Affiliate disclosure rules for referral links: what to say, where, and what fails
Every guide on this site carries the same quiet problem: the links in it pay the person who placed them. That fact is exactly what disclosure law is about. If a reader would weigh a recommendation differently knowing the recommender earns a commission, a credit, or a free product from it, the relationship has to be stated — clearly, conspicuously, and close enough to the recommendation that the reader actually connects the two. That is the rule in the United States under the Federal Trade Commission’s Endorsement Guides, and it is the rule in Canada under the Competition Bureau’s guidance, and both regulators publish unusually specific advice about affiliate links in particular: which words work, which words fail, and where a disclosure goes to die.
This guide works from the regulators’ own pages, checked on 2026-10-16: the FTC’s Endorsement Guides FAQ, which answers affiliate marketers’ questions directly, and the Competition Bureau’s influencer-marketing guidance. It is general information, not legal advice.
What counts as a material connection
Both regulators use the same underlying test. The FTC describes a disclosable connection as one between an endorser and a marketer that consumers would not expect and that would affect how they evaluate the endorsement; the connection then has to be disclosed clearly and conspicuously. The Bureau’s version asks whether the relationship has the potential to affect how consumers evaluate the promoter’s independence. The lists of what qualifies are nearly identical, and commissions on referral links sit at the top of both:
- Money: commissions, flat fees, per-sign-up bonuses, and referral credits that convert to value.
- Free or discounted products: a free subscription, a review account, or a discount given because you promote the tool.
- Other benefits: the Bureau names free trips and event tickets; the FTC’s examples include incentives with no cash value at all, such as the chance to appear in an advertisement, where the incentive could sway what the endorser says.
- Personal ties: employment and family relationships with the company behind the product.
Two consequences follow for promoters of AI tools. First, a referral program that pays only in product credits — extra transcription minutes, bonus tokens, account credit — is still a material connection, because the test is whether the benefit could affect how readers judge independence, not whether cash changed hands. Second, the connection attaches to each endorsement, not to your site as a whole: a page reviewing a tool you pay for yourself, with no referral arrangement, has nothing to disclose, while the next page, where you hold an affiliate link, does. The FTC makes the mirror-image point too: links included purely as a convenience to readers, where you are not paid, involve no connection and need no disclosure.
What the FTC requires, in its own affiliate answers
The FTC’s FAQ has a dedicated section for affiliate and network marketing, and its central answer is direct: an affiliate marketer earning commissions through links on a website should disclose the relationship to the retailer clearly and conspicuously on the site, so readers can decide how much weight to give the endorsement. The example wording the FTC itself offers is plain: “I get commissions for purchases made through links in this post.” No special phrasing is mandated — the standard is whether an ordinary reader understands that the person placing the link gets paid when purchases follow.
Placement gets the same treatment. The guiding principle, in the FTC’s words, is that the closer the disclosure is to the recommendation, the better. A single disclosure can be adequate when it sits inside the review itself and the reader can see the disclosure and the link at the same time. When the disclosure and the link are separated — the disclosure on one page, the purchasable recommendation on another, or the disclosure far above a long article whose links appear much later — readers may never make the connection, and the disclosure fails at its only job. The same guidance applies when your review appears on someone else’s website and when you endorse through social posts; the medium changes, the duty does not.
Format follows the endorsement. A video creator who received free products and also earns commissions has to disclose the affiliate relationship in the video itself and again in the description near the links, the FTC says — a disclosure in only one of the two places the audience encounters the endorsement is not the safe pattern. And repetition is not optional over time: each new endorsement needs its own disclosure, because a viewer who arrives at today’s post may never have seen the disclosures on your earlier ones.
The wording verdicts: what passes and what fails
The most useful part of the FTC’s affiliate guidance is that it grades specific labels instead of leaving promoters to guess. The table below collects those verdicts, plus the Bureau’s parallel warnings.
| Disclosure wording or placement | Regulator verdict | Why |
|---|---|---|
| “I get commissions for purchases made through links in this post” | FTC: adequate example | The FTC’s own suggested wording; states plainly that the linker is paid |
| “Paid link” placed right next to the affiliate link | FTC: should be adequate | Short, unambiguous, and adjacent to the link it describes |
| “Affiliate link” by itself | FTC: not adequate | Consumers might not understand the term to mean the linker gets paid for purchases |
| “Commissionable link” | FTC: probably not clear | Jargon; an ordinary reader cannot decode it into “this person earns money” |
| A “buy now” button as the only signal | FTC: not adequate | A button describes an action, not a financial relationship |
| Disclosure only in a profile bio, hashtag group, or long caption | Competition Bureau: may never be seen | Disclosures should be prominent and visible on all devices without expanding the post |
| Tagging the brand, posting a discount code, or linking to an affiliate page, with nothing more | Competition Bureau: unlikely to be enough | None of these tells the audience, in words, that the promoter benefits |
| Employer named only on an employee’s profile page | FTC: not enough | People who read the post itself never see the profile; disclose inside the endorsement |
The pattern across every row is the same: a disclosure works when an ordinary reader, meeting your content for the first time, understands without decoding anything that you benefit if they buy. Industry vocabulary (“affiliate”, “commissionable”, “partner”) fails precisely because it is industry vocabulary. Plain statements about getting paid pass.
