A payment. A free bag the creator keeps. A commission code that earns them a few pounds a sale. An ambassador agreement that has not paid out anything this quarter.
Four arrangements that feel entirely different to the people inside them. To the two bodies that police advertising in the UK, they raise the same question, and it is not the question most brands prepare for.
The test is not whether money moved
Two regimes overlap here. Most brands know one of them.
The advertising rules
The Advertising Standards Authority applies the CAP Code, and the test it uses has two parts: was there payment or another benefit, and did the brand have some control over what was said. Both together make the post an ad in ASA terms.
This is the test marketing teams have usually heard of, and it produces a reassuring conclusion: we sent a product, we never approved a script, so this is not an ad.
The consumer protection rules
The second regime is consumer law, enforced by the Competition and Markets Authority, and it does not ask about control at all. Its question is whether a reader can tell that the person recommending something had a commercial reason to. A recommendation that was incentivised and reads as an ordinary opinion is misleading whether or not anyone approved a script.
So the reassuring conclusion fails the second test even when it passes the first. Control decides which rulebook applies. It does not create an exemption.
What brands assume, and what applies
| The arrangement | Why brands think it is exempt | What actually applies |
|---|---|---|
| A fee for a video | Nobody argues with this one | An ad, labelled where it is seen before anything else |
| A product sent to keep | No money changed hands | The product is the benefit, so the disclosure stands |
| An affiliate link or commission code | The creator chose to post it | The commission is the incentive, and readers have to know it earns |
| An ambassador who was not paid this quarter | The contract is dormant | The relationship is live, so the disclosure is too |
| The brand reposting the video from its own ad account | It is now plainly the brand's own advertising | It still has to be identifiable as advertising in that placement |
| A friend of the founder posting unprompted, nothing given | They do not ask about this one | Not an ad, and labelling it would be inaccurate |
The last row matters as much as the others. A rule that catches everything catches nothing, and a brand that labels genuinely unpaid enthusiasm is training its audience to ignore the label everywhere else.
The label has to arrive before the attention
The requirement is that the content is identifiable as advertising, and identifiable means before someone has engaged with it rather than after. That turns an abstract rule into a layout question.
A word at the end of a caption that opens with three lines and a "more" link is not upfront. A label parked at the bottom of twenty hashtags is not upfront. A mention in the ninth second of a video whose first two seconds decide everything is not upfront.
Platform tools help, they do not finish the job
Most platforms now offer a built in paid partnership label, and it is worth switching on. The ASA's position has been that it does not by itself discharge the obligation, because it renders differently across surfaces and is easy to miss. The safe pattern is the platform tool plus a plain visible word in the content itself. Check the ASA's current guidance rather than any summary, including this one, because the platforms keep changing what their tools do.
The liability does not transfer with the brief
An ASA ruling names the advertiser. A contract clause telling the creator to comply is a sensible thing to have, and it moves the exposure nowhere. When a label is missing, the brand is the party being written about, and rulings are published.
That is the practical argument for checking before publication rather than after. Nothing about a missing label is expensive to fix in the twenty minutes before a post goes up. Everything about it is expensive afterwards, because deleting a post does not delete the ruling.
What to put in the brief
Four lines, and they cost nothing to add.
The exact word or tag you want used. Where it goes, stated as a position and not a preference: the first line of the caption, or the opening seconds on screen. Confirmation that the label stays if you repost the content or run it from your ad account. And a named person on your side who looks at the post before it is live.
Creators who work with British brands regularly will already do all four. The ones who do not will be glad you said it, because the ruling that names you names them alongside.
Keep reading
- The UGC Market in the United Kingdom
- Who Hires UGC Creators in the UK
- Setting Up as a Sole Trader UGC Creator in the UK
- VAT for UGC Creators in the UK
- The complete UGC guide for the UK
Frequently asked questions
Does gifting count as payment?
For disclosure purposes, yes. A product the creator keeps is a benefit, and a recommendation given in exchange for a benefit has to be identifiable as advertising.
Is the platform's paid partnership tool enough on its own?
Treat it as a supplement rather than the whole disclosure. Switch it on, and also place a plain visible label in the content where someone meets it before engaging.
Who gets named if a post is not labelled?
The advertiser, and often the creator alongside. A contract that pushes the duty onto the creator does not remove the brand from the ruling.
Do the rules apply if most of the audience is outside the UK?
If you are directing advertising at UK consumers, work on the basis that they do. Ask the ASA or a solicitor about a specific cross border case rather than guessing from audience percentages.
Sources
Checked on 27 August 2026. Thresholds and rates change: where this guide and the official source disagree, the official source is right.