Influencer and UGC Disputes: Demand Letters for Unpaid Collabs and Misused Content

The collaboration seemed straightforward. A brand reached out through Instagram DMs offering $2,000 for three posts promoting their skincare line. You created the content, posted it on schedule, and waited for payment. Weeks later, the payment has not arrived, but you notice your content is now running as a paid ad on Facebook, appearing on the brand’s website homepage, and featured in an email campaign to their entire subscriber list. None of this additional usage was part of the agreement, and you are starting to realize that the brand sees your Instagram DMs as a free-for-all license to use your face and your creative work however they want, indefinitely, across all media, worldwide.

Or perhaps you are on the other side of this equation. Your brand ran a user-generated content campaign encouraging customers to post photos with a branded hashtag. One customer’s particularly good photo is now appearing everywhere in your marketing materials. That customer has now sent a cease-and-desist letter claiming copyright infringement, demanding $50,000, and threatening to file with the Copyright Claims Board. You assumed that using a hashtag meant the content was free to use. You are learning that assumption was wrong.

Influencer and UGC disputes have exploded as the creator economy has grown and as brands have become increasingly dependent on authentic-looking content created by influencers and customers. These disputes combine contract law, copyright law, right of publicity, and Federal Trade Commission regulations in ways that create leverage for both sides but also significant risks for those who overplay their hands. A well-drafted demand letter can resolve payment disputes, stop unauthorized content use, and establish boundaries for future conduct. A poorly drafted letter can trigger expensive copyright litigation, generate negative publicity that harms the sender more than the recipient, or expose the sender to claims of extortion or abuse of process.

This article explains the legal framework governing influencer collaborations and UGC usage, the common disputes that arise when brands fail to pay or misuse content, the strategic considerations in deciding whether to send a demand letter or pursue other remedies, and how to draft letters that maximize the chances of compliance while minimizing legal and reputational risk.

Understanding Who Owns What in Influencer and UGC Content

Most influencer and UGC disputes arise from fundamental misunderstandings about who owns the content and what rights the brand actually obtained. These misunderstandings are often exploited by brands that want to avoid paying for usage rights or by influencers who want to extract additional payments for uses that were actually within the scope of the original agreement.

The Copyright Default Rule

Under U.S. copyright law, the person who creates original content owns the copyright in that content from the moment of creation. When an influencer shoots a photo, records a video, or writes a caption, they own the copyright in that work. When a customer posts a photo of themselves using a product, they own the copyright in that photo. This is true even if the content features the brand’s products, uses the brand’s hashtags, or tags the brand’s account.

Paying someone to create content does not automatically transfer ownership of the copyright. Payment creates a license to use the content according to whatever terms were agreed upon, but unless there is a written assignment specifically transferring ownership, the creator retains the copyright. This means brands that pay influencers for content typically receive only a license, not ownership. If the brand wants ownership, the agreement must include an assignment clause stating that the creator assigns all rights, title, and interest in the content to the brand.

The scope of the license depends entirely on what was agreed. If an influencer agreement says the brand can use the content “on social media” for “thirty days,” the brand does not have the right to use the content in paid ads, on billboards, on product packaging, or after the thirty-day period expires. Each additional use outside the scope of the license is a separate act of copyright infringement.

For user-generated content, the same rules apply. When a customer posts a photo on Instagram and tags a brand or uses a branded hashtag, they have not transferred ownership of that photo to the brand. The platform terms of service grant the platform itself broad rights to host and distribute the content, but those platform rights do not transfer to brands that want to scrape the content and use it commercially.

Some brands create hashtag terms and conditions that appear on a landing page or in campaign rules stating that use of the hashtag constitutes permission for the brand to use the content. These terms can create a license if they are properly disclosed and if the user’s conduct reasonably demonstrates acceptance of the terms. But a brand cannot simply declare that any content tagged with their hashtag is theirs to use. If users were not presented with clear terms before posting, or if the terms were buried in a way that users could not reasonably be expected to find them, the brand does not have a valid license.

Right of Publicity and Commercial Use of Likeness

Even when a brand has permission to use the content itself, using someone’s face, voice, or other identifiable characteristics in commercial advertising may implicate right of publicity laws. California Civil Code section 3344 creates a statutory right of publicity that prohibits use of another person’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness for commercial purposes without consent.

