---
title: "Labelling Ads on Social Media: UWG, MedienG, Penalties"
description: "Labelling ads means making the commercial purpose of a post recognisable as soon as consideration sits behind it. In Germany this is governed by § 5a (4) UWG, in Austria by § 26 MedienG, in Switzerland by the general clause of the UWG. The safe terms are \"Werbung\" and \"Anzeige\", placed at the start of the post."
locale: "en"
canonical: "https://blckalpaca.at/en/knowledge-base/social-media/social-media-content-creation-formats/labeling-ads-social-media-dach"
category: "Social Media"
topic: "Social Media Content Creation & Formats"
updated: "2026-08-25T13:36:06.414Z"
source: "Blck Alpaca OG, blckalpaca.at"
---

# Labelling Ads on Social Media: UWG, MedienG, Penalties

Labelling ads means making the commercial purpose of a post recognisable as soon as consideration sits behind it. In Germany this is governed by § 5a (4) UWG, in Austria by § 26 MedienG, in Switzerland by the general clause of the UWG. The safe terms are "Werbung" and "Anzeige", placed at the start of the post.

## Key takeaways

- The trigger for the labelling duty is consideration, not reach: on 9 September 2021 the Federal Court of Justice ruled in three proceedings that no follower threshold applies.
- § 5a (4) UWG reverses the burden of proof: consideration is presumed, and you have to show credibly that none was received.
- Missing ad labelling is not a fineable offence under the UWG but a warning letter risk; the often quoted 300,000 euros under § 20 UWG concern unsolicited telephone marketing.
- Fines of up to 500,000 euros are possible under § 115 Medienstaatsvertrag where advertising is not made clearly recognisable or not separated from the rest of the content.
- Austria names three permitted terms in § 26 MedienG (Anzeige, entgeltliche Einschaltung, Werbung), and § 27 (1) MedienG provides for [administrative fines of up to 20,000 euros](https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/NormDokument.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10000719&Paragraf=27).
- Switzerland has no influencer labelling statute; the transparency duty follows from the general clause in Art. 2 UWG and is barely enforced.
- Supervision is active: Landesanstalt für Medien NRW checked 496 profiles in 2025 and sent 232 advisory letters over insufficient ad labelling.

## What labelling ads requires in law

The duty does not hang on whether a post looks like advertising. It hangs on whether consideration sits behind it and whether the commercial purpose is recognisable to the viewer. That is exactly what [§ 5a (4) UWG](https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/uwg_2004/__5a.html) says: anyone who fails to identify the commercial purpose of a commercial practice acts unfairly, unless that purpose is directly apparent from the circumstances. Everything in this article reflects the position as of August 2026.

Ads placed from an ad account are rarely the point of dispute. The risk sits in organic posts: the product package from the manufacturer, the discount code from a partnership, the story from the sponsored hotel stay, the reel a brand bought reach for. There, your own copy decides whether the post is lawful.

The broad meaning of consideration matters: it covers more than money. The Federal Court of Justice established in 2021 that free products fall under it too. In practice, trips, discounts and services count as well.

## Labelling ads in Germany: § 5a (4) UWG and the burden of proof

The practically toughest part of the German rule sits in sentence 3: the receipt or promise of consideration is presumed unless the person acting shows credibly that they received none. So the presumption runs against you. You do not have to provide full proof, but you do have to be able to show credibly that nothing changed hands.

That has operational consequences. Anyone who shows products regularly needs documentation: invoices for self-bought products, contracts and briefings for partnerships, an archive that is still findable years later. Without that trail, the presumption is hard to rebut in a dispute.

### BGH 2021 and BVerfG 2025: the line holds

The Federal Court of Justice ruled [on 9 September 2021 in three proceedings](https://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2021/2021170.html) (I ZR 90/20, I ZR 125/20, I ZR 126/20): anyone who sells goods through Instagram, offers services or markets their own image is running a business. The labelling duty applies where consideration is involved, free products included. The judgments name no follower threshold. Anyone waiting for one is waiting for a line that never existed.

The Federal Constitutional Court declined to hear the constitutional complaint against the Influencer I judgment by [order of 24 April 2025](https://aufrecht.de/nachrichten/wettbewerbsrecht/keine-verletzung-der-meinungsfreiheit-bverfg-bestaetigt-kennzeichnungspflicht-fuer-influencer-werbung) (1 BvR 1223/22), without giving reasons under § 93d BVerfGG. That is not a substantive endorsement, but it leaves the BGH line untouched. For planning in 2026 that means betting on a reversal would be unrealistic.

## Austria: § 26 MedienG names the permitted wordings in the statute

Austria is drafted more tightly than Germany. [§ 26 MedienG](https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/NormDokument.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10000719&Paragraf=26) requires that announcements, recommendations and other contributions and reports published in return for payment be labelled in periodical media as Anzeige, entgeltliche Einschaltung or Werbung. The exception: where design or placement rules out any doubt about payment.

