After nearly two years, Taylor Swift’s wildly popular Eras Tour wrapped up last weekend in Vancouver. Though Taylor and her team may be ready for a well-deserved break after over 150 electrifying performances, the end of this cultural phenomenon is surely sad news to fans, and to anyone in the glitter, sequin or bead industries—all of which reportedly saw sales skyrocket during the tour (IYKYK).

But the tour’s finale also marks the end of an era (pun intended) of unmatched ambush marketing.

Ambush marketing is defined by Cambridge Dictionary as “a situation in which a company tries to advertise its products in connection with a big public event, without paying any money, although they are not the official sponsor”. When executed well, it can provide a Dazzling opportunity for marketers to capture consumer attention and goodwill. When misused, however, it can quickly become an Illicit Affair, resulting in legal disputes and forcing advertisers to retract material.

Though ambush marketing is often associated with the sports world—as brands seek to capitalize on high-profile events like the Super Bowl or the Olympics—it is also used in other industries. The Eras Tour offered an intriguing case study of how brands in sectors including transport, food and beverages and cannabis products sought to tap into the tour’s cultural influence.

In this article, we examine how some brands navigated the fine line of ambush marketing. As we discuss below, some brands opted for a cautious approach, while others took riskier strategies—strategies that can sometimes lead to Bad Blood with the very icon they want to associate with.

Long Story Short: What are the risks in ambush marketing?

Ambush marketing presents a range of legal risks, particularly regarding the unauthorized use of names, phrases, trademarks or other intellectual property (IP) belonging to someone else. As a general rule, the use of someone else’s IP will automatically carry a degree of risk.

As we have previously discussed, Swift is a Mastermind when it comes to leveraging trademarks to protect her brand. In Canada, she has registered her name, various album and song titles, and even fan-related terms such as “swiftie” and “swiftmas.” Her portfolio of registered marks in the United States is even larger, extending even to more unlikely terms such as the names of her three cars. Unauthorized use of any of Swift’s trademarks can constitute a violation of her IP rights, potentially subjecting the infringing party to potential legal consequences.

Beyond IP risks, ambush marketing can also lead to claims of misleading advertising. If an advertiser implies an association with Taylor Swift when no such connection exists, this could be deemed false or misleading. Under both the federal Competition Act and various provincial consumer protection laws, such practices are prohibited and can result in significant legal consequences.

Moreover, ambush marketing can leave an advertiser Down Bad with more than just the party whose IP they have violated or with whom they have falsely implied an association. Official event sponsors, who often pay substantial amounts for exclusive rights, are another group likely to be dissatisfied with such tactics. Sponsors may rely on their exclusivity to justify their investment, and ambush marketing can undermine the value of that exclusivity.

Some brands aimed to stay In the Clear …

Several marketers found clever ways to tap into the Eras Tour excitement without crossing legal lines, subtly finding ways to reference the pop star or the event without expressly naming either.

For example, one major airline ran billboards in at least one concert city, featuring three airplanes with smoke trails reading “front row” (behind the first plane) “nosebleeds” (behind the second plane) and “listening outside the arena” (behind the last plane).

While this ad would have lacked context outside of the Eras Tour (where fans were known to gather outside open-air stadiums to listen to the show), the timing and location made the reference clear without using any official IP or explicitly mentioning the tour.

Similarly, the public transit authority in one host city ran ads urging concertgoers to use its services to “get to the big show.” Though slightly less subtle, this still avoided direct references while leveraging the event’s cultural significance.

A popular rideshare service opted for a visual approach. On the map in its mobile application, it adorned the vehicle images with friendship bracelets, a symbol closely associated with the Eras Tour. This subtle nod captured the tour's essence without direct mention.

… while others took slightly less Delicate approaches

Some advertisers took a more overt approach, directly referencing Swift or individuals culturally linked to her, such as her boyfriend, American football player Travis Kelce. The latter references may have carried less risk than invoking Swift directly, as there are no known legal ties between Kelce and Swift’s IP.