The distinction between copyright and right of publicity matters because a brand might have a valid license to use the content but still violate the right of publicity by using it in ways that suggest endorsement or by featuring the person’s likeness prominently in paid advertising. An influencer who agreed to “organic posts only” may have a claim if the brand later uses their image in paid ads, even if the brand technically had a license to use the content itself.

For UGC, right of publicity claims are particularly strong when brands take customer photos and use them in ways that make it appear the customer is a brand ambassador or spokesperson. A customer who posted a casual photo using a product did not consent to becoming the face of the brand’s billboard campaign or national television commercial. Using that customer’s face in such contexts without explicit permission creates both copyright and right of publicity exposure.

Platform Terms Do Not Grant Brands Third-Party Rights

One of the most common misunderstandings in influencer and UGC disputes is about what rights social media platforms actually grant. Instagram, TikTok, and other platforms have terms of service that give the platform broad licenses to host, modify, and distribute user content. These licenses are necessary for the platforms to operate: they need to be able to store your content on their servers, display it to your followers, compress it for different devices, and so on.

But the license you grant to Instagram when you post content is between you and Instagram. It does not give other Instagram users, including brands, the right to download your content and use it in their own marketing. When a brand sees UGC on Instagram and decides to repost it, download it for use on their website, or incorporate it into paid advertising, they are stepping outside the platform’s license and into territory where they need direct permission from the content creator.

Brands sometimes argue that because content is “public” on social media, they have the right to use it. This is legally incorrect. Public display does not equal permission for commercial use. A photo that is visible to the public still belongs to the person who took it, and commercial use still requires a license from the copyright owner.

Common Influencer Collaboration Disputes

Influencer collaborations can break down in several predictable ways, each of which creates different considerations for demand letters and potential litigation.

Non-Payment or Late Payment

The most straightforward influencer dispute is when a brand simply does not pay the agreed fee. The influencer created and posted the required content, the brand received the benefit of that content, and the payment due date has passed without payment. This is a pure breach of contract claim.

In some cases, the non-payment is because the brand disputes the quality of the content, claims the influencer missed deadlines or failed to follow the creative brief, or alleges that engagement numbers were below expectations. These disputes require careful review of what the contract actually required. If the agreement specified particular aesthetic requirements, specific language to be used, or minimum engagement metrics, and the influencer failed to meet those requirements, the brand may have legitimate grounds to withhold payment or demand revisions.

More commonly, brands withhold payment because of cash flow issues, because they decided the campaign was not successful and do not want to pay for it, or because they are testing whether the influencer will accept non-payment. In these cases, a demand letter serves to establish that the influencer is serious about collecting, that they have documentation of performance, and that they are prepared to pursue legal remedies if the brand continues to refuse payment.

Another payment dispute arises with revenue-sharing or affiliate commission arrangements. Brands sometimes refuse to pay commissions claiming that sales did not result from the influencer’s content, that tracking was inaccurate, or that returns exceeded sales. These disputes often come down to whether the agreement specified the tracking methodology and how disputes would be resolved. If the brand controlled the tracking system and the influencer has no way to verify the numbers, the power imbalance makes demand letters particularly important for establishing that the influencer questions the brand’s numbers and needs transparency.

Scope Creep and Unauthorized Usage

Scope creep happens when brands use influencer content beyond what the agreement authorized. The most common forms are using content approved for organic posts in paid advertising, continuing to use content after the license term expired, using content on additional platforms not specified in the agreement, and creating derivative works like cutting videos into different formats or using still frames from videos.

These scope issues create both contract claims (the brand breached the license terms) and copyright claims (the unauthorized use exceeds any license and constitutes infringement). The dual claims are strategically valuable because copyright claims can be pursued in federal court or through the Copyright Claims Board and carry statutory damages, while contract claims typically proceed in state court and are limited to actual damages.

A particularly thorny scope issue is “whitelisting” or “boosting,” where the brand pays to run the influencer’s content as an ad from the influencer’s own account. This practice has become extremely common, but many influencer agreements were signed before whitelisting became standard and do not address it. When a brand whitelists content without explicit permission, the influencer may have claims for both the unauthorized paid use and for the brand’s use of the influencer’s account and identity in ways that were not part of the original deal.

Geographic scope is another source of disputes. An influencer who agreed to create content for the U.S. market may find their content running in Europe, Asia, or globally. International usage often commands higher fees, and unauthorized global distribution can support both damages for the additional value and claims that the brand materially breached the contract.

