Contact | Search |

Tag: advertising

Branded Content: Navigating the New World

Posted on by Anna Weeden

With traditional commissions remaining hard to come by, producers are increasingly seeking branded content as an alternative ‘holy grail’ to getting their shows funded. But what exactly is it? And how does having a brand onboard interplay with broadcasters’ duties to the public?

ISN’T IT JUST THE SAME AS SPONSORSHIP?

Advertiser Funded Programming (AFP), means programmes created with the input of a brand – often financial but it can also be creative too. Branded content on the other hand, usually means programmes created by producers for a brand where the brand effectively acts as commissioner. Increasingly, the term “branded content” is used colloquially in the TV industry to mean either.

Crucially, AFP for traditional TV is where the brand buys into the existing editorial integrity of the programme and is looking to reach consumers by aligning with the programme’s existing values. As Jon Willers of The Development Network puts it, “branded content for Channel 4 must feel like something they would commission anyway”. In other words, the branding is complementary, or supplementary, to the story being told. Of course, there is branded content which starts with the brand and works backwards, but again, the final product isn’t intended to look and feel like an advert.

The key difference between AFP and sponsorship is that usually with AFP, there is a deeper relationship with the programme makers (the producer and broadcaster) and the programme itself. The Branded Content Marketing Association describes it as “any means by which an advertiser can have a deeper relationship with programming product beyond traditional media activity”. This definition requires a funding relationship with the programme or series that goes beyond sponsorship because the funding goes directly into production. Effectively, it is programming that wouldn’t exist without the brand partner. Sponsors, on the other hand, rely on the right programme being available, and only then are they able to secure sponsorship on it.

WHO OWNS THE IP?

Typically, in AFP, brands do not take a share of the intellectual property rights in the programme as they perceive the value of the partnership to lie in the exposure and reach it provides for their brand. This is good news for producers as it leaves them free to exploit the format and the like, subject to any terms agreed with the broadcaster. However, this position may be changing, at least in the digital space, as brands get savvier to the potential upside in owning a share of the IP-pie. Some might even be interested in a share of net revenues from producers’ exploitation of the programme on the secondary market after the initial broadcast. With negotiations wide open, it’s all to play for.  For public service broadcaster (PSB) deals, though, under the Terms of Trade, the producer must remain the owner of the IP in the shows (which means that certain brands who are entering the AFP space for the first time may need to have their expectations managed).

HOW DOES BRANDED CONTENT WORK FOR THE PSBS WITHIN THE OFCOM RULES?

The BBC has historically shied away from any type of brand involvement in its shows, primarily due to restrictions on its funding and operational framework. The BBC is funded by the licence fee, which is public money provided by Parliament. It is prohibited from using these funds for services that are wholly or partly financed through advertisements, sponsorship, or other alternative funding methods, unless prior written approval is granted by the Secretary of State. This restriction ensures that the BBC remains independent and free from commercial influence, maintaining its public service remit. That being said, commercial arms of the BBC do engage in brand-funded content, like BBC StoryWorks which commissions branded content for the non-UK market.

The other PSBs however, have previously engaged in a fair level of AFPs, but the last few years has seen  a huge rise as the climate for fully funding their shows remains challenging. A good example is Cooking With the Stars in partnership with Marks & Spencer; DNA Journey with Ancestry; and John and Lisa Down-Under with Trailfinders.

However, the PSBs fall under the jurisdiction of Ofcom, meaning any branded-funded content they show needs to comply with the Ofcom Broadcasting Code (the Ofcom Code).

PRODUCT PLACEMENT UNDER THE OFCOM CODE

Product placement involves the inclusion of a product, service or trade mark within a programme in return for payment or other consideration.

Product placement is permitted in certain types of programmes, such as films, TV series’, entertainment shows, and sports programmes, provided it complies with the rules set out in Section 9 of the Ofcom Code. These rules require that product placement does not compromise editorial independence, is not unduly promotional and is clearly signalled to viewers through a universal product placement logo displayed at the start, end and after advertising breaks in the programme. This means that whilst certain brands may want to have control over how their products are featured in content, the extent to which they can do so is limited under the Ofcom Code meaning their expectations need to be managed accordingly.

