Influencer Marketing Isn’t Always a Free Ride for Companies

Companies and brands of all shapes and sizes use social media influencer marketing to grow their customer base and tap into new markets. When done well, it can be a good way to build targeted consumer confidence and trust for a relatively low cost, especially in niche categories.

While this strategy often yields mutually beneficial results for all parties involved, it can also bear undesirable consequences if things don’t go to plan. Without setting clear expectations and formal agreements where appropriate, influencers may inspire the wrong kind of action, such as this latest example below. As such, influencers should not be the only ingredient in the marketing mix.

Fischer vs DCS

Deep Cycle Systems (DCS) is currently attempting to sue 4WD adventure content creator Stephan (Stefan) Fischer, aka AlloffroadAU, for a review he posted of their portable battery products. According to Fischer, DCS provided him with the batteries for testing, which he conducted over a three-year period before posting his review across two YouTube videos. In these videos, he shared honest concerns about the batteries’ suitability and safety.

This series of videos were enough for DCS to file a defamation lawsuit against Fischer through the District Court of Queensland in May 2024. DCS alleges Fischer’s reviews of their products were defamatory and malicious, causing economic losses.

However, as a consequence for going after the well-loved creator, DCS has faced numerous negative comments left on product review websites and their own social media pages. The sentiment of these comments is largely disapproval of a company going after an independent content creator for posting their truthful opinion about a product. Some are calling this an example of the “Streisand effect” in action as DCS’ litigious actions have brought unwanted attention upon themselves.

This could be the first time in Australia that a YouTuber has been sued for defamation as a result of reviewing a company’s products. Fischer maintains that he acts as an independent source of unbiased opinion and always discloses when he has been provided free product for review.

“When a company weaponises defamation law against ordinary Australians to stifle honest reviews of their products or services, that is a concern for all of us,” said Piquet Kruzas, the lawyer representing Fischer, to Lawyers Weekly.

What brands can learn from this case

A prior influencer agreement between DCS and Fischer may have helped set some baseline expectations from the arrangement, at the very least avoid a court case. However, a company can only expect an honest, genuine review from any influencers they engage for marketing. Even if goods and/or services are provided free of charge in good faith of receiving positive feedback, companies have to understand that there is always a risk of criticism given in an unbiased opinion.

In fact, brands should not expect positive reviews from influencers they gift products to. Regulatory scrutiny of social media influencers has often focused on nebulous advertising disclosure, such as overly positive sponsored reviews, which the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) can consider to be misleading for consumers.