How Does Philippine Law Punish False Advertising by Influencers?

Introduction

Influencers and content creators who promote products may incur legal liability when their posts contain false, deceptive, or misleading representations. This is particularly relevant when an influencer uses manipulated before-and-after photographs or claims that a product can produce results that are not supported by reliable evidence.

Under the Consumer Act of the Philippines, liability may arise even when the advertisement appears in a social-media video, livestream, sponsored post, caption, story, or other digital content. The important question is whether the representation is materially misleading and is intended, or is likely, to induce consumers to purchase a product or service.

What Counts as False or Misleading Advertising?

Article 110 of Republic Act No. 7394, or the Consumer Act of the Philippines, makes it unlawful to disseminate or cause the dissemination of a false, deceptive, or misleading advertisement through Philippine mail, print, radio, television, outdoor advertising, or any other medium.

An advertisement is misleading when it fails to conform to the Consumer Act or is misleading in a material respect. Authorities may consider not only the express words used but also the advertisement’s overall presentation and its failure to disclose material facts concerning the product or the consequences of its use.

Accordingly, an influencer may face scrutiny when a post:

• presents an edited or digitally altered image as an actual consumer result;
• claims that a product produces guaranteed, permanent, or immediate results without adequate support;
• omits material limitations, risks, conditions, or qualifications;
• uses a testimonial that gives consumers a false impression of the product’s ordinary performance; or
• represents personal experience as proof that the product is scientifically effective.

How Manipulated Before-and-After Photos May Violate the Law

A before-and-after image may be deceptive if the “after” photograph was digitally altered, taken under materially different lighting or conditions, or presented without disclosing that the result is exceptional rather than typical.

The issue is not limited to whether the image contains an obvious lie. The legal inquiry also considers the overall impression conveyed to an ordinary consumer. A photograph may therefore be misleading even when the influencer does not expressly state that the image is unedited, if the presentation reasonably causes consumers to believe that the product ordinarily produces the depicted result.

For example, an influencer who promotes a skin-care product using a retouched photograph may create the impression that the product removed acne, pigmentation, or scarring. If that result is not representative, or if the image does not show the product’s actual effect, the post may fall within the prohibition against false, deceptive, or misleading advertising.

Unsubstantiated Efficacy Claims

Article 115 of the Consumer Act requires advertisements making special claims to substantiate those claims and to properly use research results, scientific terms, statistics, or quotations.

This requirement may apply to claims such as:

• “clinically proven to remove wrinkles”;
• “guaranteed to lose ten kilograms in thirty days”;
• “permanently cures acne”;
• “melts fat without exercise”;
• “works for everyone”; or
• “approved by doctors,” when no adequate basis or valid professional endorsement exists.

An influencer should not rely solely on a manufacturer’s assertion that a claim is “scientifically proven.” The claim should be supported by competent and relevant evidence, and the research cited should actually correspond to the product, dosage, formulation, population, and result being advertised.

Who May Be Liable?

The Consumer Act prohibits any person from disseminating or causing the dissemination of prohibited advertising. Thus, potential liability is not automatically limited to the manufacturer or brand owner.

Depending on the facts, responsibility may extend to the brand, manufacturer, seller, advertising agency, and content creator who knowingly participated in preparing, approving, publishing, or continuing to distribute the misleading material. The influencer’s actual role, knowledge, representations, contract, compensation, and control over the content would be relevant.

The influencer is not automatically liable merely because the person received a product or appeared in a sponsored post. Liability is more likely where the influencer personally makes the claim, presents the result as genuine, ignores known contrary information, or agrees to publish a representation that lacks support.

Administrative Enforcement and Injunctive Relief

Under Article 109 of the Consumer Act, the Department of Trade and Industry generally enforces the provisions on advertising and sales promotion. For food, drugs, cosmetics, devices, and hazardous substances, enforcement is assigned to the Department of Health.

The relevant department may direct the filing of a complaint to stop an advertisement that violates Articles 110 to 115 when there is reason to believe that the unlawful dissemination is occurring or is about to occur and that stopping it serves the public interest. Under Article 122, a court may issue a temporary injunction or restraining order without bond upon the proper showing.

A person who suffers loss, damage, or injury because of a false, misleading, or deceptive advertisement may also file a complaint seeking an injunction, damages, costs of suit, and reasonable attorney’s fees.

In Aowa Electronic Philippines, Inc. v. Department of Trade and Industry, National Capital Region, G.R. No. 189655, 2011, the Court recognized the DTI’s authority to protect consumers against deceptive, unfair, and unconscionable sales practices. The decision also illustrates that administrative action may continue despite an amicable settlement when substantial evidence shows continuing violations.

