In a recent BBC piece by Kevin Peachey, the issue of fake and potentially unsafe products being promoted online was put firmly back into the spotlight. It is an important reminder that the counterfeit problem is not niche, and it is not harmless. Recent OECD and EUIPO reporting put the value of global trade in counterfeit goods at an estimated USD 467 billion in 2021, while UK government and IPO guidance continues to warn that fake goods can be poorly made, unsafe, and non-compliant with product safety standards.
That matters to content creators because the modern counterfeit economy does not only live in backstreet markets or suspicious websites. It increasingly overlaps with e-commerce, social platforms, marketplace listings, and recommendation culture. OECD work on e-commerce misuse shows that online detentions linked to counterfeit trade span a wide range of consumer categories, including perfumes and cosmetics, electrical equipment, and toys. Those are exactly the types of products that can become serious safety issues, particularly where skin contact, power supply, or children are involved.
For creators, this creates a difficult but unavoidable question: what is a responsible influencer expected to do when they are not a chemist, product safety lab, customs officer, or trademark expert?
At S.M.A.C.C., our answer is that creators should not be expected to perform impossible verification, but they should be expected to act honestly about what they do and do not know. That is why we have added Rule 23 to the S.M.A.C.C. Code of Conduct: transparency around unverified, potentially counterfeit, or safety-sensitive products.
This is not a rule designed to punish creators for being creators. It is a rule designed to protect audiences, protect honest influencers, and strengthen professional standards across the industry.
The scale of the issue is large enough that it cannot be dismissed as occasional bad luck. UK IPO consumer research published in 2025 found that younger adults are more likely to purchase counterfeits, and notably, among the motivations tested, hearing from an influencer that a product was good was one of the factors that could make people more likely to buy one. The same research also shows how strongly counterfeit purchasing is shaped by ease, perceived value, and online influence.
That is exactly why this conversation matters. Influence has value. It can build brands, launch small businesses, and create livelihoods. But the same influence can also normalise risky buying behaviour if creators imply certainty where certainty does not exist.
The challenge is that many creators, especially smaller ones, operate without legal teams, procurement departments, compliance officers, or brand protection support. A gifted item arrives. A marketplace seller offers a deal. A product looks convincing. The packaging seems plausible. The price is low enough to be attractive, but not so low that it immediately screams fraud. In that environment, it is easy to see how a creator might talk confidently about a product they have not truly verified.
That does not automatically make the creator dishonest. But it does mean there needs to be a professional standard for what happens next.
Rule 23 is built around a practical principle: do not imply that a product is genuine, official, tested, or safe unless you have reasonable grounds for saying so. Where authenticity or safety has not been verified, be clear about that. Speak from personal experience if that is all you have. Do not present assumption as certainty.
That distinction matters. A creator saying, “This is my personal experience of using this item, but I have not independently verified whether it is genuine,” is very different from a creator saying or implying, “This is the real thing” or “This is safe,” without evidence.
This is especially important in higher-risk categories. Cosmetics, perfumes, toys, electrical goods, and children’s products are not just style or preference purchases. They can involve direct health and safety consequences. Government guidance has repeatedly warned that counterfeit products may fail safety standards, and dangerous counterfeits are explicitly highlighted in current OECD-EUIPO reporting, including cosmetics and toys.
So what should responsible influencers actually do?
First, pause before making claims. There is a difference between recommending something because you personally liked it and vouching for its authenticity or safety. If you do not know, say so.
Second, pay attention to red flags. Unusually low prices, poor packaging, spelling errors, missing compliance markings where relevant, unclear seller history, and vague supply chains should all trigger caution. These are not proof on their own, but they are signals that a creator should slow down and avoid confident claims.
Third, exercise greater care with products that can cause harm. The more safety-sensitive the category, the less acceptable it is to rely on assumption.
Fourth, correct the record if something later turns out to be fake, unsafe, or misrepresented. Accountability after the fact matters too.
This is not anti-creator. It is pro-professionalism.
Good standards should help creators protect both their audience and their income. That balance matters. Influencers need room to be creative, entrepreneurial, and commercially successful. They should be able to work with brands, review products, experiment with content formats, and build businesses. But long-term credibility is part of that income model too. The more trusted the creator economy becomes, the stronger it is for everyone: creators, audiences, brands, and regulators alike.
That is also where S.M.A.C.C. can help.
A proper Code of Conduct gives creators something many of them have never had: a realistic framework for responsible practice that understands the realities of modern content creation. Not a lecture from the outside. Not a one-size-fits-all legal warning. A creator-aware standard that recognises both responsibility and practical limitation.
Our wider Code already covers sponsorship disclosure, harmful or misleading content, consent, privacy, misinformation correction, and ethical commercial behaviour. Rule 23 fits naturally into that framework because product authenticity is not a standalone issue. It connects to trust, advertising, consumer protection, audience welfare, and professional integrity.
That is why this addition matters beyond one news cycle.
If the creator economy wants stronger recognition, stronger credibility, and a stronger voice in regulation, it has to show that it can identify emerging risks and respond to them sensibly. Rule 23 is one example of that. It does not demand the impossible. It demands transparency, judgment, and responsibility.
That is a fair ask.
And for honest creators, it is also a protection.
Because in a world of dupes, counterfeits, mixed marketplaces, and blurred lines between recommendation and endorsement, one of the most valuable things a creator can still offer is simple: clarity about what they know, what they do not know, and what their audience deserves to understand before they buy.
S.M.A.C.C. has now added this principle to its Code of Conduct as Rule 23, reinforcing a simple idea: creators do not need to know everything, but they do need to be honest about what they have and have not verified.
