The lawsuit was filed by a company that sells nutritional supplements and other products online. The case arose from an audit report by the labor department, which classified the influencers as commercial agents and ordered the company to pay social security contributions and other sanctions. It should be noted that in Italy, unlike in other countries, the company is obliged to pay part of the social security contributions for its commercial agents.
The company defended itself by arguing that influencers cannot be considered commercial agents in the legal sense. Their activity is based on an occasional and not permanently stable relationship, so the typical commercial agency contract does not apply here. They also emphasized that influencers have no contractual obligation to promote the conclusion of contracts, but rather act in complete freedom and without binding obligations.
However, the labor department took the view that influencers were clearly engaged in sales promotion activities comparable to those of a traditional commercial agent. It was particularly emphasized that the influencers' commission was directly linked to the orders for which they were responsible. According to the labor department, this compensation structure clearly corresponds to the characteristics of a commercial agency contract as defined by the civil code. Furthermore, the regular and ongoing collaboration between the influencers and the company proves the stable character of the relationship, which is necessary for a commercial agency contract.
The Court of Rome dismissed the company's claim and ruled that influencers who promote products on social media and receive compensation based on the orders they successfully refer are legally classified as commercial agents under the provisions of the Italian Civil Code. The court stated that the influencers' recurring and continuous collaboration with the company proves the stable nature of the relationship, which is necessary for the existence of a contract.
This decision could have wide-ranging consequences for the practice of influencer marketing and the digital marketing sector as a whole. Companies that work with influencers need to be aware that they may be obliged to treat them as commercial agents in the legal sense. This would not only include the payment of social security contributions, but also compliance with the relevant provisions of commercial agency law.
In practice, this means that companies that use influencers as sales partners may also have to grant them the rights and obligations of a commercial agent. These include, for example, claims for commission and protection against unlawful termination of the cooperation, as is usual for commercial agents. The court's decision thus marks a significant turning point in the legal consideration of influencers as commercial actors. It could bring about a fundamental change in the way influencer marketing is conducted and force companies to adapt their legal frameworks. In the future, it will be crucial for companies working with influencers to comply with legal requirements in order to avoid legal risks and properly manage their relationships with distributors.