Editing and Modification Disputes

Some disputes arise not from how much the brand used the content but how the brand modified it. Brands sometimes edit influencer content in ways that change the message, remove context, or associate the influencer with positions or products they did not actually endorse.

Under copyright law, the creator of a work has moral rights in some jurisdictions (more strongly protected in Europe than in the U.S., though the Visual Artists Rights Act provides limited U.S. protection for certain visual art). More practically, influencer agreements sometimes include approval rights that require the brand to obtain the influencer’s consent before materially altering content. When brands ignore these provisions and edit content in ways that harm the influencer’s personal brand or create compliance issues, demand letters can focus on the breach of the approval obligations.

Particular concern arises when edited content creates regulatory risk. If a brand removes disclaimers that were required for FTC compliance, adds claims that were not in the original post, or uses content in ways that suggest the influencer endorsed products they did not actually use or endorse, both the brand and the influencer face potential FTC enforcement. The influencer’s demand letter can emphasize that the brand’s misuse of the content exposes the influencer to regulatory liability and reputational harm.

Exclusivity and Non-Compete Violations

Many influencer agreements include exclusivity clauses prohibiting the influencer from promoting competitors for a specified period. Disputes arise when the brand claims the influencer violated exclusivity by posting competitor content, when the brand seeks to enforce overbroad restrictions that go beyond what is reasonable, or when the parties disagree about what constitutes a “competitor.”

From the brand’s perspective, these disputes may justify withholding payment, demanding return of product or other consideration, or seeking injunctive relief to stop the competing posts. From the influencer’s perspective, overly broad exclusivity clauses that prevent them from working in their niche may be unenforceable restraints on trade, and brand attempts to enforce such clauses may justify counterclaims or demands that the brand clarify its position.

A recent high-profile example involved Gymshark seeking to prevent an influencer from promoting competitor brand YoungLA after the contractual relationship ended. The dispute highlighted tensions around post-termination restrictions and raised questions about how far brands can go in restricting influencers’ ability to work with competitors once the paid relationship ends.

User-Generated Content Misuse Patterns

UGC disputes follow different patterns because the relationship between the brand and the content creator is usually not a formal contractual engagement but rather the brand taking customer or fan content and repurposing it.

The Hashtag Does Not Equal Permission Problem

The most common UGC dispute arises when brands run campaigns encouraging customers to post content with a branded hashtag, then assume that using the hashtag means they can use the content however they want. Brands scrape Instagram, TikTok, or Twitter for posts using their hashtag and incorporate that content into paid ads, email campaigns, website galleries, or print materials without obtaining explicit licenses from each creator.

Some brands create hashtag terms and conditions stating that use of the hashtag grants the brand a license to use the content. Whether these terms are enforceable depends on whether they were clearly disclosed before or at the time the user posted, whether the user had a reasonable opportunity to review them, and whether the scope of the license is clearly stated. A terms page that appears only when someone clicks through from a small link in the brand’s Instagram bio is unlikely to bind users who simply saw the hashtag in other posts and used it organically.

Even when hashtag terms exist and are properly disclosed, they may grant narrower rights than brands assume. Terms that say “we may feature your content on our social channels” do not necessarily authorize use in paid advertising, on billboards, or in contexts that make it appear the user is an official brand partner. If the brand wants broad commercial rights, the terms need to say so explicitly, and there may be questions about whether such broad terms are enforceable as click-through agreements without additional consideration.

Contest and Promotion Misuse

Brands often run contests or promotions where entry requires submitting content. Contest rules typically include license grants that allow the brand to use submitted entries for promotional purposes. But brands sometimes exceed the scope of those rules by using contest entries long after the promotion ends, using non-winning entries when the rules said only winning entries would be featured, or using entries in contexts (such as paid advertising) that were not disclosed in the rules.

UGC creators who submitted contest entries often feel they have no recourse because “it was a contest” and they consented to some use of their content. But contest rules are contracts, and brands must comply with their terms. If the rules said entries would be used only to judge the contest and feature the winner, using all entries in a paid ad campaign breaches the contract and likely exceeds any copyright license that was granted.

Music and Third-Party IP in UGC

A particularly complex UGC issue arises when the UGC itself contains third-party copyrighted material, most commonly music. When brands repurpose UGC that includes popular music, they may be creating copyright liability for unauthorized use of the musical composition and sound recording. The fact that the music was in the original UGC post on TikTok or Instagram does not mean the brand has the right to use it in their own paid advertising.

