I think that as long as she wasn't paid in cash, and the total estimated cash value of the freebies was below a certain amount, she'd be fine doing this "work" on a tourist visa. As for ad declarations, etc. I suspect the UK and Europe have much tighter regulations on influencers than the US does. I know even traditional media over here can play fast and loose with some of that stuff, so I'm sure it's the Wild West when it comes to influencer media. When I worked in magazine publishing, our advertisers expected editorial integrations that were not marked as advertisements. The editors had a right to refuse these requests if the advertiser's product or service was way off-brand or couldn't be worked into editorial content relatively seamlessly, but that didn't happen very often.
Of course, Ruby's business is based in the UK, so she's supposed to play by those rules. But at what point can an influencer just claim something is "editorial" content that she is creating because she believes it to be of interest to her audience, and not an advertisement for which she was compensated in some way? Again going back to the magazine comparison, editors have always been showered with free stuff, free meals, free trips. An editor for something like Conde Nast Traveler will almost certainly receive free accommodations wherever she stays, unless she's deliberately traveling incognito. If she stays for free at a resort and then writes an article about it, she doesn't have to disclose that her trip was free, and the article is not considered advertising.
It would be no different if an editor reaches out to a property first to explain why she wants to visit. In August, the New York Times ran an article on the re-opening of the Emily Dickinson Museum. I'm sure the editor (or freelance writer) of that piece received a free tour and VIP treatment, and probably also free accommodations at a local property. The NYT most likely also leveraged the article to try and sell ads. All the same, the article itself is not considered advertising. So in a sense, all influencers can call themselves "editors" whenever they like, and I think that may be how a lot of them get around having to declare when they receive things for free. What complicates Ruby's situation here is her claim that she was "working" with the museum on a social media campaign, but I suspect that's a lot of puffery on Ruby's part.
I was also watching the Paris vlog again and I don't know how she has the confidence to film without having brushed her hair first.
