Joris DeeneNo. The Belgian Advertising Code, which the Advertising Council launched on September 15, 2026, is a self-regulatory measure, not a law. It binds advertisers and influencers in practice through the Jury for Ethical Advertising Practices, and legally through Article VI.98 of the Code of Economic Law (CEL), which classifies non-compliance with a code of conduct to which a company itself refers in its advertising as a misleading commercial practice. The Code does not add any new rules to Belgian law. It compiles what already existed: 27 general articles, eight sector-specific codes, and a guide to the relevant legislation.
In short:
- The Code is 38 pages long and consists of five parts; according to the Code itself, in the event of a conflict between a self-regulatory rule and the law, the law always takes precedence.
- Any influencer who receives compensation must tag each post at the beginning with “advertisement,” “publicity,” “ad,” or “advertising”; “sponsored,” “ad,” “partner,” or “courtesy of” are not sufficient.
- A complaint filed with the Jury for Ethical Practices in Advertising is free of charge and must be submitted within two months of the advertisement’s publication; an appeal requires a deposit of 500 euros from the advertiser and 30 euros from the complainant.
The Background
The Belgian advertising industry has been self-regulating for half a century. The Raad voor Reclame vzw established the Advertising Ethics Jury (JEP) namely, a body composed of equal representation: half of the members come from the advertising industry, and the other half from outside it. The JEP evaluates advertisements against two standards: legislation and self-regulatory codes.
Until recently, those codes were scattered across separate documents. The general rules came from the Code of Advertising and Marketing Communications of the International Chamber of Commerce, the first version of which dates from 1937 and the most recent from 2024. In addition, there were separate Belgian texts: a covenant on alcohol advertising, a code for food products, a code for cosmetics, an Environmental Advertising Code, and, since August 2025, a list of Twelve Principles on Artificial Intelligence in Advertising. Anyone who wanted to know which rules applied to their campaign had to gather all those documents themselves.
On September 15, 2026 the Advertising Council announced that things would be different. The Belgian Advertising Code was published simultaneously as a searchable web page and as PDF with version number v1, dated September 15, 2026. The Minister of Consumer Protection, Rob Beenders, wrote a foreword, but the Code remains a private initiative of the sector. The Advertising Council announces that the text will be updated whenever legislation or a sector-specific code changes.
The new rules
The Structure of the Code and the Precedence of the Law
Self-regulation is the practice whereby an industry imposes its own rules of conduct and monitors compliance itself, without intervention by the legislature. The Code describes its own role in a single sentence: the self-regulatory provisions supplement and clarify the law, and in the event of a conflict, the statutory provisions always take precedence.
The Code consists of five parts. Part I explains why the sector has opted for self-regulation. Part II describes the functioning and authority of the JEP. Part III outlines the purpose and structure. Part IV contains the actual rules: 27 general articles and references to eight sector-specific codes. Part V lists, expressly non-exhaustively, the relevant legislation.
The General Code uses the term “marketing communication” and defines it broadly. According to the Code’s definitions, marketing communication is any communication produced directly by or on behalf of an advertiser that is primarily intended to promote products or influence consumer behavior, including promotions, sponsorships, direct marketing, and data-driven marketing. Content created by an influencer for their own brand also falls under this definition. The term “advertising,” therefore, has a narrower scope than what the Code intends.
The General Code: Truth, Substantiation, and Recognizability in Advertising
The first eight articles are the Belgian translation of the ICC Principles. Marketing communications must be lawful, decent, honest, and truthful (Article 1). It must not incite discrimination or violence, must not perpetuate stereotypes that run counter to social progress, and must not objectify people or reduce them to sex objects (Articles 2 and 3).
Article 5 on truthfulness is the cornerstone of the Code. A claim is any statement about a product, a brand, or a business activity, regardless of whether it is conveyed through text, images, color, or sound. Such a claim must not mislead the consumer, including through omission, ambiguity, or exaggeration. New in the 2026 wording is the explicit statement that photos and videos generated or edited by AI may not be used if they mislead consumers about the product’s characteristics or performance.
