A recent Campaign Asia investigation uncovered how global brands, including Aveeno, Glad2Glow and L’Oréal, have sidestepped dozens of regulatory guardrails in a single session in the scramble for social commerce revenue.
The format makes this hard to police. Livestreaming is built on immediacy and persuasion and hosts blend entertainment and sales in real time. Claims are made conversationally, exaggerated in response to audience interaction, and gone before anyone can intervene.
The stakes are not small. Livestream commerce across APAC generated around $900 billion in revenue in 2024, driven largely by China's $800 billion market. Platforms such as Douyin, Taobao Live, Pinduoduo and Kuaishou have turned the format into a core sales channel.
But scale has outpaced governance. When a product claim crosses a regulatory line mid-stream, the question of who is actually on the hook is critical. Is it the brand that owns the product and profits from the sale? The agency that built the campaign and briefed the host? Or the influencer who made the claim without a script, a compliance check, or a second thought?
Campaign Asia asked the industry.
Christine Tan
APAC commerce lead, Publicis Media
Singapore
While compliance is shared, the “single throat to choke” almost always lands with the brand, making clear roles, governance, and operating models critical for scaling live commerce responsibly.
Live commerce spans brand messaging, creator-led content, and platform environments, so compliance can’t sit with one party alone. Everyone plays a role, but the brand owns the outcome.
Brand compliance covers product claims, regulatory requirements, and in-market representation, including tone and voice. Brands must define what is and isn’t allowed and onboard agencies and hosts accordingly.
Content compliance typically sits with agencies, which must ensure scripts, run-of-show, and creator behaviour align with brand guidelines, including real-time moderation and contingency plans.
UGC and brand safety largely sit with platforms, covering issues like hate speech, profanity, or inappropriate comments.
SiewTing Foo
Former CMO, HP and currently board member, The Marketing Society
Singapore
The uncomfortable truth is that no one wants to own the compliance risk. Brands point to platforms. Platforms hide behind “creator autonomy.” Agencies shrug and say they’re just facilitators. Meanwhile, creators — now cultural institutions in their own right — can make unverified claims, blur disclosure lines, or push questionable products to millions with zero friction.
Shared accountability is becoming a myth. Joint liability is coming, and brands will be held responsible for every claim made in their name. And the real winners will be the ones who treat creators as part of their ecosystem and community, not as transactional mouthpieces. They’ll recruit creators who share their values, not just their reach, and build trust that moves as fast as the culture they’re trying to monetise.
We all know that now both GenZ and Gen Alpha can smell ‘inauthenticity’ upfront, isn’t it? So, the creators who want to ensure that their longevity continues, they also need to ensure that ‘authenticity’ is in their own brand playbook.
Ben Lee
General manager, Mongoose Asia & content creator (@Mydadera)
Singapore
Having run livestreams myself as a creator, the biggest gap is between what’s planned and what actually unfolds. What looks tightly controlled in a run-of-show can become fluid within minutes, especially when product claims, audience questions, or unscripted moments come into play.
This is where many brands underestimate the risk. Due diligence is often treated as a pre-stream exercise: approvals, guidelines, disclaimers, but the real exposure sits in live execution. And that’s the part that’s hardest to control. Agencies are increasingly expected to mitigate these risks, but without always having full authority over talent, messaging, or platform dynamics. That creates a mismatch between responsibility and control.
As the channel continues to scale, clearer alignment is needed upfront, not just on messaging, but on who is accountable when things go wrong. Without that, responsibility will continue to shift depending on the situation, rather than being clearly defined from the start.
Annie Yuan
Head of social strategy, TBWA Singapore
Singapore
It’s important to remember that live streaming is just another media channel at the end of the day. As a brand, when you decide to extend yourself into any paid or earned medium, whether that’s a billboard or a social media creator, you’re accepting the reputational risk. At the end of the day, compliance accountability should be a shared responsibility that requires close collaboration between brands, agencies, platforms and creators to build consumer trust at scale.
Live streaming was built on a high-risk, high-reward model. Its main selling point is that it collapses the funnel, forcing impulsive purchase decisions — but also inviting more room for blunders. While enforcing compliance won’t necessarily undermine the integrity of the medium (just look at how Meta and TikTok have scaled and legitimised the creator economy), governance mustn’t come at the expense of the speed and spontaneity that make it such a valuable marketing tool. Rules and regulations must uplift creator personalities in the foreground while building the infrastructure to protect brands in the background.
Jocelyn Tse
Independent strategist and former chief strategy officer, UM Worldwide
China
When a brand used to run a 30-second spot, it was responsible for the claims, regardless of broadcaster or agency. The same principle should apply in live commerce.
Platforms may control infrastructure and real-time gatekeeping, and agencies manage creators and execution, but the brand remains the regulated entity and primary beneficiary of the sale. What’s changed is velocity: claims are improvised, transactions are instant, and risks are amplified. Compliance must therefore be embedded upstream — through tighter scripts, training and live guardrails — not outsourced downstream. New channel, same accountability, higher stakes.
Nirote Chaweewannakorn
VP, agency business, Gushcloud International
Thailand
Platforms like TikTok or Shopee use AI to catch the "scary stuff" (like violence), but they aren't great at catching someone over-claiming a face cream’s benefits. That’s why we see compliance as a 50/50 split between the brand and the agency. The brand approves the message, but it’s the agency’s job to provide guidance (or what can be done), build the framework, and keep the session on track. We are more like gatekeepers. Anything not approved by the client shouldn't be in the stream.