Platform licenses that allow users to add music to posts typically do not extend to brands that download that content and use it commercially. Recent litigation has highlighted this risk. Sony sued Gymshark over use of Sony-owned music in social content including influencer posts, and Warner sued Designer Brands over use of more than 200 songs in TikTok and Instagram marketing without proper licenses. Both cases settled, but they demonstrate that music in social media content is real copyright exposure, not a free pass.

When an influencer or UGC creator receives a demand letter from a music rightsholder over content they created, they may turn around and seek indemnification from the brand if the brand encouraged use of popular music or if the brand’s use of the content created the exposure. This creates a chain of potential liability that demand letters need to address: the brand may need to indemnify the creator, but the creator may also have obligations to the brand about not using unlicensed third-party content.

Building the Foundation for Demand Letters

Before sending any demand letter in an influencer or UGC dispute, you need organized documentation that establishes what was agreed, what was performed, and how the other party breached or exceeded their rights.

For influencers seeking payment or challenging unauthorized use, the documentation package should include the complete agreement between the parties, even if that agreement exists only as a series of DMs, emails, or comments. Screenshot or export the entire conversation showing what was offered, what terms were discussed, what deliverables were promised, and what payment was agreed. If there was a formal contract, include that, but understand that subsequent communications may have modified the contract terms.

Compile proof that you performed your obligations. This means links to the actual posts you created, screenshots showing they were published on the required dates, and metrics showing engagement if that was part of the agreement. If the brand required approval of content before posting, include evidence that you submitted content for approval and either received approval or posted after the approval deadline passed without response.

Document the brand’s use of your content beyond what was authorized. This is where many influencers fail to build adequate proof. Take screenshots of every place your content appears: on the brand’s Instagram feed, in Instagram or Facebook ads (searchable through Meta’s Ad Library), on the brand’s website, in email campaigns, in print ads, or in any other location. For paid ads, document the date range the ad ran and, if possible, estimates of the ad spend or reach. This information establishes both the scope of infringement and helps calculate damages.

For unpaid invoices, include copies of your invoices, proof they were sent to the correct contact, and any communications about payment. If the brand acknowledged the debt but asked for more time, include those communications. If the brand disputed the amount or the quality of work, include those communications and your responses addressing the concerns.

For brands sending demand letters to influencers or UGC creators, the documentation needs to show what agreement existed, what the influencer or creator failed to do, and what harm resulted. Include the signed agreement or the message thread where terms were discussed. If the influencer failed to post on schedule, show the posting schedule and the dates they actually posted. If the content was off-brief or violated guidelines, include the creative brief or guidelines and explain specifically how the content fell short.

If the dispute involves FTC compliance, document the specific violations. Include screenshots of posts that lack required disclosures, posts that make unsubstantiated claims, or posts that otherwise create regulatory risk for the brand. If you sent warnings asking for corrective action and the influencer ignored them, include that correspondence.

For both sides, preserve all communications about the dispute itself. If you tried to resolve the matter informally and the other party was unresponsive, unreasonable, or made admissions that strengthen your position, that correspondence becomes part of your demand letter narrative.

Strategic Considerations for Influencer Demand Letters

When an influencer is considering a demand letter to a brand, the strategic calculus depends on the relationship dynamics, the strength of the claim, and the influencer’s goals.

When Demand Letters Work for Influencer-to-Brand Disputes

Demand letters are most effective when the brand is an established company with a legal department or regular outside counsel, when the amount in dispute is large enough that the brand takes it seriously but not so large that the brand would rather litigate than pay, and when the influencer has clear documentation showing both performance and breach.

If the brand has simply failed to pay an agreed fee and the influencer performed all obligations, the demand letter can be straightforward: state the agreed amount, attach proof of performance, calculate any late fees or interest if the contract provides for them, and state a deadline for payment. These letters often result in payment because the brand’s failure to pay was likely an oversight, a cash flow problem that has since resolved, or a test of whether the influencer would pursue the matter.

Scope creep cases benefit from demand letters because brands often genuinely believe they have broader rights than they actually do. When an influencer letter explains that the agreement authorized use only on Instagram for thirty days but the brand has been running the content as Facebook ads for six months, the brand may realize they overstepped and be willing to negotiate a retroactive license or pay additional fees to continue using the content.

