Canadian law judges an advertisement on the general impression it creates, not only on whether each individual sentence is technically true. That single principle is where most creator video goes wrong.

The general impression is the test

A video can contain nothing but literally accurate statements and still be a misleading representation if the overall impression it leaves is false. Regulators and courts look at what an ordinary viewer takes away, not at what a careful reader could parse.

Where creator video creates exposure

Improvised enthusiasm. A creator who says the product cleared their skin, doubled their battery life or saved them money is making a representation the brand is responsible for, whether or not the brand wrote the words.

The brand is responsible for what the creator says

Handing over creative freedom does not hand over liability. If a video is commissioned and published by a brand, the claims in it are the brand's claims. That is the reason to supply approved wording rather than to hope.

Review the final cut, not just the brief

A brief that forbids a claim is worthless if nobody watches the delivered video before it runs. Build a review step into the process, and make it somebody's actual job rather than a step everybody assumes somebody else did.

What to do instead

Let the creator describe their own experience in their own words and keep the comparative or measurable statements in brand supplied copy. Experience is subjective and defensible; measurement is a claim that has to be backed. This is general information rather than legal advice, and anything close to the line is worth a lawyer's ten minutes.

Keep reading

Find creators for your campaign →

Frequently asked questions

What is the legal test?

The general impression on an ordinary viewer.

Who is responsible for a creator claim?

The brand that commissioned and published it.

Does creative freedom transfer liability?

No, it does not.

What is the safe register?

Personal experience, not measurement.