Article 6 places the burden of proof on the advertiser. Anyone who makes a claim regarding a verifiable fact must have a reasonable basis for that claim at the time it is made and must provide the supporting documentation to the JEP without delay upon request. If such substantiation is lacking, the claim is considered misleading.
Article 7 requires that advertising be clearly identifiable. A commercial message must not be disguised as news, editorial content, a consumer review, or a private message. This is consistent with Article VI.100, 11° of the WER, which considers paid editorial content without a clear indication to be an unfair commercial practice per se.
Mandatory Disclosures in Commercial Communications by Influencers
Article 7.2 is the most specific provision in the entire Code. Commercial communication by an influencer occurs when the influencer receives a benefit in exchange for a post on their social media. This benefit is interpreted broadly: compensation per view or per click, a product received for free or at a discount, an invitation to a restaurant, a loaned product—even if the influencer did not request it.
The Code requires three mandatory disclosures. First, the post must include one of four tags at the beginning, or on the photo or video itself: “reclame,” “publiciteit,” “advertentie,” or “advertising.” The Code explicitly excludes a number of common alternatives: “collaboration,” “sponsored,” “partner,” “ambassador,” “courtesy of,” “commissioned by,” and abbreviations such as “recl,” “ad,” and “adv” are not sufficient. The tag must be in the language of the post, contrast sufficiently with the background, and be visible on every device. Second, the brand or company must be clearly named. Third, the influencer must use the platform’s disclosure feature, if available, such as “Paid Partnership.”.
A separate rule applies to podcasts. The disclosure must either be made verbally within the episode itself or included in the description, which must be immediately visible without the listener having to click “show more.” The Code provides five sample phrases, including “This podcast contains advertising for [advertiser].” The responsibility lies primarily with the influencer, but the client must provide the correct instructions. For Flemish influencers, this is further overseen by the Flemish Media Regulator, which we previously discussed in our blog post about The Rules for Vloggers and Influencers.
Transparency Rules for Artificial Intelligence in Advertising
Article 9 incorporates the core provisions of the AI guidelines that the Advertising Council launched in August 2025 and on August 25, 2026 (updated). The rule in the Code reads as follows: if AI-generated or manipulated marketing communications could be mistaken for authentic ones, this must be clearly disclosed. The mere use of AI does not, in and of itself, require disclosure. The decisive factor is whether the manipulation could substantially influence the consumer’s perception, trust, or decision.
Three specific rules follow from this. Deepfakes and other content that falsely appears authentic must include a timely, clear, and visible disclosure stating that they were created or edited using AI. Chatbots and AI assistants must identify themselves as non-human from the outset. And the disclosure must be tailored to the medium.
Article 9.2 concerns individuals. AI-generated content may not imitate recognizable individuals without their explicit consent, and this also applies to artists, influencers, and public figures. The JEP had already applied this principle before the Code existed. In its July 17, 2023, appellate decision regarding radio commercials for Digital Radio Flanders, in which the imitated voices of Kurt Cobain and Prince promoted DAB+, the Jury ruled that the commercials violated what was then Article 14 of the ICC Code. According to the Jury, the addition of “if I would have been alive today” was not sufficient to neutralize the exploitation of the deceased artists’ fame.
The Rules for Environmental Claims in Marketing Communications
Article 24 is the longest article in the Code and incorporates the ICC rules on green advertising. According to Article 24.1, an environmental claim is any statement, symbol, sound, or image that indicates or implies an environmental aspect of a product, packaging, or activity. Every explicit or implicit environmental claim must be supported by reliable scientific evidence.
The Code takes a strict stance on vague claims. According to Article 24.3.2, terms such as “environmentally friendly,” “green,” “sustainable,” or “climate-friendly” may only be used without qualification when a very high standard of proof is available. Clarifications must appear in close proximity to the claim. Anyone who says “recyclable” must state that recycling facilities are limited if that is the case. A claim regarding the life cycle requires a complete life-cycle analysis from cradle to grave. The Code also refers to the older Belgian Environmental Advertising Code, which continues to exist.
The Complaint Procedure Before the Jury for Ethical Practices in Advertising
Any consumer, consumer organization, professional association, or government agency may file a complaint. Filing a complaint is free of charge; it must include a copy or description of the advertisement, must be substantiated, and must be submitted within two months of the advertisement’s publication. Anonymous complaints are not accepted, but the complainant’s identity will not be disclosed to the advertiser without their consent.
