A brand with forty creators on a monthly program discovers that six of them have stopped writing "ad" on their posts, that two are repeating a benefit claim the brand never substantiated, and that one has been saying the product is "FDA approved" for three weeks. Nobody at the brand told them to. In the United States that does not settle who is responsible, because the Federal Trade Commission's own questions and answers on endorsements say that advertisers need reasonable programs in place to train and monitor members of their network, and, to a company that pays and directs influencers, that it may be liable, like an advertiser, for endorsements that fail to disclose unexpected material connections, whether by disseminating advertisements without necessary disclosures or by hiring and directing endorsers who fail to make them.
The mechanics of running creators at scale, the batch, the calendar, the feedback loop, are in the guide to how to give creators feedback and across this cocoon's city and vertical guides. The subject here is the American layer on the program itself: what the FTC says a brand is responsible for once it pays and directs creators, what its guidance says a reasonable program contains, where the fake-reviews rule adds a "should have known" standard, and how a brand turns that into a routine rather than a scramble.
What the brand is responsible for
The FAQ's answer to the agency that pays and directs
The question in the FTC's endorsement FAQ is asked by a company that recruits influencers for marketers, pays them and directs them, and the answer transfers to any brand running its own program. You could be liable if you play a role in creating or disseminating endorsements containing representations you know or should know are deceptive. You may also be liable if endorsements fail to disclose unexpected material connections, whether by disseminating advertisements without necessary disclosures or by hiring and directing endorsers who fail to make necessary disclosures. Like an advertiser, the company needs reasonable programs in place to train and monitor the influencers it pays and directs. The two verbs, pay and direct, describe a creator program exactly.
What "reasonable programs" contain
The FAQ answers a second question, from a company that promotes through a network, with the elements every program should include. Explain to members of the network what they can and cannot say about the products, the FAQ's own example being a list of the health claims they can make, with instructions not to go beyond them, given the advertiser's responsibility for substantiating objective product claims. Instruct them on their responsibility for clearly and conspicuously disclosing their connection, including exactly how the brand wants the disclosure made. Periodically search for what members of the network are saying. And take appropriate action if questionable practices are found. The FAQ adds that it is unrealistic to expect a brand to know every statement made by a member of its network, that a reasonable effort to know is what is required, and that the activity of one rogue influencer is unlikely to be the basis of law enforcement if the company has a reasonable training, monitoring and compliance program in place.
Where the FTC looks first, and when it looks at the creator
Asked whether it monitors influencers, the FTC's FAQ says it evaluates concerns case by case, that if law enforcement becomes necessary its focus usually will be on advertisers or their ad agencies and public relations firms, and that action against an individual endorser might be appropriate in certain circumstances, its example being an endorser who has not made required disclosures despite warnings. For a brand the order of that sentence is the point: the brand is the usual subject, whereas the creator becomes one in certain circumstances, the FAQ's example being disclosures still missing despite warnings.
| Element of a reasonable program, in the FAQ's terms | What it is in a creator program | What the brand keeps as evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Explain what members can and cannot say | The allowed and forbidden claims in every brief, product by product | The brief, dated, sent to each creator |
| Instruct on the disclosure and exactly how to make it | The disclosure wording and placement, in the video and not only the description | The brief, and the onboarding message |
| Periodically search for what members are saying | A scheduled review of live posts, not only of deliverables | The log of reviews and their dates |
| Take appropriate action on questionable practices | A correction request, a takedown, a warning, removal from the program | The message sent and the outcome |
The "should have known" standard, from the fake-reviews rule
The FTC's rule on fake reviews and testimonials, announced in August 2024, adds a phrase a program manager should read twice. Among its prohibitions, it bars a business from disseminating fake or false testimonials when the business knew or should have known they were fake or false, and from disseminating an insider's testimonial that it should have known was by an officer, manager, employee or agent without the connection disclosed. A brand that runs a creator's clip as a testimonial, or files it among reviews, is disseminating it, and "should have known" is a standard about the brand's own checks. The reviews and testimonials guide describes the rule's six headings; in a program, the operational consequence is that a testimonial the brand runs has passed through someone who asked whether it is real, whether the experience is the creator's, and whether the connection is on it.
The incentives a program hands out
Programs run on incentives beyond the fee: free product, early access, a discount code, a chance to win something. The FAQ answers the small-incentive question directly: whether a coupon, a sweepstakes or contest entry, or a product worth a few dollars has to be disclosed depends on whether knowing about it would affect the weight or credibility readers give the recommendation, and if it could, it should be disclosed, the FAQ's example being an endorsement that enters the creator into a sweepstakes to win a thousand dollars. A program that rewards posts with entries into a contest worth winning has, in the FAQ's terms, given the creator something of value for each post, and the brief should say so. What this guide does not cover is the law of the contest itself; the FAQ's point is only that the entry is an incentive to disclose.
Turning responsibility into a routine
The routine is small. Every creator receives the same two lists, allowed claims and forbidden ones, with the disclosure wording and placement, before the first brief; the beauty and supplement guides in this cocoon show what those lists look like in a regulated category. A calendar entry, weekly or monthly depending on the program's size and the category's risk, which the FAQ says should scale with the risk of consumer harm, puts a named person in front of the live posts. A template message asks for the correction, and a second one ends the relationship when the correction does not come. And a folder holds the briefs, the checks and the messages, because the FAQ's protection for the brand with one rogue influencer is the program itself, and a program that cannot be shown is a program that did not happen. What usually stops a brand from running this routine is that monitoring feels like distrust; the FAQ frames it as the ordinary work of an advertiser that pays and directs.
The brief for a creator program
- Send every creator, before the first brief, the allowed claims, the forbidden claims and the exact disclosure wording and placement.
- Put the periodic search on a calendar, with a named owner and a cadence that matches the category's risk, higher for a network selling health products than for one promoting a fashion line, the FAQ's own examples.
- Write the two messages in advance, correction and removal, and use them the week the problem is found.
- Run every testimonial the brand disseminates through the "should have known" check: real person, real experience, connection stated.
- Keep the briefs, the logs and the messages together, dated.
Sources
- Federal Trade Commission, The FTC's Endorsement Guides: What People Are Asking
- Federal Trade Commission, Federal Trade Commission Announces Final Rule Banning Fake Reviews and Testimonials (August 14, 2024)
- Federal Trade Commission, Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers
Checked on 20 September 2026. This guide is not legal advice. Where this guide and the official source disagree, the official source prevails.