Canada’s Competition Bureau: the same test, extra warnings
Canadian promoters work under the Competition Act’s deceptive-marketing provisions, which the Bureau confirms apply to anyone promoting a product, service, or business interest — the legal hook is the same truth-in-advertising principle as in the US. The Bureau’s best-practice list overlaps the FTC’s but adds operational details worth copying even if you never market to Canadians. Disclosures should be as visible as possible: prominent rather than buried in a long caption, a group of hashtags, or a profile bio; visible on all devices without the reader having to click or tap to expand the post; and repeated on each platform where the content appears, not carried by the one platform where you remembered. Language should be plain and clear, avoiding ambiguous terms and abbreviations — the same instinct behind the FTC’s rejection of “commissionable”. The Bureau also ties disclosure to honesty about the product itself: reviews and testimonials should be based on actual experience, and promoters should avoid broad performance claims that testing or proof may not back up. A disclosure does not launder a claim you cannot support; the two duties run side by side.
Important: general information, not legal advice
This guide summarises regulator guidance published by the US Federal Trade Commission and Canada’s Competition Bureau, checked on 2026-10-16. The FTC notes that its Endorsement Guides are interpretive guidance under Section 5 of the FTC Act rather than a law with its own penalties, and that its FAQ is staff guidance that does not provide a safe harbour from liability — whether a specific disclosure is sufficient depends on the facts of the case. Other countries have their own advertising regulators and rules. If your promotion business is more than a hobby, have a qualified lawyer in your jurisdiction review your disclosure practice.
A placement audit you can run on your own pages
The rules above become useful when they are turned into a check. Run these steps on every page, post, or video that carries a referral or affiliate link:
- List the connections. For each product on the page, write down what you receive if a reader buys: commission, credit, free access, a discount, nothing. Anything other than “nothing” is a material connection to disclose.
- Find the disclosure a first-time reader finds. Open the page in a private window, on a phone, and scroll only as far as the first affiliate link. If you have not met a disclosure by that point, the placement fails the closer-is-better test — move it up, beside the recommendation.
- Read the wording as a stranger. Does it say, in plain words, that you get paid or otherwise benefit? If it relies on “affiliate”, “partner”, or a button to carry that meaning, rewrite it using the FTC’s model sentence as your template.
- Check every format the endorsement travels in. Video plus description, post plus caption, article plus the social post promoting it: each surface that contains the endorsement needs the disclosure on that surface, visible without expanding anything.
- Check separation. If the disclosure lives on a homepage, an about page, or a standalone disclosures page while the links live in articles, treat that as no disclosure for those articles and add one in place.
- Record the audit. Note the page, the date, and what you changed. If a program or a regulator ever asks how you handle disclosures, a dated record of deliberate practice is worth more than a memory.
Success looks like this: a reader landing on any single page from a search engine — never having seen your homepage, your bio, or your other posts — encounters a plain statement that you earn from the links before, or at the same moment as, the first link itself. If every page passes that test on its own, your disclosure practice matches what both regulators describe.
FAQ
Do I need to disclose if the program pays me in credits instead of cash?
Yes, on both regulators’ tests. The question is whether the benefit could affect how readers judge your independence, and Canada’s Bureau lists free products, services, and discounts alongside money and commissions. A credit-only referral reward is still a material connection.
Is one disclosure page for my whole site enough?
Not safely. The FTC’s standard is proximity: a disclosure can be adequate when the reader sees it together with the review and the link, and it warns that separated disclosures may never be connected to the endorsement by the reader. Put the disclosure on the page that carries the links.
Does a disclosure in my social bio cover my posts?
No. The Competition Bureau warns that audiences may not see disclosures placed in a profile bio, and the FTC makes the same point about employees whose workplace appears only on a profile page. Disclose inside each post that contains the endorsement.
What if I link to a product purely to help readers, with no payment?
Then there is no connection to disclose, per the FTC: convenience links that earn you nothing are outside the rule. The duty starts when a purchase through your link benefits you.