TikTok Ad Rules Clarified in P&G vs. Blueland Influencer Dispute

NEW YORK, NY – November 25, 2025 – In a decision that sends ripples across the social commerce landscape, the National Advertising Division (NAD) of BBB National Programs has issued a pivotal ruling on influencer advertising, clarifying disclosure standards for creators on platforms like TikTok Shop. The decision came after a challenge brought by consumer goods titan The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G) against the marketing practices of eco-friendly challenger brand Blueland, highlighting a new competitive front in the battle for consumer attention.

The ruling, expedited through NAD’s Fast-Track SWIFT process, determined that TikTok’s automated “creator earns commission” disclosure is sufficient for influencers whose only material connection to a brand is receiving free products and participating in the platform's affiliate program. However, the case also revealed the limitations of such automated tools, as Blueland voluntarily agreed to modify or discontinue posts where influencers had received additional compensation, underscoring the complex compliance obligations for brands in the booming creator economy.

The Nuances of Disclosure: What the NAD Ruling Clarified

The core of P&G’s challenge centered on whether Blueland’s influencers were adequately disclosing their commercial relationships. This question has become increasingly critical as brands pour billions into influencer marketing, and platforms like TikTok Shop integrate purchasing directly into user-generated content, blurring the lines between authentic endorsement and paid advertising.

NAD’s review provided a much-needed distinction. For a specific subset of creators—those who only received free Blueland products and earned commissions through TikTok’s affiliate program—the platform-generated disclosure was deemed appropriate. The reasoning is that the phrase “creator earns commission” clearly communicates a financial incentive, satisfying the fundamental requirement to disclose a material connection. This part of the decision offers a degree of safe harbor for brands utilizing simple, commission-based affiliate programs on the platform.

However, the analysis did not stop there. The case took a crucial turn when Blueland acknowledged that certain creators had more complex relationships that went beyond the basic affiliate model. During the proceeding, the company identified posts from four creators who may have had separate partnerships or received additional compensation. For these instances, the simple “creator earns commission” tag was implicitly insufficient. Recognizing this, Blueland proactively requested these creators to add more explicit disclosures, such as #ad or #sponsored, or to take the posts down entirely.

This voluntary action is significant. While NAD did not rule on the merits of these specific posts, it will treat them as if it had recommended their modification for compliance purposes. This effectively reinforces the long-standing principle from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that all material connections must be disclosed clearly and conspicuously. If an influencer is paid a flat fee, given a long-term contract, or receives other benefits beyond a simple sales commission, a disclosure must fully reflect that deeper relationship. Relying solely on a platform’s automated, one-size-fits-all disclosure in such cases is a significant compliance risk.

A New Battlefield for Brand Rivalry

Beyond the regulatory minutiae, the P&G vs. Blueland case is a textbook example of modern competitive strategy. P&G, an incumbent with a century of advertising history, is leveraging the industry’s self-regulatory mechanisms to scrutinize the marketing tactics of a nimble, direct-to-consumer competitor that has effectively used social media to capture market share.

Blueland’s marketing playbook is emblematic of successful challenger brands: a strong mission centered on sustainability, a visually engaging product, and a deep reliance on influencer marketing to build authentic connections with a digitally native audience. This strategy has allowed it to grow rapidly without the massive traditional advertising budgets of a giant like P&G. However, this digital-first approach also opens it up to new forms of scrutiny.

P&G has a well-documented history of using NAD challenges as a strategic tool to protect its brand equity and ensure a level playing field. By challenging Blueland’s influencer disclosures, P&G not only forces a competitor to expend resources on compliance but also helps shape the rules of engagement in the social commerce arena. It sends a clear message to other challenger brands that their digital advertising practices are under watch.

The use of NAD’s Fast-Track SWIFT process was particularly strategic, allowing for a resolution in approximately 20 business days. This expedited timeline is ideal for addressing a single, well-defined issue like the adequacy of a specific disclosure, enabling P&G to get a swift and public clarification on a key competitive practice. For market analysts and brand strategists, this case serves as a powerful reminder that advertising compliance is not just a legal issue but a competitive one.

The Future of Trust in Social Commerce

Ultimately, the debate over disclosures is a debate over consumer trust. As social media feeds increasingly transform into digital storefronts, the ability of a consumer to distinguish between a genuine recommendation and a paid advertisement is paramount. This NAD ruling pushes the industry toward greater transparency, but it also raises questions about the responsibilities of all parties involved.

For brands, the key takeaway is the need for meticulous management of influencer relationships. It is no longer enough to simply ship free products and hope for FTC-compliant posts. Companies must have robust systems to track different tiers of compensation, provide clear guidance to their creator partners, and actively monitor their content. The advertiser, as the FTC and NAD have repeatedly affirmed, bears the ultimate responsibility for their influencers' compliance.

For social media platforms, the ruling may prompt an evolution in their native disclosure tools. While TikTok’s current system was found adequate for simple affiliate links, the platform could face pressure to offer more granular options that allow creators and brands to specify the nature of their partnership more accurately, whether it's a paid sponsorship, an ambassadorship, or a commission-based agreement.

This decision marks a significant step in the maturation of the influencer economy. It signals that as social commerce grows, so too will the regulatory and competitive oversight. Brands that prioritize clear, unambiguous transparency will not only mitigate legal risk but also build stronger, more enduring trust with consumers who are increasingly savvy about the commercial nature of the content they consume.