In a recent decision of the Swedish Advertising Ombudsman Jury (RON) established for the first time that a well-known under-aged blogger, operating under the name "Misslisibell," had among other things failed to adhere to Swedish marketing rules by misrepresenting the commercial relationship to a jewelry retailer, JFR Smycken AB (JFR).

The challenged marketing concerned a video posted on the blogger's YouTube account in which the blogger shared a positive view of the JFR's products, links to JFR's website and promoted a contest where the prize was a product chosen from the JFR's website as well as a discount code to be used for purchases of its products. The video was eventually followed by a blog post with the headline "The winner from the contest with jfr.se" and a claim that the "The contest in cooperation with The challenged marketing concerned a video posted on the blogger's YouTube account in which the blogger shared a positive view of the JFR's products, links to JFR's website and promoted a contest where the prize was a product chosen from the JFR's website as well as a discount code to be used for purchases of its products. The video was eventually followed by a blog post with the headline "The winner from the contest with jfr.se" and a claim that the "The contest in cooperation with jfr.se ends today...".

Both the blogger and JFR disputed the existence of an agreement between the two, but JFR acknowledged that the blogger had requested and received a discount code from the company. The blogger also disputed that the posts had a commercial purpose and held that she had acted free of guidelines or remuneration from JFR.

However, the RON considered that the challenged posts only showed and informed about JFR's products and as such concerned commercial purpose and circumstances. Hence, it was competent to try the matter since the posts constituted marketing communication. The RON also found that the marketing was directed to under aged consumers meaning that special care should be taken into consideration in relation to the marketing.

Under the Swedish Marketing Practices Act, as well as the ICC code, all marketing and other commercial messages shall be formulated and presented in such a way that it is clear that it is a matter of marketing. Additionally, the party responsible for the advertising must be clearly identified.

In light of the foregoing, the RON concluded that it was not easy to identify the challenged posts as marketing. This meant that the blogger had not made the required disclosure required for marketing communication.

As it appears, even though no formal agreement is acknowledged between a blogger and an advertiser, there may still be a requirement to identify a commercial communication as marketing for the company. This should at least be true when all circumstances surrounding the communication implies that a commercial relationship actually exist between the parties.

The RON's decision shows that both bloggers and advertisers must be cautious about their relationship and contacts. If there is a commercial relationship between a blogger and an advertiser, or even when facts and circumstances imply that such link exist, a blogger must consider to clearly identify both the communication as marketing and the advertiser. The advertiser is also obliged to inform the blogger of this requirement.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.