“Applicant is missing.” Chiara Ferragni returns to caregiving, but escapes the hashtag

After months of staying away from the spotlight, he only shared his private life. Chiara Ferragni She returned to her work as an influencer, promoting some of her brand’s products on her Instagram page. In the last few hours, the digital entrepreneur launched a new makeup collection and to boost sales, as she has always done in the past, she chose to test some products in her account stories, but she backed out. topic Commercial transparency The notorious lack of “ads” was not lost on social media audiences.

Last January 10, AGCOM approved the Commercial Transparency Document, that is, the guidelines for ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Unified Law on Audiovisual Media Services. A document urgently adopted after the Pandoro Gate, which brought Chiara Ferragni into the eyes of the authorities. To ensure maximum transparency to users, influencers are required to include clearly defined wording such as “ad/propaganda/adv”, “promoda da/promoted by” and other specific abbreviations when sponsoring goods or services of third parties or own brands.

On her Instagram profile stories, Chiara Ferragni showed her followers some of her new products Makeup line. Four short videos in which, as a guide, you can see the link that takes you to the influencer’s site for quick purchase of products. However, the hashtag #adv, which is the most widely used hashtag for sponsorships and is mandatorily required under the Uniform Law, does not appear in any content. The same deficiency is also in the post published on the home page of his profile, where Fedez’s ex-wife shared the announcement of the new cosmetics line. In short, the digital entrepreneur forgot to inform her followers, who number more than 28 million users, that she is propaganda Someone in the comments on the post tried to point this out: “Ad missing!“.

in spite of a report Stories and posts still lack the correct wording required by the authority regarding “commercial transparency.” “Blatant” censorship may make it subject – once again – to heavy administrative penalties.