Joint campaigns of two brands in social media: communication and legal nuances
What is considered a collaboration and why brands take this risk
A collaboration in social networks is a joint activity of two or more brands aimed at a shared audience: a giveaway, cross-promotion, limited product, hashtag challenge, or a joint event. The format works because it provides instant access to another brand's audience without the cost of building it — and that is exactly what justifies the risk.
The scale of such campaigns is measured in tens of millions of reach within a few days:
- Collaboration of 'Pyaterochka' and VK Fest — 20,7 million reach
- Joint activity of 'Tema' and 'Odnoklassniki' — 34 million reach over 12 days
- Hashtag challenge by Actimuno and Likee — 8,4 million views of user-generated content
Such figures are what make collaborations economical: the cost of an error in a contract or labeling seems like a minor expense to a marketer in the context of tens of millions of reach. In practice, this is not a minor expense — it is the only expense that is hard to predict in advance.
Contract before launch: what to include to avoid future disputes
The main mistake lawyers and marketers make when they sit down to write a collaboration agreement is to base it on a standard NDA or service contract. A joint campaign requires a separate agreement that clearly outlines who is responsible for each piece of content, rather than the abstract notion that 'the parties jointly create the materials'.
Here is what actually breaks collaborations in practice:
- The agreement does not specify who exactly hires the contractors (photographer, illustrator, packaging designer) — as a result, it's unclear who holds the rights to the original files.
- There is no clause regarding the territory and duration of content usage — the brand places the material in countries where the partner faces restrictions (see the Ekonika case below)
- There is no order for coordinating publications — one brand posts earlier than the agreed timeline, while the other loses control over the information hook
- Responsibility for claims from third parties is not specified — if a third-party musical track or logo accidentally appears in a video, the fine goes to whoever physically published it
- There are no conditions in case one of the parties exits the project prematurely
Each of these points should be a separate line in the contract, not implied 'by default.' Practice shows: there is an application-table for each content element, where for each unit it is indicated who creates, who finances, who owns, and who can use the material after the campaign ends
How to label joint advertising so as not to get a fine
FAS and most foreign regulators are clear: mutual advertising and collaboration are advertising, even if formally the brands 'just hang out' in social networks. Hidden tags or mentions in the profile description are insufficient — explicit labeling directly in the post is required: #ad, #partneredmaterial. Similar requirements apply under FTC (disclosure in the first lines, not at the end of a long text) and CMA in the UK
The practice of 2025–2026 years has become stricter in one specific area: platforms now require labeling not only from the blogger who publishes the integration, but also from the brand-organizer of the campaign if it reposts or creates a joint story. Labeling is required from both sides of the collaboration, not just one
| Regulator | Requirement | Sanction for violation |
|---|---|---|
| FAS (Russia) | Explicit marking 'ad' in the post itself, not in a tag or description | Fine under the law on advertising for legal entities |
| FTC (USA) | Disclosure of material connection at the beginning of content, without double meaning | Up to dozens of millions of dollars, as in the case above |
| CMA (United Kingdom) | A single readable label ad or #ad, visible without expanding the description | Directives and public hearings |
The advice that is rarely given: the marking must be fixed in the contract as an obligation of each party with a specific sanction for its absence. Otherwise, when fined, brands start arguing over who was supposed to put the hashtag
Who owns the rights to the photos, videos and packaging design
Here lives the most common misconception: a jointly created product does not mean joint ownership of rights. In fact, rights arise for a specific author of a specific element. The illustrator owns the illustration, the designer owns the packaging layout, the copywriter owns the text, unless otherwise explicitly transferred by contract.
This means that after the campaign launch, it is necessary to separately formalize the transfer or licensing of the right to use each element by both brands. Without this, a situation may arise where brand A wants to reissue a successful packaging design a year later, but the rights to it actually belong to a freelancer hired by brand B.
Collaborations are one of the most vulnerable categories for counterfeiting precisely due to their limited nature: limited release and high demand make imitation profitable, while unclear rights complicate swift legal protection in court. The clearer the rights are established at the moment of content creation, the faster counterfeiting can be stopped after launch.
