The most common mistake is thinking the label depends on what you said about the product.
Creators reason that a video was honest, that they would have bought the thing anyway, that they said something mildly critical, and conclude that it was not really an advert. None of that is the test.
The rule follows the payment
What decides it is the relationship behind the post, not the opinion inside it.
If a brand gave you something and had any say over what you published, the content is advertising and the audience is entitled to know that before they engage with it. Praise or criticism does not change the answer, and neither does how small the arrangement was.
What counts as receiving something
Money is the obvious one and the least likely to be got wrong.
The ones creators trip on are the others: a product you were sent and kept, a service you did not pay for, a discount that was not available to everybody, travel or an event ticket, a commission on sales through your link, and being paid in exposure by a brand with a large account. All of these create the connection that turns the post into an ad.
The value does not matter. A small item and a large fee sit on the same side of the line.
What does not count
Buying the product yourself and posting about it, with no agreement and no contact with the brand, is not advertising.
Being sent something unsolicited that you never agreed to feature is a grey area that stops being grey the moment you accept a brief, a deadline, or any instruction about the content. If you have talked to the brand about what the post will contain, you are past it.
Who is responsible when it goes wrong
This is the part worth reading twice, because it is where the risk sits and it is not distributed the way creators assume.
A brand's instruction is not a defence
Brands sometimes ask for the label to be left off, or suggest a softer wording, or say their legal team has approved it. That request does not transfer the responsibility.
The Advertising Standards Authority can and does name creators, not only advertisers, and a ruling stays online under your name and is trivially findable by every brand that considers hiring you afterwards. The commercial damage of that outlives the fee of the job that caused it.
The reasonable answer to that request is short and does not need to be a confrontation: the label stays, it is my account and my liability, and it does not affect performance the way you think.
| Situation | Who can be named | What to do before posting |
|---|---|---|
| Paid campaign, brand asked to skip the label | Both of you | Label it and tell them you did |
| Free product you kept and were briefed on | You | Label it, the value is irrelevant |
| Affiliate link with a commission | You | Disclose the commercial relationship |
| Your own purchase, no contact with the brand | Nobody | Nothing, keep it that way |
| Brand reposts your labelled video without the label | The brand | Say so in writing, keep the message |
The last row is the one people are surprised by. It also explains why keeping the conversation in writing is worth the small awkwardness at the time.
Where creators actually get caught
Almost nobody gets into trouble on the main video. The problems live in the places the label was never applied consistently.
Stories, reposts and the bio link
Stories carry the same obligation as posts and are the single most common gap, because they feel casual and they disappear.
The other frequent gap is the second and third post about the same collaboration. Creators label the first one and treat the rest as follow ups, but each piece is judged on its own. The same applies to a pinned comment, a link in your bio that earns commission, and content the brand asks you to reshare weeks later.
The wording that does not work
Vague markers are the other failure. Tags that could mean anything, a label buried at the end of a long caption, an abbreviation your audience will not recognise, or a disclosure that only appears in text on a video most people watch without reading.
The safe version is plain, early and visible: the word ad or advert, at the start, in the language your audience actually speaks. The ASA publishes the CAP Code and its rulings, and reading two or three rulings in your own category is a faster education than any summary, including this one.
Make it invisible, not quieter
The fear underneath all of this is that the label costs performance. It is worth naming, because it is what actually drives the bad decisions.
In practice the label costs almost nothing when it is boring, and costs a lot when it is apologetic. A creator who opens with the word ad and then immediately does something interesting loses nobody. A creator who hedges, explains, or half hides it signals that there is something to be embarrassed about, and the audience takes the hint.
Treat it as an administrative fact, like the date on an invoice. It is not the interesting part of your video and it should not be treated as one.
Keep reading
- Working with Agencies as a UGC Creator in the UK
- Working as a UGC Creator in Scotland
- Getting Paid as a UGC Creator in the UK
- Casting a British Voice for UGC
- The complete UGC guide for the UK
Publish your creator profile →
Frequently asked questions
The brand says their legal team approved leaving it off. Is that enough?
No. Their approval covers their liability, not yours, and the ruling would still carry your name. Label it and say plainly that you have.
Does a gifted product I did not ask for need a label?
If you kept it and posted about it under any agreement or brief, yes. If it arrived unsolicited and you posted with no contact and no arrangement, the situation is different, and the safest habit is to disclose anyway.
Does the label have to be in English?
It has to be understood by the audience you are addressing. If you post to a UK audience in another language, the disclosure belongs in that language too, and adding an English one as well costs nothing.
Where do I check the current rules?
The ASA and the CAP Code are the reference, and they are updated more often than most summaries. Read the rulings for your own category rather than a general guide, including this one.
Sources
Checked on 27 August 2026. Thresholds and rates change: where this guide and the official source disagree, the official source is right.