How Ofcom and ASA disclosure rules apply to UK gear reviews

What to take away

How the Ofcom Broadcasting Code touches creator reviews of studio gear

Most UK creators reviewing studio equipment never touch the Ofcom Broadcasting Code. That code governs broadcasters licensed by Ofcom, not a YouTube channel run from a spare room in Leeds. Creators often hear "Ofcom rules" and assume every sponsored camera review falls under them.

Ofcom does have a role where a creator's content is carried by a licensed broadcaster or a video sharing platform that Ofcom regulates. The Broadcasting Code's advertising rules then apply to the broadcast output, and the broadcaster carries the compliance duty.

A creator supplying a segment to a TV programme is not the regulated entity, but the broadcaster will ask for proof that any commercial arrangement was declared.

The practical effect for gear reviewers is simple: Ofcom sets the standard for broadcast advertising, and the ASA applies the equivalent standard to non-broadcast ads. The two systems interlock. The ASA's own description of how UK advertising rules are enforced explains the split between self-regulation and statutory backstops.

That is the context in which any disclosure decision sits.

The ASA administers the CAP Code and works with trading standards and Ofcom where a case crosses boundaries.

Where creators get caught is not the Broadcasting Code itself but the assumption that platform rules replace UK advertising rules. They do not. A brand deal for a monitor or interface is an ad when the brand controls the message, and the CAP Code applies whether the video runs on YouTube, TikTok or a broadcaster's catch-up service.

If you handle both broadcast and online work, keep the two duties separate. Broadcast clearance is the broadcaster's job. Your own channel is yours.

ASA CAP Code duties when a review features gifted or sponsored equipment

The CAP Code is the rulebook the ASA applies to influencer marketing, and it is the one that matters for studio equipment reviews. It requires ads to be obviously identifiable as ads. A review is an ad when the brand pays, or gives something of value, and controls the content. Gifted equipment disclosure is the point most creators miss.

A free audio interface, a loaned camera body for a fortnight, a paid trip to a manufacturer's demo room: each can count as payment. If the brand sees the review before publication, suggests talking points, or makes the gift conditional on coverage, control is present. Payment plus control equals an ad, and the ad must be labelled.

The CAP Code rules for influencer marketing and gear reviews are set out in the advertising codes themselves, and they cover recognition as well as content. A review that reads as independent editorial when it is in fact a paid promotion breaches the recognition rule even if every claim in it is true.

The ASA also applies its rules on testimonials and endorsements in creator gear reviews, so a testimonial from a named engineer or producer needs to be genuine, current and capable of being substantiated.

Gifted gear that arrives with no strings is a different case. If the brand has no control and no payment beyond the product, the content is not automatically an ad.

The safe habit is to declare the gift anyway, in the video and in the description. A short line such as "this unit was supplied by the manufacturer for review" costs nothing and removes the argument.

Keep a record of what arrived, when, and on what terms. That record is the evidence you will need if a complaint lands. It also feeds directly into a relationship register, which is the practical way to track which brands have supplied what and under which conditions.

Affiliate links in equipment reviews and what the ASA expects

Affiliate links are the most misunderstood area in studio gear content. A link that earns commission is not, by itself, an ad. The ASA's affiliate marketing guidance treats them as a form of payment only when the affiliate relationship is the material connection being hidden, or when the surrounding content is already an ad.

The ASA expects affiliate links to be disclosed where their presence could affect how a reader weighs the recommendation. A line at the top of the description, or a spoken note before the recommendation, is enough. What fails is a review that reads as neutral buying advice while the reviewer earns on every click and never says so.

The harder case is a review that is both sponsored and affiliate-linked. If the brand paid for the review, the whole piece is an ad and needs an ad label, not just an affiliate note. Adding an affiliate disclosure does not cure a missing ad label.

Affiliate link rules also bite on placement. Links buried in a pinned comment, or added weeks after publication without disclosure, are riskier than a clear note near the top. If you update an old review to add affiliate links, update the disclosure at the same time.