Criminal Penalties Under the Consumer Act

Article 123 of the Consumer Act provides that a person, association, partnership, or corporation violating Articles 110 to 115 may, upon conviction, be punished by:

• a fine of not less than ₱500.00 but not more than ₱5,000.00;
• imprisonment of not less than one month but not more than six months; or
• both fine and imprisonment, at the court’s discretion.

These are statutory penalty figures stated in the Consumer Act. Because penalty provisions may be affected by later legislation or amendments, the current text and applicable penalty-adjustment laws should be verified before filing a criminal complaint or advising on exposure.

Article 124 generally exempts a publisher, radio broadcaster, television licensee, or advertising medium from liability for disseminating a false advertisement if the medium furnishes, upon the request of the proper authorities, the name and address of the manufacturer, packer, distributor, seller, or advertising agency. The exemption does not protect the manufacturer, packer, distributor, seller, or advertising agency responsible for the advertisement.

The statutory exemption is not a blanket defense for a content creator. An influencer who personally creates, endorses, or causes the publication of the representation may be treated differently from a passive medium that merely carries an advertisement.

Other Laws That May Apply

False advertising may also implicate other Philippine laws depending on the product, representation, and resulting harm. Act No. 3740 prohibits advertising that misrepresents the character, value, properties, or condition of an article. Its provisions were considered in Metal Forming Corporation v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 111386, 1995, involving representations concerning the durability and structural strength of roofing materials.

Where a post falsely suggests that the product or service is associated with another business or brand, the conduct may also raise issues of unfair competition under Section 168 of Republic Act No. 8293, the Intellectual Property Code. Unfair competition generally involves passing off or attempting to pass off one person’s goods, business, or services as those of another with the probable effect of deceiving the public.

For food, drugs, cosmetics, medical devices, and health-related products, additional requirements may arise under laws and regulations administered by the Department of Health and its attached agencies. A health claim should therefore be reviewed not only under the Consumer Act but also under the product-specific regulatory rules applicable to its category.

What Evidence Matters?

Authorities and courts may examine the complete advertising material rather than an isolated sentence. Relevant evidence may include:

• the original image or video file and its metadata;
• the version uploaded by the influencer and later edits;
• contracts, campaign briefs, scripts, and brand instructions;
• laboratory studies, clinical data, or technical reports supporting the claim;
• disclosures concerning filters, lighting, makeup, diet, exercise, or other factors;
• messages showing whether the influencer knew the claim was unsupported; and
• consumer complaints, refunds, sales records, and evidence of resulting injury.

In administrative proceedings, factual findings supported by substantial evidence generally receive respect from reviewing courts. In Department of Health v. Nestle Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 244242, 2020, the Court reiterated the significance of substantial evidence in reviewing administrative determinations involving consumer protection.

Compliance Measures for Influencers and Brands

Before publishing a sponsored post, an influencer should obtain the factual basis for every material product claim. The influencer should also ask whether the supporting study actually tested the advertised product and whether the result shown is typical, objectively measurable, and legally permissible to advertise.

Images and videos should accurately depict the product’s effect. Filters, retouching, staged lighting, cosmetic procedures, or other interventions should not be used in a manner that creates a false impression of product performance.

Brands and influencers should maintain written records of approvals, substantiation documents, disclosures, and revisions. If a claim is later found to be inaccurate, the responsible parties should promptly stop the campaign, correct the representation, and preserve the relevant records.

Typical Examples

Example 1: Weight-loss product. An influencer displays a photograph showing a dramatic reduction in body size and states that the product alone produced the result. If the image is altered or the result depended on diet, exercise, or medical treatment that was not disclosed, the representation may be misleading.

Example 2: Skin-care product. An influencer uses a beauty filter while claiming that a cream eliminated acne marks within seven days. Without reliable evidence supporting the claim and the time period, the post may violate the rules on special claims.

Example 3: Honest personal experience. An influencer states that the product improved the person’s own condition but clearly identifies the statement as a personal experience and avoids claiming that the same result is guaranteed for all consumers. This reduces, but does not necessarily eliminate, legal risk if the overall presentation still creates a misleading impression.

Conclusion

Philippine law may punish false advertising by influencers when their content materially misleads consumers or makes special product claims without adequate substantiation. Manipulated before-and-after photographs and unsupported efficacy claims are particularly risky because they can create a false impression about the product’s ordinary performance.

Influencers should verify claims before publication, preserve supporting evidence, avoid altered results, disclose material conditions, and promptly correct inaccurate content. Brands should not instruct creators to make representations that cannot be substantiated, because responsibility may extend beyond the person who manufactured the product to those who caused the misleading advertisement to be disseminated.

About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices

 Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines.  You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines.  You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at [email protected]. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.