“I am paying an influencer for a post”
Can I publish a paid partnership without labelling it
Answer
No
Point 16 of Annex 1 to Act 108/2024 Coll. treats as an unfair commercial practice the promotion of a product that the trader paid for, without that being explained to the consumer or clearly identifiable. Under § 9(11) the rules also apply to a person acting in the name of or on behalf of the trader, so liability is not passed on by commissioning the work.
Not lawful in this form. The page names what you can do instead.
Annex 1 to the consumer protection act is a list of practices that are unfair in all circumstances. Whether anyone was actually misled is not weighed; it is enough that the practice occurred. Hidden advertising sits in that list under point 16.
The second point, overlooked more often than the first, is the question of who is liable. The usual assumption is that labelling is the creator's business, because they publish the post. § 9(11) says something else: the rules also reach a person acting in the name of or on behalf of the trader. The commissioning business is therefore not out of the picture.
What will not save the situation
- 01
An agreement not to label does not save the situation
Point 16 of Annex 1 does not examine what the parties agreed, but whether the promotion was paid for and whether the consumer can see it. An oral agreement with the creator that labelling looks unnatural changes nothing in how the practice is assessed.
- 02
Nor does it help that the label sits somewhere else
The wording requires the paid promotion to be explained in the content or in images, or to be clearly identifiable by sound. A note hidden among hashtags at the end of a caption does not match that condition.
- 03
Relying on the creator is not enough
Under § 9(11) the rules on unfair commercial practices also apply to a person who acts in the name of or on behalf of the trader in a commercial practice. Commissioning a post therefore does not shift the whole liability to the other side.
- 04
The burden of proving claims lies with the trader
§ 9(12) requires the trader to prove the accuracy of factual claims about the commercial practice, and where the evidence is not produced or is insufficient, the claims are deemed inaccurate. Without a written agreement with the creator that is hard to prove.
Where we will not answer for you
Point 16 of Annex 1 speaks of using editorial content in the media to promote a product where the trader paid for the sales promotion. The wording does not determine whether a social media profile is editorial content in the media, and whether providing goods, a discount or an invitation instead of money counts as payment. Barter partnerships are precisely what small companies use most. Assessing such a case is a legal service.
What you can do instead
A label inside the content, not underneath it
A sentence at the start of the caption or a label in the video matches what point 16 of Annex 1 asks for, that is, an explanation in the content or in images. It is also the only form seen by someone who never expands the caption.
Put the labelling duty in the contract
Where labelling is part of the order, you can evidence what was agreed as § 9(12) requires. Without it, it is one assertion against another and the burden of proof is on you.
An unpaid review instead of a paid partnership
If nobody paid for the content, point 16 of Annex 1 does not apply to it, because it presupposes paid sales promotion. When publishing reviews, however, the duty under § 11(6) applies to state whether and how you verify their origin.
What the statute says
Wording taken from the official register. Every excerpt is machine-compared against the statutes in our database, so it cannot drift from what the law actually says.
Využívanie redakčného priestoru v médiách na podporu produktu, keď obchodník zaplatil za podporu predaja, bez toho, aby to bolo vysvetlené v obsahu alebo obrazom, alebo jasne identifikovateľné zvukom pre spotrebiteľa (skrytá reklama).Odseky 1 až 10 a § 10 až 12 sa vzťahujú aj na osobu, ktorá pri obchodnej praktike koná v mene alebo na účet obchodníka.Obchodník je povinný preukázať správnosť skutkových tvrdení týkajúcich sa obchodnej praktiky orgánu dohľadu alebo súdu v konaní, v ktorom sa posudzuje, či je obchodná praktika nekalou obchodnou praktikou, ak to vzhľadom na okolnosti prípadu možno považovať za primerané s prihliadnutím na oprávnený záujem obchodníka, iného účastníka konania alebo na kolektívne záujmy spotrebiteľov.tom, či a akým spôsobom obchodník zabezpečuje, že hodnotenia produktov pochádzajú od spotrebiteľov, ktorí produkt skutočne kúpili alebo použili, ak obchodník poskytuje spotrebiteľom prístup k hodnoteniu produktovFrequently asked questions
Is a hashtag at the end of the caption enough?
Point 16 of Annex 1 requires the paid promotion to be explained in the content or in images, or to be clearly identifiable by sound. A tag at the end of a long caption does not match that; how a particular label is assessed depends on the way the post is displayed.
Is the creator liable for the missing label, or are we?
§ 9(11) says the rules also apply to a person who acts in the name of or on behalf of the trader in a commercial practice. Commissioning a post therefore does not relieve the commissioning business of liability.
We only sent the creator a product, not money. Does the same apply?
Point 16 of Annex 1 speaks of the trader having paid for sales promotion. Whether providing goods counts as payment is not determined by the wording, and it is a question we will not answer for you here.