about banning endorsement, which is a normal and legitimate part of marketing. It is about making sure the audience knows what it is looking at.
The Advertising Standards Authority, which applies the code, has said repeatedly that the responsibility sits with the people making and publishing the content, and with the brands behind it. A brand cannot hand the labelling problem to a famous person and walk away, and a famous person cannot rely on a brand to have sorted it out.
What counts as an ad
This is the part that surprises people. An endorsement does not have to involve a payment to count as advertising. Commentators who summarise the guidance point to a range of arrangements that can create a commercial relationship, including:
- direct payment for a post;
- free gifts or products sent to someone, where the brand has some control over the content or an expectation of coverage;
- affiliate links or commission on sales;
- discount codes;
- trips, events and loans of products.
The test is whether there is a commercial relationship and some degree of control or expectation, not whether money changed hands. A gift with no strings attached is treated differently from a gift offered in return for a mention. The more a brand has influenced what is said, the more clearly the content is an advertisement.
What clear labelling looks like
The guidance favours simple, upfront labels. The ASA has recommended that a prominent “#ad” is the clearest way of showing that a post is advertising. It is not legally mandatory in itself, but it is widely accepted as an effective way of meeting the requirement, and it has become the standard shorthand. Platforms’ own disclosure tools, such as paid-partnership labels, can be used as well as or instead of the hashtag.
The details matter as much as the word. A label that is buried at the end of a long caption, hidden among a block of hashtags, or placed where a viewer would have to click through to see it is not “clear and prominent” in any useful sense. For video, the sensible reading is that the disclosure belongs in the video itself, not just in the description, because many viewers never read the description.
The same applies to vague wording. Phrases that merely hint, such as “thanks to a friend” or “sp”, may not tell an ordinary viewer that they are looking at an advert. The point of the rule is that the viewer should understand immediately.
Why famous people are not exempt
There is an intuitive idea that a celebrity’s endorsement is obvious: everyone knows that famous people are paid to appear with products. The rules do not rely on that assumption. The question is whether the particular post would be understood as advertising by the people who see it, and a casual-looking photo in a personal feed is exactly the sort of format in which a commercial relationship is easy to miss.
Nor is there an exemption for a famous person’s own brand. If a well-known figure promotes a product they own or co-own, the audience may reasonably want to know, and in the context of the ASA’s guidance, content promoting your own products is still an advertisement.
What happens when the rules are broken
The ASA’s usual route is to investigate complaints, publish its rulings and ask for the content to be changed or removed. The rulings are public, and in practice the reputational cost can matter as much as the formal outcome. The Competition and Markets Authority also takes an interest in hidden advertising, because it can be treated as a misleading practice under consumer law. Since the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force, the CMA has had powers to impose fines directly for breaches of consumer protection law, which raises the stakes for brands and for those who work with them.
What it means for readers
For anyone following celebrity recommendations, a handful of habits are useful.
- Look for the label before the product. If there is no label and the post reads like a recommendation, ask whether it could be unpaid, and notice that you have no way to know.
- Treat enthusiasm as information about the relationship, not the product. Genuine liking and paid liking can sound identical.
- Be most careful where claims are specific. A post that says a product “cleared my skin” or “changed my finances” is making a claim, not stating a taste, and claims need evidence whoever makes them.
None of this is a reason for cynicism. Plenty of people are open about the work they do with brands, and good practice is easy to recognise. The aim of the rules is modest: not that endorsements disappear, but that the audience always knows when one is being made.
This article is general information about UK advertising rules and is not legal advice. The rules and guidance change, so check the Advertising Standards Authority and Committees of Advertising Practice for current wording.
Sources: Advertising Standards Authority and the Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP Code and influencer guidance); Lewis Silkin (commentary on ASA guidance); CMS (Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act consumer provisions)