The demand letter can present this as a licensing opportunity rather than pure confrontation: “We have seen that our content is performing well in your paid ad campaigns. The original agreement authorized only organic social posts, but we are open to discussing licensing terms for continued use in paid media. Our rate for such usage is $X per month.” This approach preserves the possibility of an ongoing relationship and additional revenue rather than burning the bridge.

When Demand Letters May Backfire

Influencer demand letters are riskier when the brand is likely to view the influencer as replaceable and the relationship as disposable, when the amount in dispute is small enough that the brand would rather fight than pay to avoid setting a precedent, or when the influencer’s documentation is weak and the brand knows it.

If the influencer’s own posts violated the agreement (such as missing deadlines, posting off-brand content, or violating exclusivity), a demand letter may prompt the brand to counterclaim or withhold payment based on the influencer’s breaches. Before sending a letter, the influencer needs to honestly assess whether their own performance was compliant.

Another backfire risk arises when the demand letter threatens action the influencer cannot actually follow through on. Threatening to “pursue all legal remedies including federal court litigation” when the amount in dispute is $2,000 and the influencer cannot afford to actually litigate makes the threat empty. The brand may call the bluff, forcing the influencer to either back down or pursue remedies they cannot afford.

The public relations dimension matters for influencers with large followings. An influencer who publicly criticizes a brand for non-payment may rally support from their audience and create pressure for the brand to settle. But that same influencer may find that other brands become reluctant to work with them, viewing them as litigious or as someone who will air disputes publicly. This is particularly true in industries where brands talk to each other and word travels about “difficult” influencers.

Escalation Options That Create Leverage

The availability of specific escalation paths creates leverage in influencer demand letters. The Copyright Claims Board, established under the CASE Act, provides a relatively low-cost forum for copyright disputes with damages up to $30,000. For influencer content disputes, the CCB is often ideal: the claim amount is typically under $30,000, the dispute is straightforward, and the ability to pursue statutory damages without full federal court litigation changes the economics for both parties.

A demand letter that references the CCB as a potential next step is more credible than one that threatens federal court litigation that will cost six figures to pursue. The letter can note: “If this matter is not resolved, we intend to file a claim with the Copyright Claims Board seeking statutory damages for willful infringement. As you may be aware, the CCB allows for damages up to $15,000 per work infringed, which in this case would exceed $X.” This threat is realistic and proportionate.

DMCA takedown notices provide another escalation tool that creates immediate leverage. If a brand is using an influencer’s content on their website, Instagram, or other platforms, the influencer can send DMCA notices to the platforms demanding removal. While this does not get the influencer paid, it stops the brand from continuing to benefit from the unauthorized use and creates urgency for settlement.

The risk of DMCA abuse should not be understated. Sending a DMCA notice when you do not actually have a valid copyright claim or when the use is authorized exposes you to liability under Section 512(f) for misrepresentation. But when the facts clearly show unauthorized use, DMCA notices are powerful tools that can be used in parallel with demand letters to demonstrate seriousness.

Drafting Effective Influencer-to-Brand Demand Letters

An influencer demand letter should begin by identifying the parties and the collaboration in neutral terms. For example: “I am writing regarding the influencer collaboration between [Influencer Name] and [Brand Name] for [Product/Campaign] that was agreed upon on [Date] via Instagram direct message.” This opening establishes the context without unnecessary hostility.

The next section should present the agreement terms clearly. If there was a formal contract, reference it and attach it. If the agreement was through DMs or email, describe the key terms: “On March 15, 2025, your marketing manager @[username] sent me a DM offering $2,000 for three Instagram feed posts featuring [Product], to be posted between March 20-27, with content approval required within 24 hours of submission. I accepted this offer on March 15.” Then walk through your performance: “I submitted content for approval on March 18. Your team approved all three posts on March 19. I posted the content on March 20, March 23, and March 26 as agreed, with all posts remaining live through the required period.”

Present the breach or unauthorized use with specificity. For non-payment: “The payment of $2,000 was due within 30 days of the final post, making the due date April 25, 2025. I sent an invoice on April 1. Payment has not been received as of the date of this letter, May 15, 2025.” For unauthorized use: “The agreement authorized use of the content only as organic posts on my Instagram account. I have discovered that [Brand] is using my content in the following unauthorized ways: (1) Facebook and Instagram paid ads running since April 1, as shown in attached screenshots from Meta Ad Library; (2) Homepage banner on [Brand].com as of May 1; (3) Email campaign sent to your subscriber list on May 10. None of these uses were authorized under our agreement.”

