A brand signs off a script, the creator films, the video goes out, and only then does someone ask whether that sentence could be said at all. By that point the piece has circulated, people have seen it, and it is saved on somebody's phone.

That is not anyone's oversight: it is how the system works here. In Argentina nobody reviews an advertisement before it is published, and control arrives afterwards, over what has already been distributed.

Nobody approves your video before it goes out

Decree 274/2019 on Lealtad Comercial says so plainly in article 12: the enforcement authority may not require authorisation or prior supervision of advertising before it is distributed. There is no counter where you file a script, no stamp that protects you, no such thing as "it was already approved".

That has a practical consequence worth understanding before any other: the review that matters is the one you do, and the moment to do it is before filming. Afterwards all that remains is post-hoc control, which is no longer a review but a complaint.

The second consequence is less obvious. Because there is no prior approval, there is also no piece of paper that covers you. "The brand told me it was fine" changes nothing in front of a consumer who felt misled.

What exactly is prohibited

Article 11 of the same decree prohibits any presentation, advertising or publicity that through inaccuracies or omissions may induce error.

Three words are worth reading slowly.

Inaccuracies is not the same as lies. An out of date figure, a percentage rounded up, a comparison that no longer holds: all of it counts.

Omissions is the part most underestimated in video. Saying something true while leaving out the condition that makes it false is exactly what the rule describes. "Delivered in 24 hours" without saying that it only applies in the city is not incomplete information, it is an omission.

May induce error means nobody has to have actually been misled and nobody has to have lost money. It is enough that the piece is capable of confusing. Waiting for a victim to appear before correcting is reading the rule backwards.

Naming a competitor: allowed, with conditions

Comparative advertising is the ground where a prohibition is most often assumed and where in fact there is a conditional permission. Article 15 allows comparison, and sets two conditions that are more demanding on video than they sound.

The first is not to induce error, which here means comparing under the same conditions. Two products measured at different moments, or one used well and the other used badly, is a comparison that induces error even though both shots are real.

The second is to compare goods or services that meet the same needs. An expensive product against a cheap one that does something else are not comparable, however much they sit on the same shelf.

For a video that turns into three decisions on set. Both samples are filmed on the same day, in the same place, under the same light. The basis of comparison is stated out loud, because a comparison without a stated basis is an opinion dressed as proof. And if a product is named, it is named properly: the whole pack, the right version, with no framing that puts it at a disadvantage.

It is worth saying what this does not change. That comparison is permitted does not license saying anything about the other product that cannot be proven, and the burden of proof still sits with whoever makes the claim.

Who answers is not a binary rule

This is where the worst simplification in the trade circulates, in both directions: "the brand always answers because it is their product" or "the creator answers because he said it". Neither describes how the rule is written.

The decree applies to all natural or legal persons taking part in the market who carry out the prohibited acts. It does not hand out roles in advance: it looks at who did what.

The person making the claim

If a specific, verifiable sentence comes out of your mouth on camera, that claim is yours in the most literal sense. It does not mean you are the only one who answers, it means you are part of the chain and cannot step out of it by saying you read a script.

The advertiser

The brand knows the product, holds the studies if any exist, and profits from the sale. It is the one that can prove what was claimed, which is why it almost always ends up at the centre when a complaint appears.

The platform

A social network is not the author of the piece. Its intervention is different: it can take the piece down, restrict the account, require you to declare that the content is paid. That layer is contractual rather than legal, and it runs on its own timing and without notice.

The nature of the claim changes everything

A piece is not "risky" or "safe" as a block. What gets measured is each sentence, and three kinds behave differently.

Personal experience, stated in the first person and without generalising, is the most solid. "It lasted me all afternoon" describes something that happened to somebody.

The general claim turns that experience into a property of the product. "It lasts all afternoon" is no longer an account, it is a promise somebody has to be able to hold up.

The verifiable data point, any figure, percentage, deadline or comparison, is the one that requires backing before filming. If the brand cannot show you where it comes from, it is not said. Not because it is false, but because you will not be able to prove it the day you are asked.

The special case of price

Of every possible claim, price is the one that turns inaccurate fastest, and not because anyone lies: because the price changes and the video stays.

A figure spoken on camera ages on its own. The piece keeps circulating, the value is no longer that one, and what was true on the day of the shoot starts to induce error without anyone having touched anything. The same goes for "three interest free instalments" once the promotion has ended, or a discount tied to a bank that changed its terms.

There are two ways to solve it and both are boring. The first is not to say the number: show the product and send people to the place where the price lives and is updated. The second is to say it with its date, and accept that the piece has an expiry and has to come down.

What does not work is the third, which is what almost everyone does: say the number, leave the video online and hope nobody notices.

What gets written before filming

  1. Ask in writing for the backing behind every data point. One line per figure. If the brand does not have it, the figure leaves the script and there is nothing further to discuss.
  2. Mark in the script which sentences are experience and which are claims. Two colours will do. The second kind gets reviewed one by one.
  3. Write down the conditions attached to each promise. Delivery area, real timing, stock, validity. What does not fit in the video goes in the description.
  4. Record who approved what. Not to assign blame later, but because it forces somebody to read beforehand.

The objection you hear here is that this level of care kills the spontaneity the brand bought in the first place. It is true of the form and false of the content: what gets prepared is what may be claimed, not how it is said. A creator who knows exactly where the boundary is improvises better, because he stops hesitating on camera.

Sources

Checked on 12 September 2026. This guide is not legal advice. Where this guide and the official source disagree, the source prevails.