The JEP decides in the first instance whether the advertisement must be modified or discontinued, or whether a cautionary notice is sufficient. An appeal against that decision may be filed within five business days, with a security deposit of 500 euros for the advertiser and 30 euros for the complainant, which will be refunded if the appeal is upheld. Advertisers may also request an advisory opinion in advance. An advisory opinion issued by the Jury itself is binding on the Jury in the event of subsequent complaints; an advisory opinion issued by the secretariat is purely indicative.
The JEP's jurisdiction is limited to advertising content. Issues such as intellectual property, packaging and labeling, product placement, teleshopping, and anything related to privacy or behavioral targeting fall outside its jurisdiction. Nor does the JEP resolve disputes between companies or provide legal advice.
The sector-specific codes and the overview of the legislation
Part IV refers to eight sector-specific codes drawn up by the relevant federations: the Agreement on the Advertising and Marketing of Alcoholic Beverages, the Food Advertising Code, the Detic Code for Cosmetics, the Detic Code for Detergents, the Febiac Code for Motor Vehicles, the Code of Ethical Fundraising, the National Lottery Code of Ethics and Responsible Advertising and Code of Conduct for Banks.
Part V cites Book VI of the Code of Economic Law as general legislation, which contains rules on price labeling, comparative advertising, and unfair, misleading, and aggressive commercial practices, as well as the General Data Protection Regulation for the processing of personal data in advertising. This is followed by three pages of product-specific legislation: food, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, cosmetics, vehicles, biocides, medical aesthetics, and financial products. With regard to audiovisual frameworks, the Code refers to the Flemish Media Decree and the Decree of the French Community of February 4, 2021, on Audiovisual Media Services and Video Platform Services, which together implement the European Audiovisual Media Services Directive.
Legal analysis and interpretation
How a Voluntary Code Can Still Gain Legal Clout
Suppose a clothing brand states in its campaign that it “complies with the Belgian Advertising Code” and then has an influencer post with the tag “sponsored” instead of “advertisement.” According to the letter of the Code, this constitutes a violation that only the JEP can determine. Under the letter of the law, however, the situation is different. Article VI.98, 2° of the WER considers a company’s failure to comply with obligations under a code of conduct to which it has committed itself to be misleading, provided two conditions are met: the obligation must be verifiable and not merely a declaration of intent, and the company must indicate, in the context of a commercial practice, that it is bound by the code. The tagging rule in Article 7.2.3 is perfectly verifiable. As soon as the advertiser itself refers to the Code, a JEP matter thus becomes a case for the injunction court and the Economic Inspectorate.
The Code reinforces that mechanism itself. Article 27 requires all members of the Advertising Council to include a clause in their contracts in which the signatories commit to complying with the self-regulatory rules and the decisions of the JEP. Membership therefore constitutes a contractual commitment. However, this alone is not sufficient to meet the requirements of Article VI.98, as the second condition requires a public statement. A “JEP-approved” statement, a reference to the Code in general terms and conditions visible to the consumer, or a sustainability report that cites the Code can fulfill that requirement. Article VI.100, 1° and 3° of the WER add two absolute prohibitions to this: claiming to have signed a code of conduct when that is not the case, and claiming that a code has been recognized by a public authority when that is not the case. The minister’s foreword does not make the Code a recognized code in that sense, and an advertiser who suggests otherwise engages in a per se unfair practice.
The Digitale Radio Vlaanderen decision illustrates the other side of the issue. The advertiser argued on appeal that there were no legal restrictions on the use of the voices. The Jury responded that it does not rule on intellectual property, but rather on the self-regulatory rule requiring permission. In this regard, the Code goes beyond the law, and the sanction is not a court ruling but a cease-and-desist order, which, according to the Code, advertisers almost always comply with. Those who ignore the Code therefore do not risk a cease-and-desist order with a penalty payment, but they do risk a published decision bearing their name.
Two versions of Article 9.1: Which transparency rule applies to AI?