Reputational risks: how the choice of partner kills the campaign
Audience compatibility — the base that everyone writes about. The real problem is deeper: reputational risk is rarely obvious at the stage of signing the contract; it manifests later — through geopolitics, a scandal around the partner, or a mismatch of values that was not recognized at the start.
A telling case is the collaboration between Ekonika and Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. The content had to be removed from Instagram due to territorial restrictions, which caused a secondary crisis: the brand remained silent instead of explaining the situation to the audience, and silence turned out to be worse than the removal itself.
It is realistically possible to minimize such a risk in advance through two steps. First, include force majeure clauses in the contract in the event of platform or geopolitical restrictions with a clear communication protocol. Second, prepare a crisis statement template in advance in case one of the partners gets into a scandal during the active phase of the campaign. Silence in such a situation is almost always perceived worse than an imperfect but prompt response.
If the partnership falls apart before its scheduled end
A collaboration agreement rarely provides for a scenario of early termination — and for good reason, because it is precisely here that the most expensive disputes arise. What needs to be decided in advance:
- What happens to already published content — remains in the feed or is deleted upon request by either party
- Who takes rights to unpublished materials created at the time of the breakup
- How already incurred promotion expenses are compensated if the campaign is terminated midway
- Is the partner obligated to remain silent about the reasons for the breakup publicly or can they provide their version of the events
The absence of these points leads to parallel statements by brands in social networks that contradict each other — and this destroys trust in both parties at once, rather than just one.
Checklist before launching a joint campaign
If we reduce everything said to a working minimum, before signing a collaboration agreement five points need to be addressed: distribution of rights for each content element, labeling with obligations for both parties, territorial and time limitations on using materials, protocol of actions during force majeure or scandal, and conditions for early exit from the project. None of these points are resolved 'by default' or by analogy with a regular service contract.
Reaches in the tens of millions, which successful collaborations provide, justify the efforts spent preparing such an agreement multiple times over. But a fine from the FAS or FTC, a court case over rights to packaging design, or damaged reputation due to a partner — the price brands pay precisely for missed details, not for the cooperation format itself.
What is considered a collaboration and why brands take this risk
A collaboration in social networks is a joint activity of two or more brands aimed at a shared audience: a giveaway, cross-promotion, limited product, hashtag challenge, or a joint event. The format works because it provides instant access to another brand's audience without the cost of building it — and that is exactly what justifies the risk.
The scale of such campaigns is measured in tens of millions of reach within a few days:
- Collaboration of 'Pyaterochka' and VK Fest — 20,7 million reach
- Joint activity of 'Tema' and 'Odnoklassniki' — 34 million reach over 12 days
- Hashtag challenge by Actimuno and Likee — 8,4 million views of user-generated content
Such figures are what make collaborations economical: the cost of an error in a contract or labeling seems like a minor expense to a marketer in the context of tens of millions of reach. In practice, this is not a minor expense — it is the only expense that is hard to predict in advance.
Contract before launch: what to include to avoid future disputes
The main mistake lawyers and marketers make when they sit down to write a collaboration agreement is to base it on a standard NDA or service contract. A joint campaign requires a separate agreement that clearly outlines who is responsible for each piece of content, rather than the abstract notion that 'the parties jointly create the materials'.
Here is what actually breaks collaborations in practice:
- The agreement does not specify who exactly hires the contractors (photographer, illustrator, packaging designer) — as a result, it's unclear who holds the rights to the original files.
