From Dupes to Disclosure: How Legal Standards Are Reshaping Influencer Marketing

The starting point for this analysis is the article published by The Fashion Law, “From Dupes to Disclosure: How the Law Is Catching Up with Influencers” (February 11, 2026), which offers a clear overview of the evolving regulatory landscape surrounding dupe culture and the growing role of influencers in shaping consumer choices. The article highlights how the promotion of “dupe” products—low‑cost alternatives to luxury goods—is drawing the attention of European and U.S. regulators, especially when comparisons become misleading or lack adequate disclosure.

1. Dupe culture under legal scrutiny

According to The Fashion Law, “the promotion of low‑cost products as equivalents to luxury goods can shift from mere marketing to potential misrepresentation.” The issue is not the dupe itself—which often does not infringe trademarks or trade dress—but the way it is presented:

• unverified aesthetic or functional equivalence

• implicit comparisons leveraging the reputation of the original brand

• lack of disclosure of commercial relationships

These elements may constitute unfair commercial practices, particularly when the influencer plays a decisive role in shaping consumer expectations.

2. The European Union: UCPD, transparency, and verifiability

The article refers to the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) as the main regulatory framework. The UCPD prohibits:

• false or unverifiable information

• misleading omissions

• failure to disclose commercial relationships

The Fashion Law specifically notes that “claims of performance equivalent to luxury products must be objectively substantiated.”

Additional relevant sources include:

• the European Commission’s guidelines on influencer marketing (2023–2024)

• the Influencer Legal Hub, which clarifies obligations on disclosure, comparisons, and creator liability

• the growing application of consumer law to micro‑influencers, who are considered “professionals” when monetizing content

3. United States: FTC Act and shared responsibility

In the U.S., the Federal Trade Commission imposes similar but more detailed obligations. Influencers must:

• clearly and immediately disclose any “material connection”

• avoid unsupported claims

• refrain from suggesting misleading equivalences with well‑known brands

The FTC may sanction both the brand and the influencer. In recent years, the agency has intensified enforcement against:

• undisclosed affiliations

• misleading comparisons

• AI‑generated content lacking disclosure

4. The Italian case: scandals, reforms, and new rules

Italy is currently one of the most active countries in redefining influencer liability. As The Fashion Law notes, the Ferragni case—though unrelated to dupes—accelerated several regulatory initiatives.

4.1. The Charity Bill (DDL Beneficenza)

The bill of January 25, 2024, not yet enacted, introduces:

• transparency obligations on beneficiaries, amounts, and purposes of donations

• prior notification to the Competition Authority (AGCM)

• mandatory final reporting

• fines ranging from €5,000 to €50,000 and possible suspension of activity

4.2. AGCOM Guidelines 2024

AGCOM has classified influencers with over one million followers as audiovisual media service providers, imposing:

• mandatory disclosure (#adv)

• prohibition of covert advertising

• protection of minors

• editorial responsibility (fact‑checking, accuracy, no disinformation)

• fines up to €600,000

According to The Fashion Law, this approach may soon extend to a broader group of creators.

5. A global trend: the end of ambiguity

The TFL article concludes that “European rules are converging toward standards requiring transparency, verifiability, and legal compliance.” Globally, we observe:

• increased focus on consumer protection

• growing alignment between influencer obligations and those of traditional media

• the need to substantiate every comparative claim

• the requirement for immediate and unequivocal disclosure

6. The role of the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act

Although not mentioned by The Fashion Law, the European regulatory environment is now deeply shaped by the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA), two pillars of the EU’s strategy to make the digital ecosystem more transparent and accountable.

6.1. Digital Services Act (DSA): transparency, traceability, and platform responsibility

The DSA introduces obligations that directly affect influencer marketing and dupe culture because it:

• requires platforms to ensure transparency in online advertising, including clear identification of the party paying for the promotion

• mandates systems to identify and remove illegal content, including misleading advertising or counterfeits

• introduces trader traceability obligations, applicable to influencers acting as professionals

• requires Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) to assess risks related to the spread of misleading content, including commercial content.

In this sense, the DSA reinforces the UCPD: not only is the influencer responsible for the content, but the platform must also ensure a transparent and compliant environment.

6.2. Digital Markets Act (DMA): indirect but strategic impact

The DMA targets gatekeepers (major platforms such as Meta, Google, Amazon, TikTok), imposing rules to prevent abuses of dominant position. While not a sector‑specific regulation for influencer marketing, it has significant indirect effects:

• increases transparency of algorithms determining the visibility of commercial content

• limits practices that could facilitate the spread of misleading or unverified content

• strengthens gatekeeper responsibility in managing marketplaces where fake or borderline dupe products proliferate

In other words, the DMA creates a more controlled ecosystem where product promotion must comply with clearer and less manipulable rules.

7. Conclusion: toward a more mature ecosystem

The combined analysis of the DSA and DMA shows that regulation no longer concerns only the influencer but the entire digital supply chain: brands, creators, platforms, marketplaces, algorithms.

This aligns with TFL’s conclusion that “the era of informal influencer marketing is ending”: responsibility is now horizontal, distributed across all actors in the ecosystem.

Dupe culture will continue to exist, but within stricter boundaries. For brands and creators, this means:

• adopting compliance procedures

• verifying every comparison

• disclosing every commercial relationship

• treating transparency as a reputational asset

The message is clear: the era of “informal” influencer marketing is over. The new phase is defined by responsibility, clarity, and accountability.

https://www.thefashionlaw.com/from-dupes-to-disclosure-how-the-law-is-catching-up-with-influencers/

#fashionlaw #dupes #fakes #counterfeiting #knockoffs