SPONSORSHIP UNDER THE OFCOM CODE

Under the Ofcom Code, the sponsor may not influence the editorial content of the programme. The sponsorship must be clearly identified and there must be a clear distinction between editorial content and advertising to maintain transparency and consumer protection. Whilst we said above that AFP and sponsorship are not the same, the sponsorship rules in the Ofcom Code may well still apply to brand-funded content.

SO, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

In short, setting aside the BBC (which is subject to additional restrictions) branded content for the PSBs is permitted provided producers successfully navigate and adhere to the standards and transparency requirements of the Ofcom Code.

WHAT ABOUT STREAMING PLATFORMS?

For the PSBs’ digital offerings, like Channel 4, BBC iPlayer and ITVX, the regulatory landscape is currently different than for their PSB main channel counterparts, as the Ofcom Code itself does not apply. The same is true for streamers like Netflix and Amazon Prime. Instead, VOD services are currently regulated by the ODPS (On-Demand Programme Services) Rules which impose alternative broadcast standards. Whilst the ODPS Rules on sponsorship and product placement are broadly similar to the Ofcom Code, they are slightly lighter with regards to how VOD services are allowed to implement them. For example, under the Ofcom Code, product placement must be editorially justified and signalled with a ‘PP’ logo. That being said,  the ODPS Rules for signalling requirements must only ensure that viewers are adequately informed about product placement – there is  no strict format requirement. This means an ODPS would be able to use its end credits to disclose a promotional consideration.

The Media Act 2024, now in force, gave Ofcom the power to create a new Ofcom code which will apply to Tier 1 Video On-Demand (VOD) services (the VOD Code), This  would cover the PSBs’ VOD offerings as well as independent streaming services like Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney+ etc. Will this tighten up the rules on branded content in the online space? Based on current thinking, the new Ofcom code will not focus on these areas meaning ODPS will continue to be governed by the existing ODPS Rules.

HOW ABOUT YOUTUBE, INSTAGRAM AND TIKTOK?

YouTube is the home of long-form branded content; Instagram and TikTok are the home of short-form branded content and clips. Brands and producers make use of all of them as part of a cohesive, multi-platform branded strategy.  

Crucially, none of the above Ofcom or ODPS Rules currently apply to YouTube, TikTok or Instagram. A recent Government announcement has confirmed that video-sharing platforms like YouTube, will not in and of themselves be designated as Tier 1 VOD (though some individual channels on YouTube with a high number of subscribers, like the PSB’s own YouTube channels, may be caught).

Instead, branded content on these types of platforms is subject to the CAP Code. This is a separate set of rules governed by the Advertising Standards Authority which states that, where a brand has editorial control, there must be clear labelling to allow viewers to easily recognise the content as an advert, and messages should not be conveyed surreptitiously. On social media sites, influencers must use clear labels like “#ad” to ensure transparency where they are posting a brand-funded video.

WHAT NEXT FOR BRANDED CONTENT?

Branded Content shows no sign of waning. Whilst the regulatory landscape continues to evolve, producers, broadcasters and brands remain set on navigating the rules and reaping the benefits that collaboration between traditional TV indies and brands can bring.

We are experts in advising on both sides of the fence as well as advising on deals with broadcasters where there is brand involvement. Our advice ranges from deal-making and structuring, contract drafting, negotiation and advice on the regulatory regime. If you are a TV production company, agency or a brand working on a branded content or AFP project, please get in touch.

Loot box crackdown in the UK: what you need to know

Posted on by Anna Weeden

What’s happened?

On 26 February, the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), the UK’s advertising regulator, issued an Enforcement Notice concerning the disclosure of loot boxes in mobile game advertising and app store listings. For these purposes, “loot boxes” are random-item generators that can be acquired with real money, or with virtual currency obtainable only through real-money purchases. The notice was prompted by the ASA’s concern that mobile game publishers are failing to adequately disclose the presence of loot boxes in their games.

The ASA will begin actively monitoring compliance from 26 May, with targeted enforcement action to follow.

What is an Enforcement Notice?

An Enforcement Notice is essentially a warning to the relevant sector that the regulator intends to focus on this issue more intensively starting from the relevant date, giving the relevant businesses an opportunity to ‘get their house in order’.

