CAP guidance on vlogging – a reminder
In August 2015 the Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP) published new guidance for vloggers. The guidance aims to help vloggers understand how and when advertising rules apply to their vlogs. The guidance emphasises the need for vloggers to be upfront with their followers and to clearly signpost when they are advertising a product.
On 29 January 2016 CAP launched part two of its eLearning module on misleading advertising. This module focusses on:
- Substantiation – advertisers must hold documentary evidence supporting all objective claims featured in an advert before the advert is run.
- Qualification – advertisers can use small print to clarify claims in adverts, but this must not be used to hide important information or in a way that contradicts the claims made by the advert.
- Endorsement and testimonials – endorsements and positive feedback can be used in adverts, but not in a way that could mislead consumers.
The launch of part two of the eLearning module is a good reminder of the fact that the CAP Code applies to a variety of different types of advertising, including vlogs.
Recap of the CAP guidance
The CAP guidance highlights a key rule of the CAP Code, which is that if content is controlled by the marketer, not the vlogger, and is written in exchange for payment (which could be a monetary payment or free items) then it is an advertisement feature and must be labelled as such (rule 2.4).
The CAP guidance for vloggers refers to advertorial vlogs, but also refers to a number of non-exhaustive vlogging scenarios to which the advertising rules apply. The scenarios set out in the guidance are:
- Online marketing by a brand;
- "Advertorial" vlogs;
- Commercial breaks within vlogs;
- Product placement;
- Vlogger's video about their own product;
- Editorial video referring to a vlogger's products;
- Sponsorship; and
- Free items.
The CAP guidance provides clear advice regarding how the CAP Code might apply to each scenario. Whilst the guidance does not specify exactly how a vlogger or advertiser should identify its vlogs as adverts, it is clear that this identification must be obvious and unambiguous. In particular, the identification must be clearly visible regardless of the device used to access the vlog.
The rules apply to advertisers and agencies as well as to vloggers. Advertisers and agencies must not ask vloggers to conceal the fact that they are advertising a product. Advertisers and agencies who ask vloggers to do this are asking them to break the advertising rules and potentially the law.
The CAP guidance emphasises the need for transparency from both brands and vloggers. The audience must be fully informed of the extent to which a vlog is a marketing communication. If this is not obvious from the context, vloggers and advertisers must label the vlog as an advert before the viewer accesses the content.
Other applicable law
As well as following the CAP Code, vloggers and advertisers must also comply with applicable consumer protection legislation. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is one of the bodies responsible for enforcing consumer protection legislation. The CMA may therefore require vloggers and advertisers to disclose their commercial relationships.
This is particularly relevant in relation to sponsorship and free items. If a company sponsors a video but has no control over the content, this will not be covered by the CAP Code. The CAP Code would not therefore require the vlog to be labelled as an advert. In any event, vlogs which are sponsored usually make at least passing reference to the sponsor, so the audience should know who the sponsor is. The CMA would however expect the vlogger to tell their audience about the commercial relationship with its sponsor. The CAP guidance indicates that "having a nod to the sponsorship" would satisfy this requirement.
The CAP Code is unlikely to cover situations where a vlogger accepts an item sent by a company on the condition that it is reviewed (positively or negatively), provided that the company does not have any control over how the vlogger presents the review. The CMA would however expect companies and vloggers to tell consumers if the vlogger had accepted a free item provided that the vlogger talked about the item in their vlog.
As with the CAP Code, transparency and not misleading the audience is key. The CMA's general approach is that an audience watching a vlog needs to know whether a vlogger has an incentive (financial or otherwise) to talk about an item, and if so what that incentive is.
The CMA's 60-Second Summary to online endorsements can be accessed here.
This article was written by Laura Bruin. For more information please contact Laura on +44 (0)20 7427 6415 or at firstname.lastname@example.org
Data Protection: All roads lead back to the GDPR
Across the globe, jurisdictions continue to develop their data protection and privacy laws.
Music to our ears? Well, perhaps not for Apple.
A feud first began when the music streaming giant, Spotify, filed a complaint against music streaming provide rand competitor, Apple Inc.
Risk allocation in commercial leases: the High Court considers rent suspension, insurance and frustration arguments
Read our summary of the full judgement on the latest Covid arrears case.
Competition and Markets Authority announces review of the EU vertical agreements block exemption
The UK Competition and Markets Authority is reviewing the future application of the EU vertical agreements block exemption in the UK.
Playing Copycat – Why have M&S begun legal action against Aldi over Colin the Caterpillar?
M&S’s chocolate caterpillar was the first of its kind to land on our supermarket shelves, over 30 years ago.
Building Back Better: Future Gazing
What’s next for the hospitality industry post-pandemic?
Building Back Better: Re-examining your proposition
Why hospitality businesses should re-examine their proposition now
Building Back Better: Real Estate and Restructuring
How and why should hospitality businesses re-structure post pandemic?
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Fudco Partnership on sale to Exponent-backed Vibrant Foods
Fudco is a family-owned business selling South Asian ethnic foods in UK and Europe.
ESG – Searching for substance behind the acronym
ESG is an acronym much used but perhaps less understood.
Focus Antitrust - 21 April 2021
This week's competition update.
Burn After Redditting – Scottish Court of Session Lays Down Marker for Online Copyright Protection
Sky UK Ltd have successfully obtained interim protection from infringement of their broadcast rights through links posted on Reddit.
Darren Bailey quoted extensively on the legalities of the European Super League proposals
Darren considers the legal questions that exist around the introduction of a European Super League.
Charles Russell Speechlys advises shareholders of Modern Networks on sale to Horizon Capital
Modern Networks is a leading provider of IT support, broadband and telecoms managed services to the UK’s commercial property sector.
Paul Henty writes for New Law Journal on the often-painful experience of tackling rules of origin post-Brexit
Defining provenance post-Brexit: Paul Henty charts the often-painful experience of tackling rules of origin.
Focus Antitrust - 14 April 2021
This week's competition update.
Darren Bailey quoted by the Financial Times on the regulation of the sports betting industry
As the UK moves to a more regulated model, the US is throwing open the doors on the regulation of the sports betting industry.
Focus Antitrust - 7 April 2021
This week's competition update.
No ticket, no merger: Viagogo and StubHub are one step closer to merging but must satisfy the CMA’s conditions
The £3.2bn acquisition of online ticketing company Stubhub by one of its competitors, Viagogo is one step closer to being finalised.
Client alert: Construction under competition law spotlight
We outline the three investigations which have either recently concluded or are ongoing together with what this means for businesses.