For instance, when Kelce joined Swift during the Australian leg of the tour, Pepsi ran billboards reading "Welcome to Australia, Taylor’s football-playing Pepsi-loving boyfriend.” While the ad didn’t mention Kelce by name, the context and timing made the reference unmistakable.

However, this strategy carries risk. By implying that Kelce is a Pepsi fan, the brand could face legal challenges if it cannot substantiate this claim, particularly if Kelce were bound by an exclusive contract with a competitor. Although there’s no indication of this being the case here, this situation highlights the potential risks of making unverified statements about public figures, especially when these imply some form of endorsement.

Meanwhile, Australian beer brand Tooheys took a more cautious approach, running billboards that simply stated: "Welcome Trav, just in time for the real footy to start," capitalizing on the overlap between the tour and the start of Australia’s football season. By referring to Kelce only as "Trav" and avoiding any direct product associations, Tooheys took advantage of the cultural moment while seemingly taking steps to mitigate risk.

Closer to home, many advertisers leveraged Swift’s song titles, lyrics or iconic expressions in their marketing.

Other examples include playful meal delivery ads reading “Look what you made me stew” and “Korma is my boyfriend,” clever twists on Swift’s well-known lyrics “Look what you made me do” and “Karma is my boyfriend.” Many restaurants and bars created themed menu items, such as “Champagne Problems” cocktails, “Lavender Haze” lattes and “Red” velvet cookies.

Legally, these wordplay references carry more risk than indirect nods to Swift, but are generally safer than using her name, unaltered song titles, or lyrics directly. Without permission, such uses could result in IP violations or claims of misleading advertising, especially if the brand implies an endorsement.

… and a few were rather Fearless

While most Eras-related ambush marketing observed falls into relatively low-risk territory, a few advertisers took more significant risks.

For example, a dispensary in one host city—in which such establishments and the products they sell are permitted—chose to install a sign outside its door which stated, “Taylor smokes [one of their products]”. Presuming the claim was unverified and lacked Swift's consent, so such a statement poses significant legal risks.

Similar to the Pepsi case above, the advertiser made a potentially false statement about Swift’s preferences, which it is unable to substantiate. But unlike a soft drink, the product at issue here adds a layer of controversy and legality issues. Swift could easily take issue with the statement, both for its lack of truth and for how it may misrepresent her image. Given the product’s legal status in other jurisdictions, this scenario presents a much higher risk of legal action or a demand for the ad’s removal.

This example highlights the heightened legal risk when a brand’s claim about a third party not only lacks verification, but also casts them in an unflattering light or in a way that does not align with the image they attempt to project. False endorsements, especially those that disparage a person or misrepresent their preferences, are a high-risk tactic that carry a significant risk of legal repercussions.

In other words, though any false claim or insinuation of an association that does not exist is prohibited, practical risk increases significantly when the statement at issue disparages the person to whom it pertains, or otherwise portrays them in a light in which they do not want to be portrayed.

End Game: Takeaways and final thoughts

As evidenced by the above, ambush marketing requires brands to strike a balance between creativity and legal risk.

As the Eras Tour comes to a close, it’s clear that while many advertisers have managed to do this All Too Well, with subtle nods to Taylor Swift’s cultural influence, others have pushed the envelope, taking risks that could lead to serious consequences. Whether using clever wordplay or referencing cultural icons one step removed from the person at issue, the key to successful ambush marketing lies in balance—no brand wants to establish a Reputation for misusing intellectual property or making unverified claims.

Ultimately, it’s important for advertisers to remember that while the thrill of engaging with a cultural phenomenon like the Eras Tour or other major events might be tempting, going too far can be a Dangerous Game when it comes to the legal implications of their actions. For marketers, the trick is knowing where to draw the line between clever marketing and costly missteps.

Should you have questions about ambush marketing or wish to discuss whether your strategies are compliant, feel free to contact a member of our Advertising & Product Regulatory Group.