A commission-earning link in a creator’s post changes how regulators see it. This article explains what the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) say about affiliate content, how each expects it to be labelled, and where the two systems differ.
Why does an affiliate link make a post an advert?
Affiliate marketing is performance-based: the affiliate earns a commission on customers their promotion brings in, usually through clicks or sales on a trackable link or code. According to the ASA’s advice page on the topic, that makes the affiliate effectively “a secondary advertiser”, because their earnings track the interest they generate.
In the UK, the CAP Code, which the ASA administers, covers marketing that is directly connected with the supply or transfer of goods, services, opportunities and gifts. The ASA says brand references made on an affiliate’s own sites or social media after they sign up are likely to fall within that scope. The ASA can also treat a post as an affiliate ad without a link or code if it was created under the affiliate agreement, and posts published after an agreement ends can still count if they are commercial in intent, for example by including a code the affiliate was contracted to use.
This article describes UK and US rules separately. They are not the same, and neither is universal. Rules in the EU and elsewhere differ again; for a three-way comparison of the basic “#ad” question, see what “#ad” means in the UK, US and EU.
What does the ASA expect to see on an affiliate post?
The ASA’s page says affiliate marketing must be “obviously identifiable” as a marketing communication (CAP Code rule 2.1) and that commercial intent must be clear where context does not make it apparent (rule 2.3). Some formats, such as banner ads or single-brand websites, are usually obviously identifiable by themselves. Blogs, vlogs, social media and voucher sites may need extra disclosure, particularly where the page looks editorially independent.
Labels the ASA page describes as acceptable include:
- “(Ad)” placed before the affiliate-related parts of content
- an “Ad” identifier in a blog or article title, visible before the reader clicks
- “#Ad” on X, which the ASA says is likely the clearest option given limited space
- “Ad” at the start of a Pinterest description
- a statement at the start that asterisks or similar symbols mark advertising
The ASA says disclosing the affiliate relationship itself, for example that the author earns a small share of sales, is optional rather than required. What matters is that the content is identifiable as advertising.
Which labels has the ASA found inadequate?
The ASA’s page lists several examples that did not work:
| Label or approach | ASA’s stated reason |
|---|---|
| “May earn an affiliate commission” disclaimer | Ambiguous and confusing |
| Standalone “*affiliate” on an Instagram Story | The term “affiliate” is not widely understood by consumers |
| “a d/affiliate” | Spacing in “ad” made it insufficient |
| “#collab” | Not sufficiently clear |
| A banner reading “In association with” a marketing firm | Did not identify the specific article as advertising |
These come from cases the ASA cites on its advice page. They illustrate how it has judged particular wording, and a future ruling would still depend on the whole post.
Where should the label go?
Placement is as important as wording. The ASA says labels should appear upfront, before consumers engage with the content, and that a disclaimer at the bottom of a post is unlikely to be sufficient because readers may meet links and claims before reaching it. Even a disclaimer at the top of an article was found insufficient in one MailOnline case because its wording was ambiguous. The ASA also tells marketers to allow for platform limits, such as text cut off after hashtags or hidden behind interface buttons.
What if only some links earn commission?
The ASA page treats partial affiliate content by format:
- Blogs and news: a general “Ad” in the title is unlikely to be required if only some links are affiliate links; instead, those parts should be highlighted so they are obvious before the reader engages.
- Vlogs: on-screen text, a sign or a spoken explanation before the product is discussed, with the description making clear which links are advertising.
- Social media: individual links marked “Ad”, or an asterisk key stated at the beginning of the post.
- Voucher sites: an “Ad” label on affected offers, or a site-wide statement if every offer is affiliate-linked, rather than only on “About Us” or “Terms” pages.
The ASA also notes that in shorter formats such as social posts it is less likely to split content, so the Code may apply to the whole post. For how complaints about such posts are handled, see how the ASA handles complaints about influencer ads.
