Regulating Influencer Advertising: Can the UK’s Self-Regulatory System Keep Up?

By Naeun Kim

Influencer marketing has rapidly evolved into one of the most powerful forms of digital advertising. As brands increasingly rely on social media creators to reach consumers, the boundaries between personal recommendation and paid promotion have become blurred. This shift has generated a range of legal and ethical concerns, particularly around transparency, consumer deception, and the responsibilities of brands, influencers, and platforms. In the UK, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) plays a central role in regulating influencer advertising. However, questions continue to arise about whether this system of voluntary compliance can adequately address ongoing problems.

The Current Regulatory Framework: What the ASA Requires—and Why It Falls Short

In the UK, non-broadcast influencer advertising is governed primarily by the ASA through the UK Code Non-broadcast Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing (simply known as the CAP code), which outlines the standards for how commercial content must be presented to avoid misleading consumers. Influencers are required to clearly disclose sponsored content by using labels such as “ad” or “advertisement”. Their disclosure rules exist to prevent misleading commercial practices, which are prohibited under UK consumer protection law. The ASA also emphasises that disclosures of advertisement must be placed prominently and unambiguously so that viewers can immediately recognise the content as paid material.

To support enforcement, the ASA has implemented an AI-based automated monitoring system that scans social media for non-compliant posts. Despite this measure, compliance remains strikingly low. According to ASA monitoring data from 2024 to 2025, approximately 34% of influencer posts contained no identifiable disclosure even when the content clearly met the criteria for paid promotion. Moreover, many of the same influencers appear as repeat violators.

Since the ASA operates under a self-regulatory model, its enforcement tools are limited. It cannot impose financial penalties or legally compel influencers or brands to remove or amend posts. Instead, it relies on reputational pressure—publicly naming offenders or issuing compliance notices. While these measures may influence large brands concerned about public trust, they often fail to curb persistent non-compliance among individual influencers.

The structural weaknesses of the system become clearer when compared with countries that employ stricter legal regulation. China, for example, operates under a much stricter legal regime: as of October 2025, influencers must hold official qualifications to speak on specialised topics such as health, finance, education, and law, and unqualified individuals are prohibited from livestream-selling in certain product categories. The UK, by contrast, focuses primarily on transparency, unlike China’s regulation of both the content and the professional competence. This contrast underscores the UK’s comparatively soft and decentralised regulatory approach.

The Transparency Gap: Why Undisclosed Advertising Is a Legal and Economic Problem

Transparency is at the core of consumer protection in influencer marketing. Influencers cultivate a sense of closeness and authenticity with their audiences, making their endorsements far more persuasive than traditional advertising. A recent Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) study shows that the absence of disclosure significantly increases the likelihood of consumer deception, as followers often interpret these posts as genuine personal recommendations rather than commercial sponsorship.

The economic consequences extend beyond individual consumers. From a legal perspective, these distortions heighten the need for more enforceable regulatory mechanisms, as undisclosed advertising undermines fair competition and weakens the effectiveness of existing consumer protection law. It also distorts market conditions by giving non-compliant creators and brands an unfair advantage over those who adhere to transparent and ethical practices. As a result, influencers who follow disclosure rules may experience lower engagement than those who conceal advertising intent, creating a perverse incentive structure that further entrenches non-compliance.

There are also broader social implications. When consumers begin to question whether any influencer content is genuine, trust erodes, not only towards individual creators but towards the digital marketing ecosystem as a whole. This erosion of trust exposes the limitations of the current self-regulatory model, which relies heavily on reputational pressure rather than enforceable obligations. It also increases long-term costs for brands, platforms, and regulators, as more resources must be devoted to monitoring, compliance, and consumer education to counteract declining trust.

Recent UK cases illustrate the consequences of this transparency crisis. According to BBC reporting, the ASA has repeatedly investigated influencers who fail to include the required #ad label. In response, the ASA has begun publishing the lists of repeat offenders and placing greater responsibility on brands that fund non-compliant content. However, critics argue that these measures have limited deterrent effect because the consequences remain symbolic rather than legal. Without financial penalties or enforceable sanctions, some influencers simply accept the reputational risk as part of their business model.

Accountability: Who Should Bear Responsibility in Influencer Advertising?

One of the most complex legal questions concerns responsibility. Should the influencer be primarily accountable for disclosure? Should the brand be liable when it instructs or enables non-compliant advertising? Or should platforms, which host and profit from influencer content, bear greater responsibility?

Currently, accountability is fragmented. Influencers are expected to follow ASA rules, brands must ensure their partners comply, and platforms provide optional tools for labelling advertisements. Yet none of these actors is able to be held fully responsible when violations occur. This diffusion of accountability creates regulatory blind spots and weakens enforcement.

Stronger legal frameworks, clearer obligations for platforms, and improved consumer education will be essential in closing the transparency gap. While the UK does not need to adopt China’s highly interventionist approach, a hybrid model combining self-regulation with enforceable legal mechanisms may provide a more balanced and effective solution. Without such reforms, the gap between regulation and reality in influencer marketing will only continue to widen.

Sources:

• https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/recognising-ads-social-media.html

• https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7v1mzdqv5zo

• https://www.marketingtechnews.net/news/the-implications-of-chinas-new-influencer-law-for-marketing-accountability/

• https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/digital-fairness-act-unpacked-social-media-influencers

• https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/majority-influencer-advertising-undisclosed

Edited by Artyom Timofeev

Image source: https://www.vml.com/insight/expert-influencers