For a practical test, ask whether a reasonable viewer would understand, before acting on the recommendation, that the reviewer may be paid for the click. If not, the disclosure is too weak. The same logic applies to discount codes, which are a form of payment and need the same treatment as cash.

Recognising an ad: disclosure wording that survives scrutiny

The ASA does not require one magic phrase, but it does require wording a viewer will understand without effort. "Ad", "advert" and "advertisement" are the safest labels. "Sponsored" works when the sponsorship is clear. "Paid partnership" is accepted on some platforms but is weaker on its own.

What fails is ambiguity. A tag reading "thanks to our friends at" or "in collaboration with" does not tell a viewer the content is an ad. Hashtags such as #sp or #collab are not enough on their own. A label buried after the fold, or shown for two seconds at the end, does not count.

Placement matters as much as wording. The label should appear before the viewer reaches the recommendation, not after. In a video, that means on screen at the start and in the description above the fold. In a written review, it belongs in the opening lines, not in a footer.

An example that has been worked through demonstrates how this reads when put into practice. A UK creator is sent a pair of studio monitors by a manufacturer, keeps them, and agrees to publish a review with a discount code for the brand.

The correct treatment is an ad label at the top of the description and a spoken disclosure in the first thirty seconds. The discount code is presented as part of the paid arrangement. If the creator also uses affiliate links to the same brand, those links sit inside an already-labelled ad, so the ad label does the heavy lifting.

Here is a short checklist for any gear review before it goes live:

A separate pre-publication check for adverts, covering disclosure, evidence and FCA boundaries, is worth running whenever a review involves finance offers such as equipment leasing.

Sanctions, rulings and the non-compliant online advertisers list

The ASA publishes rulings on cases it has investigated, and it can impose sanctions when an advertiser will not comply. Sanctions the ASA can impose for non-disclosure in ads include naming the advertiser, removing paid search ads, and requiring a corrective statement.

The sanctions page sets out the full range and the process that precedes them.

The list of online advertisers who do not comply is the most obvious penalty. Once an advertiser is on it, the ASA works with search engines and social platforms to remove or restrict their paid ads in the UK. For a creator, that means a sponsored gear campaign can lose its paid reach while the ruling stays public.

ASA sanctions non-disclosure cases are rarely about a single missing hashtag. They tend to involve repeated failures, ignored correspondence, or a brand and creator who both decline to fix the disclosure. The ASA asks for an assurance that the problem will not recur, and a refusal to give one is what escalates the case.

The reputational cost is the part creators underestimate. A ruling is indexed and searchable, and it names the advertiser. For a reviewer whose value rests on trust, a published ruling about hidden sponsorship is worse than the original fee.

The CMA sits alongside the ASA on consumer protection and misleading claims, and it can act where a practice harms consumers more broadly. The ASA handles the advertising rules; the CMA handles the underlying commercial conduct. A creator can face both if the conduct is serious enough.

The wider set of legal and ethical rules for creator studio equipment covers tax, product safety and intellectual property alongside advertising. Reading it once beats discovering a gap later.

Copy Advice and pre-publication checks for gear reviewers

The ASA offers Copy Advice, a free and confidential service that reviews ads before publication. A creator can send a draft disclosure line, a description, or a full script and get a view on whether it complies before anything goes live.

The service does not bind the ASA if a complaint later arrives, but it is the best available signal.

Use it for the awkward cases: a long-term loan with an option to buy, a brand that wants approval over the edit, a bundle that mixes affiliate links with a paid placement. These are the situations where a creator's instinct is least reliable.

A pre-publication check should cover more than the label. Confirm that any performance claim in the review can be substantiated, that any named endorser has agreed to be quoted, and that the disclosure appears everywhere the content is distributed, including shorts and reposts.

Build the check into the workflow rather than bolting it on. A simple sequence keeps it consistent:

For the review side, be explicit about how each item was tested, with the desk, bench and hands-on declared so readers can weigh the evidence.

Common questions