The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), Committee on Advertising Practice (CAP) and the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) have published a new edition of their joint Influencers' guide to making clear that ads are ads. It has not changed its core message that it must be clear that ads are ads. However, the guide has been updated to reflect a different legal regime, stronger enforcement powers and a new focus on fake reviews. Brands, agencies and talent should all take note.
A new legal basis: the DMCC Act
The most significant change is the legal framework. The previous guide was built on the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs) and the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing (CAP Code). The new edition is based on the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC Act) and the CAP Code as the main rules.
The guide explains that Part 4 of the DMCC Act now bans unfair commercial practices. It lists three examples:
- posting a fake review;
- posting a review that hides the fact that it was incentivised; and
- undisclosed paid-for editorial content (advertorial).
The familiar prohibitions remain. These are falsely giving the impression of acting as a consumer, failing to identify commercial intent, and hiding material information such as a brand ambassadorship.
The CMA can now fine directly
The most commercially significant change concerns enforcement. The new guide highlights that the CMA and Trading Standards can impose fines and require corrective measures. The CMA can act directly, and both bodies can also act through the courts. Under its direct consumer enforcement powers, the CMA can impose financial penalties and issue directions for breaches, including under Part 4 of the DMCC Act.
The guide also makes the point about responsibility more firmly. Everyone in the chain, including brands, marketers and influencers, is responsible for following the law, and the CMA expects robust compliance processes to be in place. The ASA's own sanctions are unchanged:
- listing on its "non-compliant social media influencer" page for up to three months;
- "On-Platform Targeted Ads" alerting the influencer's followers; and
- a corresponding page for non-compliant brands.
Fake reviews get their own section
The guide now has a section on fake reviews. A review must be based on the influencer's genuine experience; otherwise it is a fake review, which breaches both the law and the CAP Code. The guide gives a direct example: if a brand asks an influencer to say its new drink was delicious, but the influencer has not tried it, they must not claim that they did. Influencers should not gloss over negatives. They must also not leave out relevant information, such as being paid or reviewing a personalised version of a product that a typical consumer would not receive.
The guide also qualifies the general statement that it is fine to be paid to create content. That is now acceptable "as long as it reflects your genuine experience" and the influencer is upfront about it.
Labels: research-led and stricter on "Sponsored"
The recommended labels are unchanged: #Ad, #Advert, #Advertising, #Advertisement and #AdvertisementFeature. The guide highlights ASA research from February 2026 which found:
- 80% of the UK online population prefer influencers to be clear when they are advertising;
- only about half of participants correctly identified ads in a test social media feed; and
- 79% think labels should be visible straight away.
The guide now singles out "Sponsored", "Spon" and "Sp". It explains that the ASA has ruled these insufficient because they do not clearly show the advertiser's editorial control. It also warns that platform features such as "co-authoring" are not always enough. If in doubt, an upfront label should be added, and the guide's bottom line is "If in doubt, label it".
Practical steps
A new section on improving transparency encourages influencers to:
- review their brand contracts for disclosure requirements;
- refuse to work with brands that discourage disclosure;
- use the CAP Copy Advice team before posting; and
- clearly mark which content is editorial.
It also states that AI-generated content must comply and that some platforms may require AI use to be disclosed.
What has stayed the same
Several core principles carry over unchanged:
- the broad meaning of "payment", including gifted products, trips and commission;
- the affiliate marketing rules;
- the expectation that disclosure continues for 12 months after a relationship ends; and
- the ASA's two-part test of "payment" plus editorial "control" for deciding when it can act.
What this means for you
The CMA can fine directly, so poor influencer disclosure is a real financial and reputational risk and no longer just a matter of self-regulation. Now is a good time to:
- refresh influencer agreements so that they require compliant labelling and genuine reviews;
- check briefs for any wording that asks talent to endorse products they have not used; and
- document the compliance processes the CMA expects.
Influencers must label upfront, avoid "Sponsored" and "Gifted", and make sure that every review reflects real experience. And don't forget that they have to comply with other CAP Code rules too. So, for example, be careful about advertising age-restricted products or running a prize promotion.
Please get in touch if you would like help reviewing your contracts, briefs or compliance processes in light of the new guidance.
