Digital Gurus or Unlicensed Advisers? A Legal Inquiry into Finfluencer Culture

Abstract

The rise of financial influencers or “finfluencers” on social media has transformed how investment information is consumed and disseminated, especially among retail investors. While these digital creators have contributed to financial awareness, they also blur the legal boundaries between general education, paid promotions, and unregistered investment advice. This paper critically examines the legal and regulatory framework governing such activities in India, focusing on the SEBI Act, 1992 and the SEBI (Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013. It explores the definitional scope of “investment advice,” the liabilities of unregistered advisers, and the gaps exposed by social media’s rapid evolution. Drawing comparisons with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approach and analyzing landmark enforcement actions, such as SEBI’s action against PR Sundar, the paper highlights the challenges of regulating finfluencers across jurisdictions. It concludes by proposing a balanced framework that emphasizes stronger disclosure norms, mandatory registration for high-reach advisers, digital literacy initiatives, and collaborative platform-level governance—aimed at safeguarding investors without stifling free speech or innovation in the digital financial ecosystem.

Introduction

The convergence of finance and digital media has created a new category of opinion leaders known as financial influencers or finfluencers. These individuals, who may or may not possess formal qualifications in finance, have leveraged platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter (X) to offer investment insights, stock tips, mutual fund reviews, and personal finance content to the masses. Their growing influence stems from their informal, relatable tone and their ability to simplify complex financial concepts, attracting particularly the millennial and Gen Z investor base.

In India, the rise of finfluencers coincides with the post-pandemic surge in retail investing. According to the National Stock Exchange (NSE), the number of active retail investors increased by over 150% between 2020 and 2022, driven in part by increased access to online trading platforms and the influence of financial content on social media.[1] Finfluencers have played a key role in this transformation, democratizing financial literacy but also introducing risks of misinformation and market volatility.

While some finfluencers operate with integrity and educational intent, others tread into legally grey territory by providing investment recommendations without registering as Investment Advisers (IAs) under the SEBI (Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013. The SEBI Act, 1992, empowers the regulator to act against unregistered entities offering investment advice, yet the enforcement has been challenging in the context of decentralized and often anonymous digital creators.[2]

A pertinent example is Ravindra Balu Bharti, Nasiruddin Ansari and 9 other influencers banned by SEBI in 2024 for giving misleading stock investment tips.[3] Similarly, SEBI issued advisories warning investors about “Telegram pump-and-dump groups”, where operators hyped penny stocks for personal gain.[4] These cases illustrate the regulatory blind spots in the current legal framework.

Academic literature has started to engage with this new phenomenon. Wojcik (2021) emphasizes the regulatory uncertainty surrounding online financial content and calls for a reconceptualization of “financial advice” in the digital age.[5] Scholars also highlight how finfluencer culture exploits emotional persuasion and social proof, influencing herd behavior in markets without corresponding legal accountability.[6]

This research examines the grey area in which Indian finfluencers operate: between financial education and unregulated investment advice. It explores the adequacy of current SEBI regulations, draws comparisons with global regulatory practices (such as the U.S. SEC’s social media disclosure rules), and proposes targeted legal reforms. Ultimately, it argues for a nuanced regulatory approach—one that promotes digital financial literacy while ensuring transparency, accountability, and investor protection in the social media age.

Legal and Regulatory Framework Governing Financial Advice by Finfluencers

1. Investment Advice under Indian Law

The regulation of investment advisory services in India is primarily governed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (“SEBI Act”) and the SEBI (Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013. Section 12(1) of the SEBI Act mandates that “no person shall act as an investment adviser unless he obtains a certificate of registration from the Board.”[7]

The 2013 Regulations define investment advice under Regulation 2(1)(l) as:

“Advice relating to investing in, purchasing, selling or otherwise dealing in securities or investment products… provided to a client or group of clients and includes financial planning.”[8]

Crucially, this definition covers both direct recommendations (e.g., “buy this stock”) and indirect suggestions tied to specific securities. However, general comments, educational content, or broad economic insights are not treated as regulated advice unless they cross into personalized or promotional territory.

Regulation 3 prohibits any individual or entity from providing such advice unless registered with SEBI. The implication for finfluencers is significant: if their content qualifies as investment advice, they are legally required to register as Investment Advisers (IAs).

