The National Advertising Division (NAD) recently looked at a complaint over a social media video posted by an influencer. The interesting thing about this case is that the brand didn’t ask for the video to be posted, and the question was whether a brand would be held responsible for the post that contained arguably unsupported advertising claims.
In this case, Charlotte Tilbury Beauty complained about a social media post from beauty influencer Aleksandra Sosfa regarding Huda’s Easy Bake Setting Spray, which was reviewed in a TikTok video as “the strongest setting spray ever” and supposedly better than Charlotte Tilbury’s version.
The video showed side-by-side tests on the back of the influencer’s hands. In the demo, Charlotte Tilbury’s spray wiped away more easily.
Huda argued it had no formal relationship or contract with the influencer, and that the influencer did not receive any compensation from Huda for posting the video. However, NAD found that Huda, from time to time, sent the influencer free products, including the Huda’s Spray product used in the TikTok video at issue.
Of final note, Huda Beauty had reposted the video on its own TikTok and Instagram channels but pulled it from its channels before the challenge was filed. NAD held that it still had jurisdiction to hear the case because the original video was still live on the influencer’s account at the time of the challenge, and Huda’s founder had even commented on it in a way that looked like she agreed with the review.
Ultimately, NAD has found that since the advertiser and the influencer had a prior relationship and the advertiser had been put on notice (by Charlotte Tilbury) that an influencer’s claims may be unsupported, the advertiser had an obligation to make a good-faith attempt to have the video taken down from the influencer's channel.
[View source.]
