Are paid links illegal? Advertising disclosure rules in the US, UK and EU

This lesson is general information, not legal advice. It reports what regulators’ own pages said when we read them on 4 October 2026. For a decision about your own business, ask a qualified lawyer in the country concerned.

The short answer: none of the US, UK or EU pages we read bans paying for a link. Buying backlinks breaks Google’s link spam policy, which is one company’s rule, not a law. What the regulators do address is paid content that readers cannot recognise as advertising. A paid article with a link in it is paid content, so the disclosure rules can apply to it whatever its SEO purpose.

Two different rulebooks

It helps to keep two questions apart.

Google’s question is whether a link passes ranking credit that was paid for. Its answer is a link attribute, rel="sponsored" or rel="nofollow", which is read by search engines. See nofollow, sponsored and ugc.

The regulators’ question is whether a consumer can tell that content is advertising. Their answer is a label a reader can see. None of the pages we read mentions search engines, rankings or link attributes.

You can satisfy one and fail the other. A labelled advertorial with a followed link meets the disclosure rules and breaks Google’s policy. An unlabelled paid article with a nofollow link does the reverse.

What each regulator’s page says

Jurisdiction	Source we read	Core statement	Labels
US	FTC, Native Advertising: A Guide for Businesses (December 2015)	An ad is deceptive if it promotes a product “but is not readily identifiable to consumers as an ad”	“Ad”, “Advertisement”, “Paid Advertisement” or “Sponsored Advertising Content” are given as terms likely to be understood
US	FTC, Endorsement Guides: What People Are Asking (refers to the 2023 revision of the Guides)	A connection that consumers would not expect and that affects how they weigh an endorsement “should be disclosed clearly and conspicuously”	Plain wording placed where readers “aren’t likely to miss it”
UK	ASA, Recognising ads: Advertisement features (23 March 2023)	Marketing communications must be “obviously identifiable as such”	“Ad”, “Advert”, “Advertisement”, “Ad Feature” are “very likely to be considered acceptable”
UK	CMA, Unfair commercial practices guidance (updated 18 November 2025)	Lists as banned: using editorial content to promote a product where a trader has paid “without making that clear”	The guidance example uses #Ad
EU	Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29/EC, consolidated text	Annex I point 11 bans the same advertorial practice in the same words	Not specified in the text we read

United States: the FTC

The FTC’s native advertising guide states the principle in one line: “It’s deceptive to mislead consumers about the commercial nature of content.” It warns that “Presented by”, “Brought to You by” or “Sponsored by” may wrongly suggest a sponsor merely funded content it did not create.

The FTC’s page of questions and answers on its Endorsement Guides covers bloggers and reviewers. It says a recommendation is covered if an advertiser, or someone working for an advertiser, pays you or gives you “something of value to have you mention that product”. It also says a disclosure reached only through a hyperlink “is easily avoidable, meaning that the disclosure is not clear and conspicuous”.

On legal status, the same page says: “The Guides themselves don’t have the force of law. However, practices inconsistent with the Guides may result in law enforcement actions alleging Section 5 violations.” On responsibility, it tells advertisers that delegating promotion to an outside company “doesn’t relieve you of responsibility under the FTC Act”, and tells intermediaries they could be liable if they play a role in endorsements they know or should know are deceptive.

United Kingdom: the ASA and the CMA

The ASA’s advice on advertisement features makes a distinction that matters for paid placements. When an advertiser gives a publisher a payment or “other reciprocal arrangement” to create content, that content “is likely to become subject to consumer protection law”. When the brand also has editorial control, it becomes subject to the CAP Code as well. Many link purchases involve both: the buyer pays and supplies or approves the article.

On labels, the ASA says: “Because the term ‘sponsored’ is open to varied interpretation, we would generally advise against using this label to refer to advertising content.” On responsibility: it “lies with both the ‘marketer’ and the ‘publisher’”.

The CMA’s guidance on unfair commercial practices explains the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, whose provisions “apply to practices that take place from 6 April 2025”. Its list of practices that are always unfair includes using editorial content in the media to promote a product where a trader has paid for the promotion “without making that clear in the content or by images or sounds clearly identifiable by the consumer”. The CMA’s example is an influencer given a free holiday who posts about it without a label, so payment is not limited to money.

European Union: the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive

Annex I of the directive lists practices that are unfair in all circumstances. Point 11 reads: “Using editorial content in the media to promote a product where a trader has paid for the promotion without making that clear in the content or by images or sounds clearly identifiable by the consumer (advertorial).”

Two limits apply. The directive defines its scope as business-to-consumer commercial practices. And it is a directive, so each member state applies it through national law and penalties vary. Article 13 requires penalties to be “effective, proportionate and dissuasive”. Where they are imposed under the EU’s cross-border enforcement rules, the maximum fine must be at least 4% of the trader’s annual turnover in the member states concerned.

What this means for a paid placement

Reading the pages together, a few practical points follow. These are our reading, not a legal opinion.

• The label is for the reader. A rel attribute is invisible on the page, so it does not do the job the regulators describe.
• Both sides carry responsibility. A buyer cannot assume the publisher will handle it, and a publisher cannot assume the opposite. The risks for the seller are covered in selling links on your own site.
• Agencies and marketplaces are not a shield. The FTC page says an advertiser remains responsible for what others do on its behalf. Ask any link marketplace or agency how placements are labelled.
• “Sponsored” is a weak label. Google’s attribute is named sponsored, but the ASA advises against the word as a reader label and the FTC guide prefers wording that says advertisement.

Most of the market ignores this. ESBO’s September 2026 analysis of 16,625 publishers found that 15% of publishers at DR 30 to 39 state that they use a sponsored label, against 57% at DR 80 or more.

Where the criminal line is

One kind of link does involve crime: links injected into hacked websites and resold, sometimes as cheap niche edits. Unauthorised access to computer systems is a criminal offence in practically every jurisdiction. Regulated sectors such as gambling, finance and health also have their own advertising rules, which we did not review for this lesson.

What we did not cover

We read no national laws of individual EU member states, no US state laws and no rules for business-to-business advertising. None of the passages we read describes an enforcement case about a paid backlink as such.

Where to go next

Put the decision in writing with a link buying policy, and specify the label and attribute in every placement brief. Terms such as advertorial are defined in the glossary.