Include a section explaining the legal basis for your claim without turning the letter into a legal treatise. “Under our agreement, [Brand] was required to pay the full amount within 30 days. The failure to pay constitutes a breach of contract. Additionally, California law provides for a contract interest rate of 10% per annum on overdue payments. The total amount due is therefore $2,167, representing the principal of $2,000 plus interest.” For unauthorized use: “The unauthorized use of my content beyond the scope of our agreement constitutes both breach of contract and copyright infringement. Under federal copyright law, I retain ownership of all content I create, and your use beyond the licensed scope is actionable. I am entitled to seek statutory damages for this infringement.”

State your demands clearly. “I demand payment of $2,167 by May 30, 2025, via wire transfer or check to the address below.” For unauthorized use: “I demand that you immediately cease all unauthorized use of my content, including removal from your website, termination of all paid ad campaigns using my content, and confirmation that no future unauthorized use will occur. I am willing to discuss licensing terms for past and future use at my standard rates, which for paid advertising usage are $5,000 per month per platform.” The willingness to license shows flexibility while establishing that continued use requires additional payment.

Provide a reasonable deadline. For payment demands, 14 to 21 days is typical. For copyright infringement demands, 7 to 14 days may be appropriate given that the harm is ongoing. State the consequences clearly: “If payment is not received by May 30, I will pursue all available remedies, including filing a claim in small claims court for the amount due plus court costs and interest, and potentially filing a claim with the Copyright Claims Board for statutory damages arising from your unauthorized use of my copyrighted content.”

Avoid threats that cross into extortion territory. You can say you will pursue legal remedies. You can say you will file DMCA notices or CCB claims. You can even say that you are considering notifying relevant regulatory agencies like the FTC if the unauthorized use created compliance issues. What you cannot do is condition your decision to pursue those remedies on payment. The letter should present the remedies as natural consequences if the dispute is not resolved, not as punishments that you will inflict only if the brand does not pay.

Brand-Side Demand Letters to Influencers

Brands sometimes need to send demand letters to influencers when the influencer fails to perform, violates exclusivity, makes false or unsubstantiated claims, or fails to include required disclosures. These letters require different strategic considerations because the brand typically has more resources and legal sophistication than the influencer, and an overly aggressive letter can create PR problems if the influencer publicizes it.

When Brands Should Send Demand Letters to Influencers

Brand-to-influencer demand letters make sense when the influencer has materially breached the agreement in ways that justify withholding payment or demanding corrective action, when the influencer’s conduct created regulatory risk for the brand, or when the influencer is misusing brand trademarks or trade secrets outside the scope of the relationship.

If an influencer agreed to post three times but posted only once, or posted all content two weeks late, or posted content that was wildly off-brand despite receiving a detailed creative brief, the brand may be entitled to withhold payment or demand refunds. The demand letter should explain what was required, what the influencer actually did, and why it was inadequate. Attach the agreement, the creative brief, examples of what was expected versus what was delivered, and any communications where the brand attempted to work with the influencer to correct the problems.

FTC disclosure failures are a particularly legitimate basis for brand demand letters. When an influencer fails to disclose a material connection with the brand, makes claims that are not substantiated, or otherwise creates regulatory exposure, the brand faces potential enforcement action. The letter should identify the specific violations, reference the FTC Endorsement Guides, and demand corrective action such as adding appropriate disclosures to existing posts, taking down posts that make false claims, or posting corrections.

The letter should explain that FTC violations expose both the brand and the influencer to enforcement, and that the brand’s request for corrective action is about compliance, not about silencing the influencer. Frame it as protecting both parties: “The FTC’s Endorsement Guides require clear and conspicuous disclosure of material connections between brands and endorsers. Your post on [Date] did not include such disclosure despite our agreement requiring it. This creates regulatory risk for both [Brand] and for you personally. We request that you update the post to include proper disclosure by [Date].”

How to Calibrate Brand Letters to Avoid Appearing Bullying

Brands with more resources and legal sophistication must be careful not to use demand letters to bully influencers, particularly smaller creators who may not have access to legal counsel. An overly aggressive letter from a large brand’s law firm to an individual influencer can generate significant negative publicity if the influencer shares it publicly, and can make the brand look like it is trying to silence criticism or avoid paying legitimate debts.