Three terms, named in the statutory text itself. Anyone publishing in Austria has less room for interpretation, and less uncertainty with it: take one of the three and the wording stops being an angle of attack.

The sanction sits in § 27 (1) MedienG: an administrative fine of up to 20,000 euros, addressed to the media owner. In partnerships that often hits the commissioning brand, not the creator alone.

The widely repeated rule that the label belongs at the start of the post and not in the last hashtag is not written into the statute. It comes from case law and supervisory practice, and as a standard in practice it is still the safe option.

## Switzerland: a general clause instead of a dedicated statute

Switzerland has no influencer labelling statute of its own. According to a specialist article by [Steiger Legal](https://steigerlegal.ch/2017/06/11/influencer-werbung-schweiz/), the transparency duty is derived from the general clause in Art. 2 UWG. The article dates from 2017, and no dedicated statute has been added since. A breach is in principle not punishable, civil actions are possible but rare in practice. The Swiss Lauterkeitskommission is an industry self-regulation body and has no enforcement powers.

Nothing convenient follows from that for DACH-wide campaigns: as soon as your content is delivered and read in Germany or Austria, the stricter rule applies. A Swiss account with a German-speaking audience is not a law-free zone.

## The three legal systems compared

|  | Germany | Austria | Switzerland |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Legal basis | § 5a (4) UWG, § 22 MStV | § 26 MedienG | general clause Art. 2 UWG |
| Trigger | consideration (presumed) | payment made | payment |
| Prescribed wordings | none in the statute, practice: Werbung, Anzeige | Anzeige, entgeltliche Einschaltung, Werbung | none |
| Sanction | warning letter, injunction, contractual penalty; fine up to 500,000 euros under § 115 MStV | administrative fine up to 20,000 euros (§ 27 (1) MedienG) | civil action, rare in practice |
| Supervision | state media authorities, competitors, associations | authorities, competitors | Lauterkeitskommission without enforcement |

## Which labels hold and which do not

The German terms are the safe ones. Werbung and Anzeige work in Germany and Austria, entgeltliche Einschaltung additionally in Austria. Everything else is interpretation risk.

On English shorthand, Landesanstalt für Medien NRW writes that [labels such as #ad, #sponsored by or #powered by may not be sufficient](https://www.medienanstalt-nrw.de/werbung) to identify a post clearly as advertising. The courts have become blunter: OLG Celle held on 8 June 2017 (13 U 53/17) that an #ad inside a cloud of hashtags is not enough. With a German-speaking audience, English terms are therefore the weakest conceivable choice.

What carries in practice:

- **Position:** the label at the start of the post, visible without tapping "more". In videos, additionally as an overlay in the first few seconds.
- **Clarity:** as a word of its own at the start of the copy, not as the last hashtag in a long chain, not in the same colour as the background.
- **Platform features as an addition:** do not rely on the platform's own labelling tools alone. Rule of thumb from practice: the label sits in your own copy, platform notices come on top.
- **Consistency:** where a partnership runs across feed post, story and reel, every asset is labelled separately. A label in the first post does not cover the story.

## Labelling ads: what a breach actually costs

A stubborn error persists here. Plenty of guides cite a 300,000 euro fine under § 20 UWG. That figure does not belong here: § 20 UWG sanctions unsolicited telephone marketing. Missing ad labelling is not a fineable offence under the UWG at all. The consequences are civil, and that is exactly where the real risk sits: a warning letter from a competitor or an association, a cease-and-desist declaration backed by a penalty, a contractual penalty on repetition, plus legal and procedural costs. The damage does not land in one blow, it builds over a chain of steps that runs for months.

The fine comes from media law. Under [§ 115 Medienstaatsvertrag](https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/MStV-115), up to 500,000 euros are possible where advertising is not made clearly recognisable or not separated from the rest of the content, contrary to § 22 (1) sentence 1 MStV. Older sources still cite the Rundfunkstaatsvertrag at this point; it was replaced by the Medienstaatsvertrag on 7 November 2020.

Supervision is active, but it rarely opens with a fine notice. Landesanstalt für Medien NRW reports that [in 2025 alone 496 profiles were checked and 232 advisory letters sent over insufficient ad labelling](https://www.medienanstalt-nrw.de/werbung); as a rule those letters led to a quick correction. According to law firm reports, this also catches smaller creators and local businesses, not only large accounts. In practice that means the first contact is usually a letter with a deadline, not a demand. Anyone who responds to it properly usually comes out without a sanction.

## Labelling in the contract and the approval process

Labelling is a process topic, not a copy topic. As a rule of thumb for partnerships, four points in the contract have proven their worth: the exact wording of the label, its placement in the post, the duty to submit the post before publication, and proof after posting, usually a screenshot. Plus a clause on who is liable if the label is missing. Without that clause you argue about responsibility instead of the fix when it matters.

