Typically, such a clause is included in endorsement or campaign contracts. For example, a company like Pepsi may require that a model featured in its campaign does not collaborate with a direct competitor such as Coca-Cola for a defined period, often several months. This prevents conflicting brand associations and protects the credibility and consistency of the marketing message.

From a legal perspective, an exclusivity clause is generally permissible as a contractual obligation, but it is subject to limitations. In particular, it must not be disproportionate. Key factors include the duration of the restriction, its scope and sometimes its geographic reach. If the clause is too broad or restrictive, it may be considered invalid or an unreasonable limitation on professional freedom.

In practice, such restrictions are usually compensated through higher remuneration. Since the model or influencer is giving up potential income opportunities from other brands, especially competitors, the fee for the collaboration is typically significantly increased. The stricter and longer the exclusivity, the higher the compensation tends to be.

Overall, exclusivity clauses are a central tool in advertising contracts, balancing brand protection with fair compensation and the professional freedom of the individual.