Your own brand on Instagram: when does a post need an ad label?

What the Hamburg court decided

An influencer presented haircare products from her own brand on Instagram. Her bio identified her as the founder, the brand name linked the product to her, and the post contained clear sales and shipping information. The brand belonged to a company of which she was managing director and indirect majority shareholder. A consumer association sought, among other things, an injunction against such posts without advertising disclosure.

The Hamburg Higher Regional Court dismissed the association’s appeal. On its overall assessment, the commercial purpose was already immediately apparent. This particular post therefore did not require an additional label. The court did not allow an appeal on points of law and also considered a complaint against non-admission inadmissible (judgment of 21 May 2026, 15 U 99/24, operative part and paragraphs 1, 7 to 10).

The exception depends on the particular post

Section 5a(4), first sentence, of the German Unfair Competition Act requires disclosure of a commercial purpose where it is not immediately apparent from the circumstances and the omission can influence a transactional decision. Section 6(1), no. 1, of the German Digital Services Act also requires commercial communications to be clearly recognisable. The issue is therefore not a mandatory word under every image, but whether the advertising is unmistakably apparent.

In Hamburg, the visible business role, the link between the brand and the influencer, and the advertising presentation operated together. The court also considered the account’s prominence and verification. It did not base the exception solely on the blue tick or on a particular follower count (paragraphs 8 and 9).

Our practical assessment: presenting your own product as a personal chance discovery does not automatically bring you within this judgment. Assess the post through the eyes of someone unfamiliar with your business interests. If the sales purpose remains unclear, that points towards clear disclosure.

The comparison: a press trip instead of direct payment

The Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court considered a different set of facts. A creator published Reels about cars made by other companies. Vehicles were provided free of charge for press events, and travel and meal expenses were reimbursed. Her contention that she had no obligation to publish did not alter the assessment: the court treated the benefits as consideration for the posts (judgment of 3 March 2026, 14 UKl 2/24, paragraphs 43 to 48).

The videos initially appeared to be neutral presentations or instructions. Recommendations also brought them to people who did not follow the account. The profile’s prominence therefore did not replace disclosure in each Reel. The court granted an injunction against the creator; the official database records the judgment as final (operative part, paragraphs 49 to 64).

This is a supplementary comparison, not an overturning of the Hamburg decision. Direct promotion of one’s own products differs from third-party-funded content that appears editorial. The particular presentation and economic context remain decisive.

Freedom of expression also protects creators

Article 5(1) of Germany’s Basic Law protects expression in words, writing and images, including on social media. Disclosure duties must be interpreted in light of that freedom. They do not automatically take precedence merely because a post has an economic connection. Equally, freedom of expression does not remove every obligation to disclose advertising.

The Karlsruhe court expressly carried out that balancing exercise. It considered the interference justified in the particular case because disclosure concerned how the statement was presented and protected consumers from undisclosed advertising influence. It did not prescribe the opinion’s content. This is a case-specific proportionality assessment, not a general exclusion of influencers from constitutional protection (paragraph 65; Article 5(2) of the Basic Law).

The legal notice remains part of the account

The Hamburg proceedings also rejected the complaint about the account’s legal notice. A clearly visible link below the bio led to a website with a complete legal notice. Its content and findability on that website were not challenged. The court accepted this arrangement. That does not mean any bio link is sufficient: the information must be easily identifiable, directly accessible and continuously available (paragraphs 3 to 5; section 5(1) of the German Digital Services Act).

What to check before your next post

In practice, we recommend considering the following points together. This checklist is our assessment of the decisions, not a clearance process prescribed by the courts.

• Whose products are being promoted? Distinguish your own brand, an ownership interest and cooperation with another business.
• What benefits are provided? Record products supplied, travel expenses and other benefits as well as fees.
• What does a new viewer see first? Check the individual post or Reel, not only the profile description.
• Is the process documented? Preserve agreements, briefs, the published version, disclosure and profile information. This also helps assess any later legal warning.