February 20, 2026
In 2025, plaintiff firms started treating influencer campaigns like a repeatable litigation playbook: find a popular brand, identify a pattern of posts that look like “authentic recommendations,” and allege the endorsements were deceptive because material connections were not disclosed (or were disclosed poorly). For hemp- and CBD-adjacent brands—already operating under heightened scrutiny for health claims, youth appeal, and state-by-state labeling—this wave has special settlement risk.
This article is informational only, not legal advice. It’s designed for US operators who want a practical compliance reset—contracts, creative review, claim substantiation, and platform governance—so a campaign doesn’t become a class action headline.
Class actions in early-to-mid 2025 increasingly alleged that brands and influencers violated federal and state consumer-protection laws by running sponsored posts without disclosure that met the FTC’s “clear and conspicuous” standard. A widely cited analysis from Morgan Lewis described multiple 2025 suits asserting disclosures were missing, buried, or ineffective, with plaintiffs seeking nationwide classes and state subclasses—often under state unfair/deceptive acts and practices statutes (UDAP) and false advertising theories. External link: https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2025/06/influencer-marketing-class-actions-on-the-rise-common-themes-and-key-takeaways
The key takeaway for regulated products is simple: if your campaign relies on “trust me” creator content, plaintiffs will test whether the audience was told “this is an ad” in a way that can’t be missed.
Nothing about influencer disclosures is brand-new—but the risk profile shifted:
For reference on the FTC’s current disclosure expectations, start with the agency’s own FAQs: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking
Influencer class actions don’t happen in a vacuum. They ride on top of a broader compliance climate:
The FTC position—repeated across guidance—is that a disclosure fails if a viewer could miss it. For brands, that means you need placement rules (first lines of captions, on-screen superimposed text for video, spoken disclosure in audio formats) and monitoring.
Practical implication: your influencer agreement can’t just say “Creator will comply with FTC rules.” You need specific disclosure mechanics, a right to require edits, and a documented monitoring workflow.
FDA warning activity remains a major signal for hemp/CBD risk, particularly where marketing suggests products “treat,” “cure,” “mitigate,” or “prevent” diseases, or where products can be confused with conventional foods/beverages. The FDA has published multiple warning-letter-related updates emphasizing that unapproved therapeutic claims are prohibited and that some CBD-containing foods and beverages are unlawfully marketed under the FD&C Act. Example: https://www.fda.gov/food/hfp-constituent-updates/fda-warns-companies-illegally-selling-food-and-beverage-products-contain-cbd
Practical implication: even if your influencer disclosures are perfect, an influencer riffing about anxiety relief or pain treatment can create regulatory exposure. Your contract must tightly control claims and require creators to use only pre-approved language.
Even without naming specific states’ rules, the national pattern is consistent:
The litigation lesson: a single “bad” creator post can become the screenshot that anchors a complaint.
Think of influencer marketing risk as a triangle: private plaintiffs, self-regulatory challenges, and government enforcement. These vectors can stack.
The BBB National Programs’ National Advertising Division (NAD) has increased scrutiny of influencer disclosures and third-party marketing practices. In 2025 digests and monitoring decisions, NAD has examined whether brands have adequate systems to ensure creators disclose material connections and avoid unsupported claims. Example digest (PDF): https://bbbprograms.org/getmedia/da340f5b-4933-4ae9-b3a4-bd06bb27da8f/naddigest_2025_marketing.pdf
Why it matters: NAD matters in settlement risk because it can generate:
State attorneys general often have broad UDAP authority to pursue deceptive advertising, omission of material facts, and misleading marketing—especially for products with youth access concerns or confusing labeling. Even if your company is federally compliant in intent, a state AG can allege deception based on net impression.
Workflow implication: treat influencer scripts as advertising copy subject to the same review as your website and label claims.
Platform enforcement isn’t law, but it can shape litigation narratives (“they were trying to hide it”) and business damage (account restrictions, disapproved ads).
Settlement-risk insight: if your creator didn’t use built-in disclosure tools (e.g., “paid partnership” labels), plaintiffs may argue the campaign was designed to look organic.
A strong influencer agreement should do two things simultaneously:
1) force correct disclosures (and prove you required them)2) prevent unsubstantiated or prohibited claims
Below is a practical contract blueprint you can adapt with counsel.
Add a schedule titled Disclosure Requirements that includes:
Also include a no-post-if-no-disclosure covenant and a requirement to reshoot/repost at creator’s cost if disclosure is missing.
Include:
Why it matters: many lawsuits allege the influencer’s post created the deception. You need a contract record showing the brand required prior review.
Add a section called Claims Controls:
Internally, maintain a Claim Substantiation File for each claim category:
This file is valuable when responding to NAD inquiries, platform reviews, retailer diligence, or demand letters.
Add a Youth and Audience Controls clause:
Even where not legally mandated, these controls reduce UDAP and reputational risk.
Your agreement should include:
Influencer contracts routinely include indemnity, but 2025 trends suggest strengthening and operationalizing it:
Insurance review items for the brand:
This should be reviewed with your broker and counsel; treat it as a strategic risk-transfer exercise, not boilerplate.
A defensible program is one where compliance is built into production—not bolted on afterward.
Your brief should include:
Operational note: store approvals in a centralized system (campaign folder + timestamped approvals).
These are patterns that repeatedly show up in demand letters, NAD reviews, and platform takedowns:
Problem: disclosure after multiple lines/hashtags, or only at the end.
Fix: first-line disclosure rule; on-screen disclosure for video.
Problem: gratitude doesn’t equal disclosure.
Fix: require explicit “Ad” or “Paid partnership” language.
Problem: “I finally slept,” “my anxiety disappeared,” “pain is gone,” even if not phrased as treatment.
Fix: prohibit “before/after health stories” unless vetted; provide alternate language focused on non-medical experience (e.g., taste, routine) where appropriate.
Problem: creators think affiliate relationships are exempt.
Fix: disclosure requirement explicitly covers affiliate commissions and free product.
Problem: a brand amplifies creator content without verifying disclosure survives the format.
Fix: require disclosure to remain visible in every repurposed version; brand to re-check before whitelisting or boosting.
If you’re rebuilding your influencer program after the 2025 litigation wave, the goal is not to eliminate creator voice—it’s to make compliance predictable, documented, and auditable.
For more tools on cannabis compliance-adjacent advertising, disclosure workflows, and multi-state regulatory monitoring, visit https://www.cannabisregulations.ai/ and use CannabisRegulations.ai to help your team operationalize compliant marketing reviews, claim libraries, and campaign recordkeeping.