I think it's not about agencies quietly hiding from liability; it’s just the nature of the business. Just as brands have always used contracts to protect themselves, agencies are getting more experienced and cautious with live-streaming. As we learn what can go wrong, we naturally add rules to protect everyone’s interests. It’s not about pointing fingers; it's about having a clear picture of professional responsibilities.
But the problem isn't the rules, it’s the enforcement. When over 100,000 people go live in a day, a platform can’t pre-screen everything without killing the vibe (and the business). I think the push needs to come from regulators to set a universal framework. Since platforms won't restrict growth by over-policing, a government-backed standard keeps the playing field level for every brand, agency and platform involved.
Akinori Kubo
MD, Global E-Commerce, AnyMind Group
Japan
This needs to be built into the operating model across the ecosystem. As live commerce scales beyond a performance-led mindset focused on GMV and conversion, brands are recognising the need for greater rigour, with continuous feedback on what works and what doesn’t.
Responsible growth means embedding governance across planning, execution, and measurement, including script vetting, host training (human and AI), live supervision, platform guidelines, real-time analytics, and post-live reviews to ensure compliance.
Jeremy Webb
Vice president and head of Social@Ogilvy, Ogilvy Asia Pacific
Singapore
Compliance accountability typically sits with the brand, within governance shared by platforms and partners.
For some brands, particularly those with more conservative global policies, governance standards can be quite stringent, in certain cases limiting (or even prohibiting) the use of livestreaming entirely. This can hobble the efforts of global brands operating in fast-moving Asian markets, where more agile players, with fewer compliance restrictions, can eat into their market share..
As a workaround, some brands are exploring alternative approaches, such as collaborating with creators who livestream on their own channels or operating through brand or shop accounts managed by distribution partners.
Strong governance plays an important role in protecting brand integrity, particularly in fast-moving livestream environments where execution can vary significantly, and livestreamers and the teams behind them play more loosely with the brands they’re promoting. What’s happening in livestream, therefore, in some countries does indeed create brand risk.
At the same time, a heavier governance approach can limit agility for global brands, especially compared with more agile local players. This dynamic creates challenges in highly competitive markets, where local players are taking share from larger brands on platforms such as TikTok.
Brands need to allow livestreaming, but with clear guidelines for their agencies, creators and distributors. The goal is to drive sales overnight, and build (or at least not damage) the brand over time.
Ria Parikh
Founder & creative director, Typhoon 10
Hong Kong
In live commerce, operational responsibility is shared, but legal liability is a boomerang that always returns to the brand. Regulators like the FTC (US) and ASA (UK) increasingly apply a simple logic: because the brand owns the product and the profit, they own the risk. Even if an influencer goes "off-script," the brand is responsible for failing to monitor and correct those claims in real-time.
Historically, platforms like TikTok acted as neutral intermediaries. However, under the 2026 EU Digital Services Act and China’s SAMR regulations, platforms are now "gatekeepers."
As of March 2026, platforms in China must now verify the credibility of hosts, for instance, requiring medical or financial certifications before a creator can sell supplements or insurance.
The real issue for brands is internal. Performance teams chase ROI, while Legal teams manage risk and the two rarely operate in sync.
Leading brands, particularly in the UK retail sector, are mitigating risk by using platform tools to pin an AD label that remains visible to every viewer regardless of when they join the stream. Additionally, they are deploying brand safety monitors in the live chat to instantly retract or clarify exaggerated claims made by the host in the moment.
Jetaime Thoo
Business director, VaynerMedia APAC
Singapore
Every partner plays a role, but accountability ultimately sits with the brand. Compliance must be built into the operating model through clear guidelines, aligned partners, and real-time oversight.
Performance still dominates, but compliance is catching up as the space matures and risks become more visible. Winning brands will build systems where performance and compliance co-exist, balancing speed, creativity, and control.
Chris Baker
Founder, Totem Media
China
Trust with customers should be the number one goal for self-imposed accountability. There’s no point in scoring a win with a live sale but leaving your customers disappointed or feeling duped. Brands should take on this responsibility - it’s their customers and goodwill at stake.
And, in the medium term, if the industry does not impose some rules/accountability, then the government is more likely to become involved, with more stringent rules. In terms of the live commerce practice at large, the platforms need to impose rules that protect the practice from more rigid outcomes.
Dominic Powers
CEO, APAC & LATAM, director, Stickler
Thailand
Compliance ultimately sits with the brand, as it represents the brand’s products and claims. However, live commerce operates in a fast-evolving regulatory environment.
In reality, it’s an ecosystem: platforms set and enforce rules, agencies shape strategy and execution, and TSPs manage operations. Risk emerges in the gaps, especially in unscripted, real-time environments.
While accountability rests with the brand, effective compliance depends on shared responsibility, clear guardrails, disciplined execution, and embedding compliance into the operating model.
Bianca Loo
GM, Social Commerce, SEA, OnPoint Vietnam (e-commerce solution partner)
The brand is the principal source for product guidelines, guarantees, and claims. The agency has operational responsibility, ensuring the right script, host selection, real-time moderation, and platform compliance. Platforms are custodians of the experience, ensuring quality content exposure. All three share responsibility for compliant livestream content.
Ligi Chang
Digital director, UM Australia
In APAC, rapid growth has outpaced governance, with compliance often treated as an afterthought. That works until the cost of failure becomes too great. Compliance sits with everyone, but is owned by no one unless clearly defined, which creates risk. Platforms set the environment, agencies and creators execute, but when issues arise, the brand bears the consequences. Misaligned incentives across platforms, agencies, and brands often dilute compliance unless brands take a proactive lead.
