Writing a community disclosure policy that moderators can actually enforce

A disclosure policy tells members when money, employment, gifts, commission or another relationship may shape content. It should help a contributor label material at the point people see it and help moderators respond consistently. It cannot replace a case-specific advertising or consumer-law assessment.

What to take away

Define who and what the policy covers

Include employees, contractors, ambassadors, affiliates, sponsors, event speakers, experts and ordinary members where they have a relevant relationship. Cover posts, comments, direct messages used commercially, events, product recommendations, reviews and resource listings. The disclosure policy sits alongside the community terms and moderation rules, not in place of them.

Name the relationships that require action: payment, commission, free or loaned products, discounts, hospitality, ownership, employment and close business connections. Do not use "conflict" without examples, as contributors may interpret it only as cash payment.

Set the disclosure rule

Require clear identification before or at the claim, in language the intended audience is likely to understand. The label should remain visible in previews and on the devices members use. A profile note is insufficient where people encounter the content separately.

Model label: 'Paid partnership with [Brand]' or 'I work for [Company]' or 'Free product received from [Brand]'. Worked example: a member reviews a free camera. Compliant wording: 'I received this camera free from [Brand] for review. I keep full editorial control and can give a negative view.'

ASA and CAP guidance on recognising ads in social media and influencer marketing discusses prominent labelling and the commercial conditions that can bring content within the CAP Code. It is regulator guidance, not legal advice. Link the current page in moderator training rather than copying a label list that may later change.

Separate advertising disclosure from a broader conflict statement. A member recommending software made by their employer may need to declare that relationship even where the post is not a paid marketing communication. The policy should direct uncertain cases to the community manager or a designated compliance lead.

Deal with reviews and incentives

Prohibit fake accounts, invented experience and rewards conditioned on positive sentiment. If genuine reviewers receive an incentive, require an accurate disclosure and preserve their ability to express a negative view.

The Competition and Markets Authority's fake reviews guidance addresses businesses involved in submitting, commissioning, publishing or procuring covered review material. A community that publishes consumer reviews should obtain a qualified view of its role and use the detailed guidance to design prevention and removal measures.

Give moderators a workable process

Provide a route to ask the contributor privately about a suspected relationship. Allow correction where appropriate, preserve evidence and escalate after a second missed disclosure within 30 days, or immediately where paid promotion is suspected. Avoid asking moderators to decide complex legal status from intuition.

Record the content, relationship, label, action, reviewer and date. Reports should distinguish missing disclosure from false claims, spam and ordinary disagreement because each problem needs a different response.

An employee answering a technical question may need to identify their role, even when the response is not an advert. An affiliate link needs a clear commercial explanation.

A customer given free access in exchange for a review must disclose the incentive and give a genuine view. A member sharing an unrelated employer's product may only need a conflict statement, depending on context.

Examples should illustrate reasoning, not become loopholes. Tell contributors to disclose an uncertain relationship and seek review before posting. Update the examples when the community introduces sponsorship, referral rewards or paid expert access.

Explain enforcement and appeals

Enforcement steps: first, add a label or request an edit within 24 hours. Second, limit commercial privileges for 30 days. Third, remove material or suspend the account for repeated breaches. State when urgent removal can occur. Contributors can appeal within 14 days to the community manager. Apply the process to staff and sponsors as well as members.

Publish and maintain the policy

Show the rule during joining, before commercial posting and in the reporting route. Train people with examples drawn from likely activity, then test whether someone can identify an advert, an incentivised review and an employee recommendation.

Review the policy after a new monetisation programme, platform format or regulatory update. A useful document makes relationships visible without implying that a label cures misleading content or unsupported product claims.

Before you act

Common questions

What should a disclosure policy cover in terms of people and content?

Include employees, contractors, ambassadors, affiliates and sponsors where they have a relevant relationship. Cover posts, comments, direct messages used commercially, events, product recommendations, reviews and resource listings.

How should moderators handle suspected missing disclosures?

See the moderator process above. The policy sets escalation thresholds and a 14-day appeal window.

When should the policy be reviewed and updated?

Review the policy after a new monetisation programme, platform format or regulatory update. Update the examples when the community introduces sponsorship, referral rewards or paid expert access.