How big is the labelling gap in practice?
The ASA’s report on influencer ad disclosure on Instagram and TikTok, published on 9 May 2025, offers a measure. Its monitoring system analysed more than 50,000 pieces of content from 509 UK-based accounts and 390 individual influencers, and experts reviewed a sample.
| Finding | Share of influencer ads |
|---|---|
| Complied with disclosure rules | 57% |
| No disclosure at all | 34% |
| Label used, but commercial nature unclear | 9% |
The three shares add up to 100%. The ASA also reported that more than half of ads promoting fashion and travel products and services were undisclosed or poorly disclosed. It said it would share findings with the influencers reviewed, TikTok and Instagram, and use technology to take enforcement action, including sanctions, where non-compliance persists. The report covers ads the ASA identified, not all content on those platforms, and it does not separate affiliate posts from other paid ones.
What does the FTC say in the United States?
The FTC’s guidance applies in the US and uses a “material connection” test. Its Endorsement Guides question-and-answer page says a connection that a significant minority of consumers would not expect, and that could affect how they weigh an endorsement, should be disclosed “clearly and conspicuously”. Connections are not limited to payment: the page cites free products, free trips, employment and reciprocal review arrangements.
On affiliate links specifically, the FTC says affiliates should disclose their relationship with the retailer clearly and conspicuously, and that a disclosure far from the link may not be connected to it by readers. According to the page, “affiliate link” alone may not be understood, a “buy now” button is not adequate, and “paid link” placed right next to an affiliate link is adequate. It adds that disclosure is expected in videos and in video descriptions near the links. If links are only a convenience and no payment is received, no disclosure is needed.
On placement, the FTC says a disclosure should be somewhere that “easily catches consumers’ attention”, close to the endorsement. Disclosures at the top or bottom of a blog, at the end of a video or in comments are often inadequate, and a single home-page disclosure does not cover individual posts.
Who is responsible if a label is missing?
Both regulators place responsibility on more than the creator.
- UK: according to the ASA, both the business and the affiliate are responsible under the Code, even if the affiliate made the ads alone. It states that relying on affiliates to target ads correctly does not mean the brand relinquishes responsibility.
- US: the FTC says ultimate responsibility for disclosing a material connection rests with the influencer and the brand, not the platform, so platform disclosure tools should not be relied on alone. Advertisers are expected to run reasonable training and monitoring, and outsourcing to an agency does not remove their responsibility. Intermediaries such as agencies that recruit and direct influencers may be liable if they know or should know endorsements are deceptive or lack required disclosures.
This is why brands often write labelling requirements into contracts; see creator contracts explained for the clauses that commonly appear. How affiliate deals sit alongside gifting and flat fees in beauty is covered in how beauty brands work with creators.
Comparing the two approaches
On the points above, and as this article’s own reading rather than either regulator’s summary, the systems overlap heavily but are framed differently. The ASA works from a code that requires marketing to be identifiable as advertising, with “Ad” and “#Ad” the labels it names as acceptable. The FTC works from a disclosure test about unexpected connections and gives examples of wording such as “paid link” rather than a single mandated term. Both stress visibility before engagement, both say a bottom-of-post note is weak, and both say brands cannot step away from what affiliates publish. A creator working for audiences in both countries would need to meet whichever rule applies to each post.
What the sources agree on
The common thread is simple: if a link earns money, readers should be able to tell before they click, in plain words and in a place they will see. UK and US sources differ in terminology and mechanism, and platform tools do not replace the creator’s and brand’s own responsibility. Regulators update guidance, so check the current ASA and FTC pages before relying on any wording described here.
This article is general information based on published guidance, not legal advice. Rules and platform policies change.
Sources: ASA (Online Affiliate Marketing); FTC (FTC’s Endorsement Guides: What People Are Asking); ASA (Influencer Ad Disclosure on Social Media: Instagram and TikTok Report 2024)