The letter should be proportionate to the actual dispute. If the issue is a missed deadline that can be cured, say that. If the content was below expectations but still usable, consider whether the relationship is worth preserving through negotiation rather than threats. If the influencer is posting competitor content in violation of exclusivity, explain specifically what content is problematic rather than issuing a blanket threat.

Avoid making demands that go beyond what the contract supports. If the agreement provided for withholding payment upon material breach, explain how the influencer’s conduct constitutes material breach and how much the brand is withholding. If the agreement did not address the specific issue that arose, acknowledge that and propose a reasonable resolution rather than demanding compliance with obligations that do not exist.

Tone matters significantly in brand-to-influencer letters. A letter that begins “It has come to our attention that you have engaged in multiple violations of your agreement with our client” sets an unnecessarily hostile tone. A letter that begins “We are writing regarding some concerns about the recent influencer campaign we collaborated on” is more likely to result in productive discussion.

Addressing UGC Misuse Through Demand Letters

UGC creators who discover their content being used by brands without permission face a different strategic landscape than professional influencers. The relationship is not contractual, the creator may not be sophisticated about their rights, and the brand may have assumed that public posting equals permission for use.

When a UGC creator discovers that a brand is using their content in paid ads, on websites, or in other commercial contexts without permission, a demand letter can be effective for several reasons. The brand may genuinely not have understood that they needed permission, they may have obtained permission from someone who did not actually have authority to grant it, or they may have been advised by a marketing agency that hashtag use meant the content was fair game. A letter that educates them about their error and offers a reasonable resolution can often settle matters quickly.

The letter should identify the specific content, provide proof of your ownership, and explain how the brand is using it without permission. “I am the creator and copyright owner of the photograph posted to Instagram on [Date] showing [Description], attached as Exhibit A. This photo has been used without my permission in the following ways: [List specific uses with URLs, screenshots, dates]. I did not grant [Brand] permission to use this content, and the brand has not obtained a license from me.”

If there was a hashtag or contest, address it directly. “While I used your branded hashtag #[Hashtag] when posting this content, I did not see or agree to any terms of use granting you a license. Even if such terms existed, they would not authorize use of my content in paid advertising campaigns, which is a commercial use requiring explicit consent and compensation.”

Demand removal and either compensation or a retroactive license. “I demand that you immediately remove my photograph from your website, terminate all advertising campaigns using it, and confirm in writing that you will not use it in the future. I am willing to discuss a licensing arrangement for past and future use. My licensing fee for commercial use in paid advertising is $[amount] per platform per month of use. Based on your use from [Date] to present across [platforms], the total retroactive licensing fee would be $[amount].”

Provide alternatives that allow for an affordable resolution. Many UGC creators do not actually mind brands using their content, but they want to be asked and they want acknowledgment. “Alternatively, if you cease all use immediately and provide written confirmation, I will waive any claim for past use. If you wish to use the content in the future, please contact me to discuss licensing terms.”

The availability of DMCA takedowns and CCB claims makes UGC demand letters more credible than they might otherwise be. A creator can send DMCA notices to platforms hosting the infringing content and can threaten CCB claims for statutory damages. The letter should reference these options: “If this matter is not resolved by [Date], I will send DMCA takedown notices to your web host and social media platforms, and I will consider filing a claim with the Copyright Claims Board seeking statutory damages.”

Frequently Asked Questions

Do Instagram DMs constitute a valid contract for influencer collaborations?

Yes, an agreement made through direct messages can be a valid and enforceable contract. Contracts do not need to be formal written documents signed with ink. If the DMs show that both parties agreed to essential terms—what content will be created, when it will be posted, what the payment will be, and what usage rights the brand receives—that constitutes a binding agreement.

The challenge with DM-based agreements is proving exactly what was agreed when disputes arise. Screenshots can be edited, and memories differ about what was discussed. This is why demand letters in DM-based disputes must include complete exports or screenshots of the entire conversation and should address any ambiguities in the original messages by explaining how the parties actually performed under the agreement.

For future protection, influencers and brands should follow up DM conversations with confirmation emails or use contract management platforms that create clearer documentation. But the lack of formal paperwork does not mean there is no contract. If you agreed to terms through DMs and performed your obligations, you have the right to enforce the agreement.

Can a brand use my content if I tagged them or used their hashtag?

Not automatically. Tagging a brand or using their hashtag on your post does not transfer copyright ownership or grant the brand a broad commercial license. The platform’s terms of service grant the platform itself rights to host and display your content, but those rights do not extend to brands that want to repurpose your content for their own marketing.