2. Legal Liability for Unregistered Finfluencers

If an unregistered finfluencer offers investment advice, SEBI has the authority to initiate proceedings under Sections 11B and 11D of the SEBI Act, which empower it to issue directions, impose penalties, or prohibit further activity.[9]

For instance, in SEBI explicitly warned the public against relying on investment advice from unregistered influencers. It highlighted that many of these individuals partner with unregulated entities and push specific financial products in violation of existing laws.

3. International Comparison – The U.S. SEC Framework

The U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, specifically Section 15(a), mandates that any person “engaged in the business of effecting transactions in securities for the account of others” must register as a broker or investment adviser.[10] This broadly applies to individuals—including those online—who give investment advice for compensation, even indirectly.

The SEC’s Investor Alert (2021) warned investors about scams and misleading financial promotion via social media, noting that some influencers receive undisclosed compensation to push securities.[11] The landmark SEC v. John McAfee case (2020) involved the late tech entrepreneur promoting ICOs without disclosing payments, resulting in charges of fraudulent promotion and failure to register.[12] This demonstrates how non-disclosure of conflicts of interest is a key liability trigger under the U.S. framework.

4. Regulatory Challenges in the Digital Era

Both Indian and U.S. regulators face structural limitations in addressing finfluencer activity:

• Anonymity and Cross-Jurisdictionality: Many finfluencers operate anonymously or from foreign jurisdictions, making legal enforcement difficult.
• Blurring of Lines: Differentiating between “general information” and “investment advice” is often subjective and context-dependent.
• Lack of Disclosures: Many finfluencers fail to disclose conflicts of interest or paid promotions, misleading unsophisticated investors.

While SEBI has begun cracking down on such behavior, enforcement remains reactive, limited to high-profile cases. There is no dedicated framework for digital financial influencers, which causes interpretive uncertainty and inconsistent application of the law.

5. Assessment of Legal Provisions and the Way Forward

The SEBI regulations are theoretically sound, but were not designed for the influencer economy. The internet’s pace and scale overwhelm traditional registration models. Similarly, while the SEC’s disclosure rules provide better investor clarity, enforcement is limited by platform governance and jurisdictional gaps.

To adapt, regulators may need to:

• Introduce mandatory disclosure norms for paid promotions (as done under Indian advertising laws).
• Require platform-level enforcement, making social media sites liable to monitor or report non-compliant activity.
• Develop a tiered advisory framework that distinguishes professional advisers from content creators, with proportional compliance obligations.

The Grey Area: Navigating Finfluencer Conduct Between Education and Advice

The rise of finfluencers has introduced a regulatory grey zone, where the boundaries between financial education, promotional content, and actual investment advice are often blurred. This ambiguity stems from how content is framed and received—what may appear to be general guidance can, in effect, function as actionable investment recommendations, especially when targeting financially less-literate audiences.

1. Promotional Content vs Actual Investment Advice

Many finfluencers claim they are only providing “educational content” or sharing “personal strategies,” often including disclaimers such as “this is not investment advice.” However, under SEBI (Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013, the substance of communication takes precedence over its label. If the content encourages buying, holding, or selling specific securities, it may still constitute investment advice, regardless of disclaimers.[13]

This issue is exacerbated when finfluencers:

• Recommend individual stocks, IPOs, or crypto assets.
• Post target prices or expected returns.
• Use persuasive phrases like “must buy” or “top picks for this week.”

For instance, in the SEBI action against a group of YouTubers in 2022, content creators were found to be running coordinated campaigns promoting specific penny stocks through misleading videos, causing artificial price inflation.[14]

2. Lack of Accountability and Disclosure

A major concern is the non-disclosure of paid promotions and hidden affiliations with financial product providers. Many influencers receive compensation from trading platforms, fintech apps, or investment firms, yet do not clearly disclose these relationships—thereby violating ethical standards and possibly even advertising laws.

The SEBI emphasizes the problem of finfluencers “associating with unregistered entities and luring investors with unrealistic promises,” often while concealing commercial interests. While the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) has issued influencer guidelines requiring disclosure of sponsored content,[15] these are not binding on financial regulators and lack strong enforcement mechanisms.

In contrast, the U.S. SEC, through cases like SEC v. McAfee, has enforced disclosure rules more strictly. McAfee failed to disclose that he was paid over $23 million to promote cryptocurrencies, violating Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933.[16]

3. Psychological Influence on Retail Investors

Finfluencers often use emotionally charged language, lifestyle imagery, and urgency-driven calls to action, tapping into behavioral finance vulnerabilities of retail investors. Studies show that:

• Social proof (e.g., showing profits, follower counts, testimonials) creates herd behavior.
• FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) and loss aversion can push viewers to act on incomplete or biased information.[17]
• Retail investors, especially first-time entrants, often overestimate the credibility of content creators who appear successful or relatable.

