Influencer Advertising on Platforms Under Scrutiny: Bamberg Regional Court Clarifies Labeling Obligations for Platform Providers

The Regional Court of Bamberg (Landgericht Bamberg) has further specified the requirements for labeling of sponsored content provided by influencers on online platforms (judgment of March 11, 2026 – 1 HK O 19/25). According to the court, a clear indication of the commercial nature of influencer content, which is at least partially financed by third parties must be visible throughout the entire duration of the content. As a consequence, platform providers may be required to revise and enhance their existing advertising disclosure tools, in particular by implementing prominent and continuous notices as well as clear identification of the influencers’ commercial partners.

Dispute Concerning Existing Advertising Disclosure

The decision arose from two influencer contributions published on a video-sharing platform. The first case concerned a so-called "Finfluencer" (an influencer focusing on financial topics) who presented financial products while simultaneously promoting a broker app he personally used, including affiliate links generating commission payments. In the second case, the court addressed an influencer featuring products from an online retailer in an unboxing video, displaying the retailers logos and including tracking links. In both instances, the platform provider displayed a brief notice stating "Contains paid promotion" for approximately ten seconds at the beginning of the video. The notice subsequently disappeared with no further disclosure provided. No further labeling or clarification indicating that the companies mentioned had co-financed the posts was provided. Only abstract references to the influencers' videos being advertising-funded were found elsewhere, such as under the video itself. The platform provider also offered various means for labeling.

The plaintiff considered these measures insufficient, arguing that it misled users and filed a lawsuit against the online platform provider, citing Article 26 of the Digital Services Act (DSA).

Key Point: Real-Time Disclosure Required

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. While the platform provider had indeed provided influencers with a function to declare whether their content constitutes commercial communication, as required by Article 26(2) sentence 1 DSA, the court found that the disclosure displayed within the video was inadequate.

According to Article 26(2) sentence 2 DSA, platform providers must ensure that other users can clearly and unequivocally identify in real-time - through highlighted labels - that the content provided by the influencer represents or contains commercial communication. From the court's perspective, "in real-time" means that the notice must be visible throughout at least the predominant portion of the duration of the video. A brief notice at the beginning is insufficient. Furthermore, the labeling must be visually prominent. The court considered factors such as the relationship to the promotional statement, size, color, and placement of the notice, but emphasized that the exact requirements must be assessed based on the circumstances of each individual case.

The primary responsibility for labeling lies with the influencer. In this regard, the court deemed it insufficient for one of the influencers to merely provide an abstract reference to advertising content beneath the video. Such a reference does not clearly indicate the connection to the specific related commercial content. However, if the influencer utilizes the function under Article 26(2) sentence 1 DSA and labels their content as advertising or content with advertising, the court also holds the platform provider accountable.

Additionally, the cooperation partner of the influencer - i.e., the actual advertiser - must be disclosed in accordance with Section 6(1) No. 2 of the German Digital Service Act (DDG). Here, the influencer is initially responsible. However, without the need to consider a potential liability exemption under Article 6(1) DSA, injunction claims under German law, particularly the Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG), could also be asserted against the platform provider.

Conclusion and Practical Guidance

If the interpretation of the Regional Court of Bamberg prevails, platform providers will have no choice but to ensure that influencer posts are prominently labeled as advertising or partially advertising for their entire duration. This extensive obligation raises practical concerns regarding posts containing advertising only intermittently, e.g. when influencers insert their own advertising segments into otherwise editorial content. A clear assignment of the notice to the advertising content would be impossible in such cases. Moreover, the influencer would be compelled to provide continuous notices even for non-advertising content. Whether this is reasonable remains questionable. Additionally, whether the liability exemption under Article 6(1) DSA is indeed circumvented, as assumed by the court, requires further clarification. Nevertheless, platform providers are advised to proactively revise their tools, despite the unresolved questions and the lack of finality of the ruling.