Ten seconds aren’t enough: Bamberg Regional Court orders YouTube to permanently label sponsored content in influencer videos

Influencer marketing has been a booming market for years, as well as being a recurring topic in unfair competition and media law. It is clear that sponsored videos must be labelled as advertising. The question of how this labelling should look in practice and who should be responsible for it has primarily been discussed with regard to the influencers themselves, and has been subject to a decision e.g. from the Munich I Regional Court. However, the Bamberg Regional Court’s ruling of 11 March 2026 took a different direction: In a case brought by the Baden-Württemberg Consumer Protection Agency, the court found Google Ireland Ltd., the operator of the well-known video platform YouTube, liable. In doing so, the court established concrete standards for the first time regarding the Digital Services Act’s (DSA) requirements for real-time labelling of commercial communications.

Background and facts

YouTube enables influencers to publish sponsored content in the form of videos advertising products or services in exchange for compensation. To this end, YouTube has set up a feature that allows influencers to label their videos as “Includes paid promotion”. When this feature is used, a corresponding notice appears at the beginning of the video for approximately ten seconds. While it is possible for the content creator to identify the sponsor of a video – that is, the company funding the influencer – doing so is not mandatory.

The subject of the legal dispute are now two specific influencer videos on YouTube. In the first video, a finance influencer (“finfluencer”) explains financial products and promotes a brokerage app, for which he receives a commission. The second video features an influencer unboxing packages from the Chinese online retailer Temu and presenting the products they contain. In both videos, a notice stating that the content includes “paid promotion” appears at the beginning for approximately ten seconds. This notice then disappears completely and does not reappear when rewinding or later in the videos, only reappearing when the video is replayed from the beginning.

The Baden-Württemberg Consumer Protection Agency considered the ten-second notice to be insufficient for labelling the videos as advertising, as it was both too short and not clear enough. The agency also argued that disclosing the sponsor’s identity was necessary to enable consumers to evaluate the influencer’s credibility. Google, on the other hand, maintained that it had fulfilled its labelling obligations.

The Court’s Decision

The Bamberg Regional Court upheld the complaint filed by the Baden-Württemberg Consumer Protection Agency, ordering YouTube to prevent influencers from publishing sponsored videos unless the promotional nature of the videos is clearly indicated and the sponsor is disclosed.

1. Insufficient indication of commercial nature

The court derives the obligation to adequately label the video from Art. 26 DSA, which it regards as a rule of market conduct within the meaning of Sec. 3a of the German Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG). According to this provision, online platforms must first provide their users (in this case: the influencers) with a functionality that allows them to disclose that the content contains commercial communication. If the user makes such a declaration, the platform provider must, pursuant to Art. 26(2)(2) DSA, ensure that other users can recognize “in a clear and unambiguous manner and in real time” that the video contains commercial communications.

a) Ten seconds is not “in real time”

In the Regional Court’s view, “in real time” means that the advertising notice must run simultaneously with the video; it must therefore be visible for the entire duration of the video, or at least for most of it. According to the court, Google’s more lenient interpretation, whereby displaying the notice at the beginning of the video is sufficient, is contradicted by the plain wording of the provision. Moreover, if this were taken to its logical conclusion, even a one-second notice would suffice, provided it coincided with the start of the video.

b) The design of the notice is also insufficient

Regardless of the duration, the court also took issue with the design of the disclosure. In the finfluencer’s video, the disclosure regarding paid advertising appeared in subdued grey at the top left of the screen. At the same time, a wide, bright yellow bar bearing the name of the advertised broker stretched across the entire width of the screen, resulting in the advertising disclosure being virtually lost in the background. In the second influencer’s video, notices regarding her TikTok presence, placed immediately below and larger in size, further distracted from the paid advertising disclosure. However, pursuant to Art. 26(2)(2) DSA, such designations must be explicitly highlighted – a notice that is visible only briefly and visually recedes into the background does not meet this standard.

c) Commercial communication not recognizable as a whole

Finally, the court emphasises that, as the Munich I Regional Court did in an earlier proceeding, YouTube videos are regularly accompanied by commercial breaks. Therefore, a notice stating “Includes paid promotion” that appears only at the beginning could easily be interpreted by the viewer as referring to these commercial breaks and not to the commercial nature of the video content itself. Consequently, according to the court, it remained unclear to what extent the video constitutes commercial communication.

2. The platform must also ensure that the sponsor’s identity is disclosed

In addition to the advertising labelling issue, the court ruled in favour of an injunction against the publication of influencer videos in which the sponsor is not named. The legal basis for this is Sec. 3a UWG and Sec. 24(1) and (7) of the Interstate Media Treaty (Medienstaatsvertrag), in conjunction with Sec. 6(1)(2) of the German Digital Services Act (DDG).

Influencers who engage in commercial communication on social media platforms in exchange for payment are service providers within the meaning of the DDG. As such, they are obligated under Sec. 6(1)(2) DDG to name the sponsor. To this end, the court’s decision aligns with the case law of the Higher Regional Court of Berlin and the recently confirmed case law of the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe.

Since Google does not force this disclosure, it violates its duty of care (Verkehrspflicht) under unfair competition law as a host provider. This is because, according to standing case law, anyone who creates the risk that third parties will infringe consumer interests through insufficient labelling by operating a platform is obligated to limit this risk as far as possible and reasonable. Google, in the court’s opinion, does not meet these requirements by offering only the option to disclose the sponsor.

3. Liability exemption under the DSA does not preclude the injunction

Finally, the court left open the question of whether the liability exemption invoked by Google under Art. 6(1) DSA applies. Under this exemption, the service provider is not liable for information stored by a user, provided that it acts promptly upon becoming aware of the information. However, Art. 6(4) DSA expressly clarifies that injunctive relief claims under national law – in this case, under the UWG – remain unaffected by this exemption. Therefore, the liability exemption protects against claims for damages, but not against the obligation to cease and desist.

Assessment and outlook

The Bamberg Regional Court’s ruling is noteworthy in several respects. As far as can be determined, it is one of the first German court decisions to interpret Art. 26(2)(2) DSA, and in doing so, formulate requirements regarding the duration, design and recognisability of advertising labels in influencer videos. The decision thus aligns with the evolving case law on platform liability, such as the judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt on 21 December 2023 (case no. 6 U 154/22) regarding violations of labelling requirements on the Amazon Marketplace, and the judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Nuremberg on 23 July 2024 (case no. 3 U 2469/23) regarding YouTube’s liability for videos infringing on personality rights. For the first time, the decision now defines clear requirements for the labelling of advertising content by the platform operator itself.

For practical purposes, the decision – which is not yet final – is directly relevant: If upheld, Google/YouTube would be required to ensure that the advertising notice is displayed for the entire duration of the video. It must be designed so that it is visually noticeable and clearly refers to the content presented by the influencer. At the same time, the platform would have to make disclosing the sponsor mandatory for sponsored videos.

Beyond this specific case, the ruling clarifies that the DSA regulates the obligations of platform operators with regard to influencer marketing and that they are responsible for ensuring regulatory compliance. This message extends far beyond YouTube and affects all providers of online platforms where users engage in commercial communication.