Anyone who read the Code online on September 17, 2026, and compared it with the PDF found two different versions of Article 9.1. The PDF, version v1 dated September 15, 2026, states that the mere use of AI does not require disclosure and links the disclosure requirement to the risk that the content may be mistakenly perceived as authentic. The web version, on the other hand, stipulates that marketing communications generated or manipulated by AI must be clearly disclosed, especially in the case of images of real people and virtual interactions, using consistent labels such as “AI-generated image” or “Created with AI assistance.” The web version follows the wording of the August 2025 principles; the PDF follows the August 2026 update, which, according to the Advertising Council, was specifically intended to clarify that not every use of AI requires a label. Article 9.2 also differs: the PDF requires prior consent, while the web version requires contractual consent with agreements regarding scope, duration, revocation, and compensation.
The counterargument is this: if the Code itself does not clearly state when an AI label is required, what guidance does it offer an agency delivering a campaign today? An advertiser who follows the PDF and publishes a stock image of an AI-generated landscape without a label is acting in accordance with one part of the text and in violation of another. For the JEP, this makes little difference, as it assesses cases on a case-by-case basis and will apply the most recent industry agreement. From the perspective of legal certainty, however, this is a shortcoming in a document that presents itself as a central point of reference.
Ultimately, the balance tips in favor of the PDF, and that is for a legal reason. As of August 2, 2026, Article 50 of the European AI Regulation. That article requires anyone who uses a deepfake to disclose that the content is artificially generated or manipulated, and requires anyone who uses a chatbot to inform the user that they are interacting with an AI system, unless that is already clear. For text, the labeling requirement applies only when it informs the public about matters of public interest. The AI Regulation does not establish a general labeling requirement for all AI use in advertising. The PDF version of the Code aligns more closely with this than the web version. In one respect, it even goes further than the law, as it does not include the “unless this is clear” exception for chatbots—and it is permitted to do so: Article 50(6) does not preclude stricter national or sector-specific transparency rules. Where the Code would be less strict than the Regulation—for example, by permitting a deepfake in an apparently humorous commercial without any disclosure—the law applies. We previously analyzed in our blog post that the labeling requirement remains in effect even in the case of an obvious parody. labeling a deepfake parody. The Advertising Council would do well to bring the web version in line with the PDF as soon as possible.
Environmental Claims: Where the Code Sounds More Flexible Than the Law as of September 27, 2026
A manufacturer of cleaning products labels its bottles as “green” and has an internal life-cycle analysis that shows CO2 emissions lower than the industry average. Under Article 24.3.2 of the Code, this is justifiable: a vague claim is permitted without reservation when a very high standard of proof is available. Under the law that takes effect ten days after the Code, this is no longer the case. The Directive (EU) 2024/825, which is intended to empower consumers in the green transition, prohibits generic environmental claims unless the company can demonstrate recognized environmental excellence relevant to the claim—in practice, an official environmental label or a level of performance that European legislation itself recognizes as excellent. As we previously analyzed in our blog post about The ban on environmental claims effective September 27, 2026, the Belgian transposition law prohibits new commercial practices that are inherently unfair under the WER, without requiring proof that the consumer was actually misled.
The difference lies in the standard. The Code applies an open standard of proof that the advertiser defines itself; the law applies a closed standard that refers to external recognition. An internal study, no matter how thorough, does not constitute recognized environmental excellence. Part V of the Code does mention Book VI of the WER in general terms, but nowhere does it indicate that the environmental rules of Article 24 will be superseded by a stricter statutory framework on September 27, 2026. The Code’s own priority rule resolves the conflict legally, but a reader who only reads Article 24 is given an overly reassuring impression. In practice, this means that Article 24 remains applicable to specific claims, such as the percentage of recycled material or the availability of recycling facilities, and that for the generic terms “green,” “sustainable,” and “climate-friendly,” the law—and not the Code—serves as the starting point.
Specifically, what does this mean?