- There is no clause regarding the territory and duration of content usage — the brand places the material in countries where the partner faces restrictions (see the Ekonika case below)
- There is no order for coordinating publications — one brand posts earlier than the agreed timeline, while the other loses control over the information hook
- Responsibility for claims from third parties is not specified — if a third-party musical track or logo accidentally appears in a video, the fine goes to whoever physically published it
- There are no conditions in case one of the parties exits the project prematurely
Each of these points should be a separate line in the contract, not implied 'by default.' Practice shows: there is an application-table for each content element, where for each unit it is indicated who creates, who finances, who owns, and who can use the material after the campaign ends
How to label joint advertising so as not to get a fine
FAS and most foreign regulators are clear: mutual advertising and collaboration are advertising, even if formally the brands 'just hang out' in social networks. Hidden tags or mentions in the profile description are insufficient — explicit labeling directly in the post is required: #ad, #partneredmaterial. Similar requirements apply under FTC (disclosure in the first lines, not at the end of a long text) and CMA in the UK
The practice of 2025–2026 years has become stricter in one specific area: platforms now require labeling not only from the blogger who publishes the integration, but also from the brand-organizer of the campaign if it reposts or creates a joint story. Labeling is required from both sides of the collaboration, not just one
| Regulator | Requirement | Sanction for violation |
|---|---|---|
| FAS (Russia) | Explicit marking 'ad' in the post itself, not in a tag or description | Fine under the law on advertising for legal entities |
| FTC (USA) | Disclosure of material connection at the beginning of content, without double meaning | Up to dozens of millions of dollars, as in the case above |
| CMA (United Kingdom) | A single readable label ad or #ad, visible without expanding the description | Directives and public hearings |
The advice that is rarely given: the marking must be fixed in the contract as an obligation of each party with a specific sanction for its absence. Otherwise, when fined, brands start arguing over who was supposed to put the hashtag
Who owns the rights to the photos, videos and packaging design
Here lives the most common misconception: a jointly created product does not mean joint ownership of rights. In fact, rights arise for a specific author of a specific element. The illustrator owns the illustration, the designer owns the packaging layout, the copywriter owns the text, unless otherwise explicitly transferred by contract.
This means that after the campaign launch, it is necessary to separately formalize the transfer or licensing of the right to use each element by both brands. Without this, a situation may arise where brand A wants to reissue a successful packaging design a year later, but the rights to it actually belong to a freelancer hired by brand B.
Collaborations are one of the most vulnerable categories for counterfeiting precisely due to their limited nature: limited release and high demand make imitation profitable, while unclear rights complicate swift legal protection in court. The clearer the rights are established at the moment of content creation, the faster counterfeiting can be stopped after launch.
Reputational risks: how the choice of partner kills the campaign
Audience compatibility — the base that everyone writes about. The real problem is deeper: reputational risk is rarely obvious at the stage of signing the contract; it manifests later — through geopolitics, a scandal around the partner, or a mismatch of values that was not recognized at the start.
A telling case is the collaboration between Ekonika and Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. The content had to be removed from Instagram due to territorial restrictions, which caused a secondary crisis: the brand remained silent instead of explaining the situation to the audience, and silence turned out to be worse than the removal itself.
It is realistically possible to minimize such a risk in advance through two steps. First, include force majeure clauses in the contract in the event of platform or geopolitical restrictions with a clear communication protocol. Second, prepare a crisis statement template in advance in case one of the partners gets into a scandal during the active phase of the campaign. Silence in such a situation is almost always perceived worse than an imperfect but prompt response.
If the partnership falls apart before its scheduled end
A collaboration agreement rarely provides for a scenario of early termination — and for good reason, because it is precisely here that the most expensive disputes arise. What needs to be decided in advance:
- What happens to already published content — remains in the feed or is deleted upon request by either party
- Who takes rights to unpublished materials created at the time of the breakup
- How already incurred promotion expenses are compensated if the campaign is terminated midway
- Is the partner obligated to remain silent about the reasons for the breakup publicly or can they provide their version of the events
The absence of these points leads to parallel statements by brands in social networks that contradict each other — and this destroys trust in both parties at once, rather than just one.
Checklist before launching a joint campaign
If we reduce everything said to a working minimum, before signing a collaboration agreement five points need to be addressed: distribution of rights for each content element, labeling with obligations for both parties, territorial and time limitations on using materials, protocol of actions during force majeure or scandal, and conditions for early exit from the project. None of these points are resolved 'by default' or by analogy with a regular service contract.
Reaches in the tens of millions, which successful collaborations provide, justify the efforts spent preparing such an agreement multiple times over. But a fine from the FAS or FTC, a court case over rights to packaging design, or damaged reputation due to a partner — the price brands pay precisely for missed details, not for the cooperation format itself.
Recent articles
MegaFon, BMW, VTB and more 240+ companies. See how it looks in the showcase reel:
Our branding agency is approached to order:
Branding agency services
