Netherlands Rewrites Rules for Affiliate Links, UGC Ads

On July 1, 2026, the Reclamecode Social Media & Influencer Marketing (RSM) — the Dutch self-regulatory advertising code covering influencers and content creators — took effect in updated form, replacing a version last touched in 2022. It was developed jointly by Stichting Reclame Code (SRC), the industry body DDMA, and the Bond van Adverteerders (bvA), the Dutch advertisers' association.

The update rewrites two definitions that matter for anyone running a creator platform in the Netherlands. First, "Verspreider" (distributor) — the term the code uses for anyone whose content falls under its scope — is now written to explicitly include UGC-creators, not just people who fit the traditional idea of an influencer. Per DDMA, the code now names "UGC-creators, online personalities, celebrities, virtual influencers and nano-influencers" directly, reflecting that brands increasingly work with people who have small followings but produce high volumes of content.

Second, "Relevante Relatie" (relevant relationship) — the trigger that makes disclosure mandatory — is broadened. It no longer requires a cash payment. Free products, event invitations, hotel stays, affiliate links, discount codes, commissions and even algorithmic visibility boosts now count. "Social Media" itself is also formally defined for the first time and excludes blogposts, narrowing the code's own boundary while widening who falls inside it.

The part of the update most relevant to payout and clipping platforms is a new, dedicated disclosure category for affiliate arrangements. Under the previous code, affiliate relationships were left to be inferred from general "collaboration" language. RSM 2026 names them directly: according to Stichting Reclame Code, the revised text adds specific disclosure triggers for "affiliate links, promotie eigen merk, plaatsen van UGC-content op kanaal UGC-creator en teasers" — affiliate links, promotion of a creator's own brand, UGC content placed on a brand's channel, and teaser posts.

Influencerregels.com, the certification body that trains creators on the code, describes the requirement plainly: creators earning commissions through links or discount codes must "clearly explain" that arrangement to their audience, not fold it into a vague "link in bio" mention.

This matters specifically for clipping and UGC-payout platforms because their entire compensation model runs on the categories the old code treated as edge cases: revenue share, per-view bounties, and affiliate commissions rather than flat sponsorship fees. Because "relevant relationship" now explicitly covers commissions and visibility boosts alongside cash, a clipper earning a bounty on a brand's campaign — not just a creator with a paid post — falls inside the disclosure obligation. Platforms that generate captions or campaign briefs on a creator's behalf now have a direct code provision to build against, rather than a general transparency norm to interpret.

RSM 2026 is also more specific about where a disclosure has to sit, not just whether one exists. Stichting Reclame Code's own summary states the label must be "direct (in één oogopslag) zichtbaar" — directly visible at a glance. DDMA's reading of the same text is more concrete still: the disclosure must appear as "the first word or first sentence" of a post, and a generic "#ad" tucked into a block of unrelated hashtags no longer satisfies the requirement on its own.

The code also removes the option of a single blanket disclosure covering an entire campaign. Each Story, each platform post, and each installment of a multi-post series needs its own separate, visible label — a meaningful operational change for any platform that batches or schedules content across a campaign, since a disclosure written once at the start of a series no longer covers what follows.

Hashtag-based labels are still allowed, but only if the disclosure stays visually distinct from surrounding tags rather than blending in. The update also adds a standalone rule for AI and virtual influencers: their use "must not be misleading," a provision that did not exist in the 2022 version and anticipates the rise of AI-generated or AI-assisted creator content on Dutch platforms.

The update also hardens what brands themselves are responsible for. Under RSM 2026, an advertiser's duty of care is explicit: putting a disclosure clause into a creator contract is not sufficient on its own. Per Stichting Reclame Code and echoed by DDMA, the advertiser has an active role — it must inform creators of the rules, correct them when a post falls short, and take steps to stop violations it becomes aware of. A separate provision applies extra weight to "kidfluencers," where advertisers are expected to also comply with Dutch labor-law protections for minors.

It's worth being precise about what kind of rule this is. The RSM is not government legislation like the Digital Services Act or the AI Act — it is a self-regulatory code maintained by Stichting Reclame Code, and it's enforced through the Reclame Code Commissie (RCC), the industry's own complaints body, rather than through fines from a state regulator. A finding against a brand or creator results in a published ruling, not a monetary penalty of the kind the European Commission has issued under the DSA. That said, RCC rulings are public, get picked up by trade press, and function as a real reputational cost for brands and platforms named in them — which is why compliance teams at Dutch advertisers and platforms track the code closely even without a fine attached.

For a platform that pays creators or clippers to distribute branded content, RSM 2026 is less a policy footnote than an operating requirement. Three changes are worth building into product and campaign workflows directly.

First, disclosure obligations now attach to compensation types most clipping and UGC platforms already use by default — commissions, bounties, and visibility incentives — not only to flat sponsorship fees. Campaign templates and auto-generated captions should default to a disclosure line rather than treat it as opt-in.

Second, the per-post labeling rule breaks any workflow that applies one disclosure to a whole content series. Platforms that schedule or batch-publish clips on a creator's behalf need each individual post or Story to carry its own visible label, which likely means treating disclosure as a required field per asset rather than per campaign.

Third, the duty-of-care provision gives brands — and by extension the platforms that route campaigns to creators on their behalf — a documented reason to build in-app compliance checks rather than relying on contract language alone. A platform that can show it actively prompts and verifies disclosure, rather than merely requiring it by clause, is better positioned if a campaign it touched ends up in front of the Reclame Code Commissie.

"The advertiser has an active role in informing and, where necessary, correcting influencers — a contractual clause alone is not sufficient." — Stichting Reclame Code, on the RSM 2026 duty of care

None of this is enforced by a government fine, but for platforms operating at volume across many small creators, a published RCC ruling naming a brand or a platform's campaign tooling is still the kind of outcome worth designing around before it happens, not after.