For advertisers and advertising agencies. The Code is a checklist, not a free pass. First, assess each campaign against Book VI of the WER, and only then against the 27 articles of the Code, because the law takes precedence and carries real penalties. Check whether your terms and conditions, sustainability reports, or campaigns refer to the Code or to the JEP: any such reference triggers Article VI.98, 2° of the WER and turns a violation of the Code into a misleading commercial practice. If you’re unsure whether an AI-generated image, an influencer collaboration, or an environmental claim might slip through the cracks of the law and the Code, that two-step review is the first thing we’ll check for you. For a high-risk campaign, consider seeking advance advice from the JEP: it is confidential, and the Jury’s advice is binding on it in the event of a subsequent complaint.
For influencers and content creators. The rule has been simplified and leaves little room for interpretation: at the beginning of each post, include “ad,” “publicity,” “advertisement,” or “advertising,” mention the brand by name, and include the platform’s disclosure button. A free product you received unsolicited also counts as a benefit. If a brand asks you to use “ad” or “collab,” refer to Article 7.2.3 of the Code and Article VI.100, 11° of the WER, which always considers paid editorial content without a clear indication to be unfair. In Flanders, this is further subject to oversight by the Flemish Media Regulator under the Media Decree.
For competitors and consumers. Anyone who finds an advertisement unethical but not illegal has a free and quick recourse through the JEP, provided that the complaint is filed within two months and is not anonymous. Anyone who wants to hold a competitor accountable for an illegal practice should file an injunction based on the rules on unfair market practices: Only that approach results in an enforceable order and a penalty payment. Both approaches may be used together, but the JEP may abstain if the same advertisement is already before a court or another regulatory authority.
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
What rules apply to advertising in Belgium?
Advertising in Belgium is primarily governed by Book VI of the Code of Economic Law, which regulates misleading and aggressive commercial practices, comparative advertising, and price labeling, as well as by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) regarding the use of personal data. For audiovisual media, the Media Decree applies, and for sectors such as food, pharmaceuticals, or financial products, specific legislation applies. In addition to this legal framework, there is self-regulation through the Belgian Advertising Code, which is enforced by the JEP.
Is the Belgian Advertising Code legally binding?
Not in and of itself. The Code is a private document of the Advertising Council; the JEP can require an advertisement to be modified or discontinued, but cannot impose a fine or penalty. However, the Code does acquire legal effect under Article VI.98, 2° of the WER when a company states in its advertisement that it is bound by the Code and subsequently fails to comply with a verifiable obligation set forth therein. In that case, the noncompliance constitutes a misleading commercial practice against which an injunction may be sought.
As an influencer, do I have to label a post as “ad” if I received a product for free?
Yes. The Code considers any benefit to be consideration, including a product received for free or at a discount, an invitation, a trip, or a borrowed product—even if you did not ask for it. As soon as you post about the brand, the post must include one of the four permitted tags at the beginning: “advertisement,” “publicity,” “ad,” or “advertising.” “Sponsored,” “courtesy of,” or “ad” are not sufficient. Also mention the brand by name and use the platform’s disclosure feature.
How do I file a complaint with the JEP, and how much does it cost?
A complaint filed at the first instance is free of charge. You must submit it using the form on the JEP website, by email, or by mail, along with a copy or description of the advertisement, a statement of grounds, and your name and address. The complaint must be filed within two months of the advertisement’s publication. An appeal against the decision may be filed within five business days, subject to a security deposit of 30 euros for the complainant and 500 euros for the advertiser, which will be refunded if the appeal is successful.
Conclusion
The Belgian Advertising Code does not change Belgian advertising law, but makes it easier to find. It brings together the ICC principles, the sector-specific codes, and a guide to the law in a single document, with the JEP serving as the enforcement body and the law setting the upper limit. Its concrete strengths lie in the influencer rules and the AI provisions; its weaknesses are the two divergent versions of Article 9.1 and an environmental chapter that sounds more lenient than the law set to take effect in Belgium on September 27, 2026.
ICT Rechtswijzer is the knowledge platform of the Intellectual Property, IT Law, AI Law, Data Protection, and Media Law department at Everest Advocaten, led by Joris Deene, Esq. Our attorneys review advertising campaigns, influencer contracts, AI-generated content, and environmental claims against the Economic Law Code and the Belgian Advertising Code, and assist clients in proceedings before the JEP and the injunction court.
Dutch 
English