We can expect a string of adjudications from the ASA (which enforces the CAP and BCAP Codes) on this subject in the months to come.

What are the rules?

Under CAP Guidance, the presence of loot boxes in a game is considered material information. This means the presence of loot boxes must be presented to consumers before they purchase or download a game (particularly for those with gambling-related vulnerabilities).

This can be achieved with a disclosure statement such as “Includes random-item purchases” or “Contains loot boxes” in a prominent location within advertising and app store listings.  

Players should not need to expand hidden sections or scroll through game descriptions to find it. Note that built-in app store labels such as “Offers In-App Purchases” are not generally sufficient on their own. Loot box disclosures must be presented prominently alongside, or as part of, any in-game purchasing information.

What should I do now?

If your game incorporates loot boxes, review your advertising and app store listings to ensure the appropriate disclaimers are included.

Bear in mind that the global loot box regulatory environment is fragmented. This is largely due to a lack of harmonisation of gambling regulation and consumer protection laws across many jurisdictions that have developed in different directions over time.  Territories with a particular interest in regulating and taking enforcement action in relation to loot boxes include Brazil, Netherlands, Poland, Belgium and recently there has been action in the US.  It is a good time to reflect on your global loot box approach, and update any internal policies.

If you would like to discuss this further, please contact Sophie Lewis and Kostyantyn Lobov.

Joint Controllers, TC Strings, and OpenRTB: Unpacking the Belgian Market Court’s Appeal Decision on IAB Europe’s TCF

Posted on by Anna Weeden

On 14 May 2025, the Belgian Market Court (part of the Brussels Court of Appeal) delivered a landmark judgment in the case concerning IAB Europe’s Transparency and Consent Framework (TCF).

The case centred on allegations that IAB Europe violated the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, or AVG in Dutch) through its data processing practices within the TCF. This judgment follows an earlier decision by the Belgian Data Protection Authority (APD), which found several breaches of the GDPR and imposed a €250,000 fine on IAB Europe.

CASE BACKGROUND

IAB Europe is an international non-profit association aiming to bring compliance to the digital advertising and marketing sector. They developed the TCF to promote adherence to the GDPR when internet sites or applications use the OpenRTB protocol.

On 2 February 2022, the APD found that IAB Europe’s TCF violated GDPR and fined IAB €250,000. Key findings included:

  • The TC String (user preferences signal) is personal data.
  • IAB Europe is a joint controller for both the creation and subsequent processing of the TC String.
  • Lack of a valid legal basis for processing TC Strings as the TCF did not obtain explicit and informed consent from users, nor could it rely on legitimate interests due to the large-scale and intrusive nature of the data processing involved.
  • Failure to fulfil transparency obligations and not adequately informing users about its role as a data controller, the purposes of data processing, or the recipients of their data.
  • Inadequate security measures and lack of mechanisms to prevent manipulation of consent signals.
  • Failure to conduct data protection impact assessments.
  • Failure to appoint a data protection officer. 
  • Incomplete register of processing activities.

On 4 March 2022, IAB Europe challenged the APD’s decision before the Belgian Market Court, disputing its role as a joint controller and the APD’s legal analysis on the TC String being personal data.

On 7 September 2022, the Belgian Market Court made an interim ruling, confirming the procedural irregularities in the APD’s investigation. It referred two preliminary questions to the CJEU:

  • Does the TC String constitute personal data under GDPR?
  • Is IAB Europe a joint controller for processing TC Strings and subsequent data uses?

On 7 March 2024, the CJEU judgement confirmed that:

  • the TC String may constitute personal data if:
    1. It is associated with other data points (e.g., IP address) that can identify a user.
    2. IAB Europe has reasonable means to access such data.
  • IAB Europe may be a joint controller for the creation and use of TC Strings if it influences the processing’s purposes and means.
  • IAB Europe is not a joint controller for subsequent processing (e.g. personalised advertising) by third parties.

The case was sent back to the Belgian Market Court for factual verification and further examination which this article explains.

FINDINGS OF THE MARKET COURT

Are TC Strings Personal Data?

TC Strings are unique codes containing users’ consent preferences.

The Market Court referenced the preliminary ruling of the CJEU in March 2024, which clarified that TC Strings, when linked to identifiers such as IP addresses, allow for user identification.

