Australia’s affiliate industry has raised concerns over what it sees as a two-tiered system: one rule for individual publishers and creators, and another for the big tech platforms that dominate digital ad revenue.
In a piece published by Mumbrella last week, affiliate professionals and media buyers questioned why Google and Meta aren’t held to the same transparency and compliance standards as independent affiliates – even though they profit heavily from affiliate-driven content and commercial intent.
At the heart of the issue is a long-standing frustration: while smaller publishers are expected to clearly disclose affiliate links, follow strict rules around sponsored content, and comply with evolving privacy legislation, platforms like YouTube and Instagram often blur the lines with algorithmically boosted shopping content that’s harder to police.
And now, with the Australian government reviewing digital advertising regulations, affiliate marketers are asking: why aren’t Google and Meta under the same microscope?
If you’re an affiliate running content in finance, health, or e-commerce, you’re expected to follow a long list of rules: disclaimers, attribution, consent, and transparency around partnerships. These apply whether you’re writing a blog post, sending an email, or uploading a video.
But critics argue that Google’s search results and YouTube recommendations regularly amplify commercial content without equivalent transparency. Same goes for Instagram’s product tagging — where paid placements and organic affiliate deals often blend together with little oversight.
It’s not just a question of fairness. It’s about trust and consistency.
When one side of the market is forced to declare every incentive and the other isn’t, the playing field tilts — and audiences may be misled.
While this debate has been brewing for years, it’s gaining traction now for two reasons:
That could bring in requirements for clearer labelling of ads and sponsored content on social and search platforms — including affiliate-driven material.
If Google or Meta is promoting content with affiliate intent, the argument is that they should be just as accountable as the people who made it.
Right now, affiliates are often at the mercy of platform policies they don’t control. A Google update can tank rankings overnight. A Meta ban can freeze an ad account. Yet those same platforms run their own shopping features, auto-inserted affiliate links, and partner programs — all with limited scrutiny.
If regulation forces platforms to be more transparent, that could level the field. Affiliates who have built strong compliance habits would no longer be at a disadvantage.
There’s also a reputational angle. The more platforms clean up their own behaviour, the less likely the entire affiliate space is to be painted with the “spammy” brush.
There’s no sign that Google or Meta will face immediate penalties or sweeping rules in Australia — yet. But the tone has shifted. The ACCC has been critical of how digital advertising is bought, sold, and disclosed. And with other countries leading the way, local pressure will only grow.
If the platforms are forced to declare their own affiliate revenue streams, implement clearer disclaimers, or offer users more ad transparency tools, it could force changes across the board.
At the very least, it’s a reminder that compliance isn’t just for affiliates anymore. The spotlight is widening – and the industry may be better for it.