Some brands create hashtag terms and conditions that attempt to grant licenses when users post with their hashtag. Whether those terms are binding depends on whether they were clearly disclosed before you posted and whether you had a reasonable opportunity to review them. If the brand’s terms are buried in a link that no one would realistically click, courts may find they are not enforceable against users who organically used the hashtag without seeing any terms.

Even when hashtag terms exist and are enforceable, they may grant narrower rights than brands assume. Terms that say “we may repost your content on our social media” do not necessarily authorize paid advertising, use on websites or in print, or indefinite use of your likeness. If a brand wants broad commercial rights, they need explicit language in properly disclosed terms, and there may be questions about whether such terms are valid without additional consideration.

What should I do if a brand used my content but now I cannot find it?

This is common because brands often remove content when they receive complaints. Document everything you saw before it was removed: take screenshots, note URLs, check whether the content appeared in Meta’s Ad Library (which maintains historical records of ads even after they stop running), and save any communications from friends or followers who saw the content.

For ads, the Meta Ad Library is particularly useful because it shows all ads a page has run, including inactive ads, with date ranges and sometimes geographic targeting information. Google also has an ads transparency center that may show historical ad campaigns. These public databases can provide proof of use even after the brand removes the content from visible locations.

The fact that content was removed does not mean your claim is moot. You are entitled to damages for the period the content was used without authorization. The removal may actually strengthen your negotiating position because it suggests the brand knew they did not have rights and removed the content when confronted rather than asserting they had permission.

Can a brand refuse to pay me because they say the engagement was too low?

Whether a brand can refuse payment based on engagement depends entirely on what the agreement said. If the agreement specified minimum engagement metrics (such as “must achieve at least X impressions or Y engagement rate”) and your posts fell short of those minimums, the brand may have grounds to withhold payment or demand additional posts at no charge.

More commonly, influencer agreements specify deliverables (number of posts, platforms, timing) but do not guarantee engagement results. In such cases, the brand has agreed to pay for your creation and posting of content, not for particular results. If you created the required content, posted it on schedule, and left it up for the required period, you have fulfilled your obligations and are entitled to payment regardless of how the posts performed.

Some agreements include performance bonuses tied to engagement or sales. If your agreement included a base fee plus performance bonuses, the brand must pay the base fee even if the bonuses were not earned. The brand cannot refuse to pay the base fee because performance was disappointing.

How do I handle a situation where I agreed to terms I now realize were unfavorable?

Unfortunately, contracts are generally enforceable even when you later realize the terms were not good. If you agreed to create content for $500 and later learned that other influencers charge $5,000 for similar work, you are still bound by the $500 agreement. If you agreed to grant usage rights for one year and now want to revoke those rights after six months, you generally cannot do so unilaterally.

There are limited circumstances where contracts can be challenged or modified. If you were a minor when you entered the agreement, the contract may be voidable. If the brand misrepresented material facts (such as telling you the content would be used only on Instagram when they always planned to use it in a national TV campaign), you may have fraud or misrepresentation claims. If the contract terms are so one-sided that they are unconscionable, some courts will refuse to enforce them, though this is rare and difficult to prove.

The more realistic approach is to negotiate modifications. If the relationship is ongoing and the brand wants to continue working with you, you may be able to renegotiate terms for future campaigns while acknowledging that the current campaign proceeds under the original terms. You can also learn from the experience and ensure that future contracts include protections you lacked in this one.

Should I send a demand letter myself or hire a lawyer?

For straightforward payment disputes with clear documentation, influencers sometimes send demand letters themselves and succeed in getting paid. A letter from the influencer explaining that work was performed, payment is overdue, and you intend to pursue legal remedies if not paid by a specific date can be effective, particularly when the brand’s non-payment was an oversight rather than a deliberate strategy.

Attorney letters carry more weight because they signal that you have consulted counsel and are prepared to litigate if necessary. They also benefit from attorney-client privilege and are less likely to contain statements that could hurt your position later. For disputes involving copyright infringement, complex usage rights, or significant dollar amounts, having an attorney draft and send the letter is generally worth the cost.

The middle ground is to have an attorney review a draft letter before you send it. This gives you the benefit of legal advice about strategy and wording while keeping costs lower than having the attorney draft and send the letter on their own letterhead. The risk is that a letter from you personally may be taken less seriously than one from counsel, but that risk must be balanced against the cost of legal representation.