In paragraph 48 of the judgment, the Market Court stated that “the fact that IAB Europe itself would not have the reasonable means to proceed with Identification because it cannot make the link between a TC String and the IP address and would not have direct access to the personal data, is in itself irrelevant”.

As such, the Market Court confirmed that a TC String is personal data within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the GDPR.

Is there any processing of personal data?

IAB Europe, as the managing organisation and central figure in the digital ecosystem, determines the storage and dissemination of the TC String.

Under the TCF Technical Specifications, the TC String is shared with Consent Management Platforms (CMPs) in two ways:

  • By storing it in a shared global consent cookie on IAB Europe’s consensu.org domain; or
  • By storing it in a CMP-chosen system for service-specific consent signals.

The Market Court found that storing the TC String in a shared cookie and making it available via the consensu.org domain clearly constitutes processing of personal data under GDPR.

The Market Court further explained that, regardless of the consent cookie or domain, processing of personal data occurs in the TCF, including:

  • User preferences being collected by CMPs (along with the user’s IP address);
  • User preferences being structured and ordered in a TC String; and
  • The TC String being stored, distributed, and shared with TCF participants.

Should IAB Europe’s Role in the TCF be considered as a Data Controller?

Paragraphs 62-75 of the judgment confirms that it is clear that IAB Europe has real decision-making power, both over the purposes and means of processing and this given its overriding control over the operation of the TCF:

  • IAB Europe acknowledges its responsibility for the TCF in its own documentation – such as “Frequently Asked Questions” on the TCF (version 2.0) – noting that this judgment only focusses on v2.0 as IAB Europe’s TCF v2.2 already includes updates to address compliance concerns raised.
  • On determining the purpose and means of these processing operations, IAB Europe indeed exercises a decisive influence. IAB Europe has a shared purpose with the other participants for the processing of personal data, which incidentally all have the same, which is to ensure that user preferences are captured in a structured way and then shared with all other participants. Even though many TCF participants may be competitors, when it comes to the processing of user preferences under the TCF, they all have similar interests, which are also similar to those of IAB.

The Market Court states that “the concept of a data controller in this case just does have to interpreted broadly, since IAB Europe is the only one who, as it itself states, manages and administers the TCF and can therefore resolve the issues identified by the Dispute Resolution Chamber, after consultation with all other EU regulators.”

The Market Court confirmed that IAB Europe is a joint data controller with TCF participants for storing the consent preferences of the affected users in the TC String.

If yes, is IAB Europe a Joint Controller for the processing of personal data in the context of OpenRTB?

The Market Court assessed whether IAB Europe with the TCF “influences” the further processing of personal data under OpenRTB.

The APD argued that IAB Europe’s TCF and OpenRTB are inherently interconnected. It claimed that IAB Europe facilitates an ecosystem where consent preferences are collected and shared for further processing by third parties (e.g. publishers and adtech vendors). As such, the ADP considered IAB Europe and participating organisations to be joint controllers for both the collection and dissemination of consent data.

The Market Court identified inconsistencies in the ADP’s reasoning. Although the ADP acknowledged that IAB Europe does not act as a data controller for processing under OpenRTB, it nevertheless implied such responsibility in its decision. The Market Court found that the Appellants had limited the scope of their arguments to the TCF, no evidence was provided to establish IAB Europe as a joint controller for OpenRTB processing and it lacked influence over this stage of data use..

It concluded that the APD failed to demonstrate that IAB Europe acts as a joint data controller for processing operations under OpenRTB as not all processing stages fall under their control.

OUTCOME

The Market Court upheld the €250,000 fine imposed by the APD, deeming it proportionate and justified under Article 83 of the GDPR. It also confirmed the corrective measures requiring IAB Europe to bring its processing activities into compliance.

The Market Court dismissed most of IAB Europe’s grievances but acknowledged procedural flaws in the initial decision. It upheld the APD’s sanctions regarding TCF operations but clarified that IAB Europe is not responsible for OpenRTB operations – annulling the APD’s decision in part.

IAB Europe is ordered to pay the costs of proceedings, estimated at €7,848.84, and other contributions totalling €424.