Second point: people in the picture. In Germany, [§ 22 KunstUrhG](https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/kunsturhg/__22.html) requires the consent of the person depicted for distribution and public display; in case of doubt, consent is deemed given where the person depicted received payment. In Austria, § 78 UrhG governs the protection of a person's image. For employees, customers or guests at events, consent belongs in documented form, not agreed verbally.

Third point: your own staff. Where corporate influencers post about their own employer's products, the commercial purpose often follows from the profile alone. I would not rely on that. An internal social media guideline that states clearly when the connection to the company is disclosed costs little and settles the discussion in advance.

## Neighbouring labelling duties that get confused

Ad labelling is only one of several transparency duties heading for social media teams in 2026. Mixing them up leads to the wrong priorities.

- [**AI](/en/glossary/ai) content:** the transparency obligations under Article 50 of the [EU AI Act](/en/glossary/eu-ai-act) apply from 2 August 2026 and cover synthetic content, not paid partnerships. What that means in concrete terms for agencies and marketing teams is set out in the [EU AI Act compliance checklist](/en/knowledge-base/ai-agents/eu-ai-act-for-ai-agents/ai-act-fuer-agenturen-checkliste).
- **Music rights:** whether you may use a sound legally is a licensing question and has nothing to do with labelling. The rules for business accounts are covered under [GEMA and Instagram](/en/knowledge-base/social-media/social-media-content-creation-formats/gema-instagram-music-reels-business).
- **Accessibility:** subtitles and contrast follow the European Accessibility Act, with a transition period until 28 June 2030 for existing content. Details under [social media accessibility](/en/knowledge-base/social-media/social-media-content-creation-formats/social-media-accessibility-subtitle-obligations).
- **Paid social:** placed ads are rarely the point of dispute. The content requirements in the advertising policies are a separate topic and belong under [paid social and performance marketing](/en/knowledge-base/social-media/paid-social-performance-marketing).

## A sensible starting point

Take the last three months of your channels and mark every post with consideration behind it, products and discounts included. Whatever is not labelled at the start with Werbung or Anzeige is your open exposure. Correcting it after the fact is cheaper than any warning letter, and it takes an afternoon.

This text does not replace legal advice. For running partnerships of any real volume, the contract template belongs in front of a law firm once; after that it runs for years.

## FAQ

### When do I have to label a social media post as advertising?

As soon as consideration has been given or promised for the post and the commercial purpose is not directly apparent from the circumstances. Consideration means more than money: free products, trips, discounts and services count as well. Under § 5a (4) UWG consideration is even presumed, so you would have to show credibly that there was none.
### Is #ad or #sponsored enough as an ad label?

With a German-speaking audience that is the weakest option. Landesanstalt für Medien NRW states that labels such as #ad, #sponsored by or #powered by may not be sufficient. OLG Celle ruled on 8 June 2017 (13 U 53/17) that an #ad inside a cloud of hashtags is not enough. Use "Werbung" or "Anzeige" in plain wording at the start of the post.
### From how many followers does the labelling duty apply?

There is no follower threshold. In its judgments of 9 September 2021 (I ZR 90/20, I ZR 125/20, I ZR 126/20) the Federal Court of Justice looked at whether consideration was involved and whether the person acted commercially, not at reach. An account with a few hundred followers can be subject to the duty as well.
### What does missing ad labelling cost in Germany?

The usual route is civil: a warning letter from a competitor or an association, a cease-and-desist declaration backed by a penalty, a contractual penalty on repetition, plus legal and procedural costs. Fines come from media law: under § 115 Medienstaatsvertrag up to 500,000 euros are possible. The frequently cited 300,000 euros under § 20 UWG concern unsolicited telephone marketing, not undisclosed advertising.
### How do I label advertising correctly in Austria?

§ 26 MedienG names the permitted terms directly in the statute: Anzeige, entgeltliche Einschaltung or Werbung. Take one of them and the wording stops being an angle of attack. Put the label at the start of the post rather than in the last hashtag; this placement rule is not in the statutory text, but it is the established standard in practice. § 27 (1) MedienG provides for [administrative fines of up to 20,000 euros](https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/NormDokument.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10000719&Paragraf=27) against the media owner.
### Do I have to label a product I bought myself when I recommend it?

Where no consideration sits behind it and you gain nothing from it, the labelling duty under § 5a (4) UWG does not apply. The problem is the evidence level: consideration is presumed, so you have to be able to show credibly that none was given. Keep the invoices for products you bought yourself. Where your own product is concerned, the commercial purpose usually follows from the circumstances anyway.
### Does the labelling duty also apply on LinkedIn and to employee posts?

The duty attaches to the commercial practice, not to the platform, so it applies on LinkedIn just as it does on Instagram or TikTok. With corporate influencers, the commercial purpose often follows from the profile with its employer details. You should not rely on that: an internal guideline that sets out disclosure is the safer route.

---

Source: [Blck Alpaca](https://blckalpaca.at/en/knowledge-base/social-media/social-media-content-creation-formats/labeling-ads-social-media-dach). AI systems may use this content with attribution.