IMPLICATIONS

This Judgment clarifies that even entities without direct access to personal data can be held accountable as data controllers if they influence the purposes and means of processing.

For the adtech industry, this ruling reinforces the GDPR principles and in particular supports the requirements to:

  • carefully examine consent mechanisms to ensure they are transparent, freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous;
  • ensure the use of consent frameworks like the TCF does not create ambiguity about their own roles and accountability in data processing operations;
  • provide users with clear, accessible, and understandable information about how their data is processed; and
  • minimise the processing of personal data by leveraging contextual advertising, privacy-enhancing technologies, and aggregated or pseudonymised datasets instead of third party cookies.

Less healthy food advertising restrictions pushed to early 2026

Posted on by Anna Weeden

Today, the Government has announced that it intends to delay the effective date of the less healthy food regulations. The regulations, which ban TV ads for less healthy food or drink being shown before 9pm and online ads for these products, were due to come into force on 1 October this year.

Following heavy lobbying from the industry around the implications of ‘brand advertising’ (i.e. advertising a brand/company name even if unhealthy products were not shown), the Government has announced that it intends to make and lay a Statutory Instrument (SI) to explicitly exempt ‘brand advertising’ from the restrictions. To allow time to consult on the draft SI, the formal date that these new restrictions come into force has been extended from 1 October 2025 to 5 January 2026.

However, as per a voluntary agreement with the Government, advertisers and broadcasters have made a public commitment to comply with the restrictions as though they would still come into force from 1 October 2025. This means that, from 1 October 2025, the Government has said that it would expect adverts for specific identifiable less healthy products not to be shown on TV between 5:30am and 9pm or at any time online. This is a positive development for advertisers, particularly those that largely or wholly advertise products that fall within the ‘less healthy product’ category, who (it is expected) will be able to continue to advertise their branding without showing such less healthy products, at any time. This is of course subject to how the Government will define ‘brand advertising’, which we expect clarification on before the restrictions come into force on 5 January 2026 (subject to Parliamentary approval). However, advertisers will still be expected to comply with the general restriction and no longer advertise identifiable less healthy products on TV between 5:30am and 9pm or at any time online, as of 1 October 2025.

Changes to consumer laws and B2C engagement take effect

Posted on by Anna Weeden

The Digital Markets Competition and Consumer Act 2024 (DMCCA) came into force on 1 January 2025, and is now in effect, bringing with it significant changes to consumer law since the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Snapshot of the DMCCA

Outright ban of “unfair commercial practices”. The DMCCA overhauls existing consumer protections under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations and introduces several new provisions aimed at enhancing consumer rights and processes. This includes the outright banning of certain unfair commercial practices such as drip pricing and those in relation to fake or concealed incentivised consumer reviews.

Changes to subscription rules. The DMCCA also tightens the rules around B2C subscription contracts, adding new requirements for subscription services to comply with, however these changes are not expected to come into force until Spring 2026.

Strengthens the role of the CMA. The CMA will now be able to directly investigate suspected infringements and issue enforcement notices without the need for lengthy court proceedings. The DMCCA brings with it the ability for the CMA to impose penalties of up to 10% of global turnover. This is a significant shift from the previous regime which largely required court involvement for enforcement actions.

Phased implementation

The first set of changes relating to consumer law are now in effect, and the CMA has published guidance on unfair commercial practices that are banned by the DMCCA and subject to enforcement action. It is worth noting that many of these “unfair commercial practices” are not new in principle, but the main difference now is that the CMA has the ability to investigate and impose penalties for breaches of these rules. The CMA has also published guidance on how it will enforce the DMCCA. For the first 12 months, the CMA will target particularly harmful behaviours to consumers such as aggressive sales practices that prey on consumers in vulnerable positions, fees that are hidden until late in the buying process, information being given to consumers that is objectively false, unfair and unbalanced contract terms and fake reviews.

What can we expect next?

The CMA will likely start the first wave of its investigation and enforcement, focusing on the “most egregious” breaches of the DMCCA. The CMA has indicated that it will be consulting further on drip pricing this year, including in relation to fixed-term period contracts. We expect this further guidance in relation to drip pricing to be published this autumn. Look out for our further articles on the impacts of the DMCCA on influencer marketing, prize draws and competitions and subscription services.