This dynamic raise ethical concerns, as finfluencers may influence investment decisions without bearing fiduciary responsibility or regulatory scrutiny. Unlike registered advisors, they are not held to standards of suitability or best interest.

The grey area surrounding finfluencers underscores the urgent need for regulatory clarity. As digital platforms evolve, mere disclaimers are insufficient. Distinguishing between financial education and advice must rest not only on intent but also on audience perception, content effect, and disclosure of material interests. A balanced regulatory response must protect investor interests without stifling the benefits of accessible financial literacy.

Case Studies

1. SEBI’s Action Against YouTubers in Stock Manipulation Scam (India, 2022)

In December 2022, SEBI cracked down on a network of finfluencers operating YouTube channels with over 6 million subscribers, who were found to have manipulated stock prices through coordinated campaigns. These individuals purchased shares of illiquid companies, promoted them through misleading videos, and then offloaded them at higher prices—commonly referred to as a “pump and dump” scheme.

Channels like The Advisor and Moneywise published flashy thumbnails, fake anchor setups, and positive commentary to suggest insider information or company announcements. SEBI found that these videos influenced a surge in retail investor interest, artificially boosting stock prices.

SEBI’s interim order restrained these finfluencers and the entities involved from the securities market and impounded ₹7.5 crore in illegal profits.[18]

2. The Power of Elon Musk’s Tweets (USA)

While not a typical finfluencer, Elon Musk’s tweets have had immense influence over financial markets, especially cryptocurrency and stock prices. In 2021, Musk tweeted that Tesla would stop accepting Bitcoin due to environmental concerns, causing a $300 billion drop in the crypto market’s valuation. Similarly, his tweets about Dogecoin significantly drove trading volume and volatility.

In SEC v. Musk (2018), the SEC sued him for tweeting about taking Tesla private at $420 a share, alleging the statement was false and misleading. The case resulted in a settlement where Musk paid $20 million and agreed to tweet restrictions on material Tesla-related information.[19]

Though Musk isn’t an “unregistered adviser,” his actions illustrate how unregulated online influence can move markets, raising questions about accountability even for non-traditional actors.

3. Matt Lorion and TikTok Finance Content (USA, 2022)

Matt Lorion, a TikTok creator with over 300,000 followers, was criticized for promoting investments in NFTs and crypto projects without disclosures. While no formal SEC action was taken, financial journalists and regulators cited his case as an example of non-transparent promotion and lack of accountability.

This prompted broader discussion in U.S. regulatory circles about applying Section 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act to influencers who promote assets in exchange for compensation.[20]

4. Instagram Influencer Scam – ‘Bank Nifty Jackpot’ (India, 2021)

A Delhi-based finfluencer operated an Instagram page claiming high returns through Bank Nifty options trading tips. Luring followers with screenshots of supposed profits, the individual charged subscription fees via Telegram and WhatsApp groups.

Following investor complaints, SEBI and Delhi Police jointly investigated and found fabricated screenshots, false profit claims, and no SEBI registration. While the case is still under investigation, it highlights how visual-based manipulation on social media often misleads unsophisticated investors.[21]

5. SEC Enforcement Against YouTubers – ‘Team Atlas Trading’ (USA, 2022)

In December 2022, the SEC charged eight social media influencers on Twitter and Discord (under names like “MrZackMorris” and “PJ Matlock”) for engaging in a $100 million stock manipulation scheme. These individuals bought stocks, promoted them through coordinated Twitter threads, and sold after prices surged due to follower buying.

This was one of the largest actions against finfluencers in the U.S., and the SEC emphasized that social media activity that affects market behavior falls under federal securities law if it constitutes manipulation or fraud.

These case studies demonstrate how finfluencers—whether mainstream or niche—can move markets, mislead investors, and sometimes violate securities law. Regulators across jurisdictions are increasingly taking note, but enforcement remains limited by digital complexity, platform anonymity, and jurisdictional challenges. More proactive frameworks and tech-enabled oversight are needed to address the growing influence of digital financial content.

Regulatory Challenges in the Era of Finfluencers

As finfluencers continue to dominate social media platforms, the regulatory challenges become increasingly complex. The evolving nature of digital finance promotion presents hurdles in monitoring, enforcement, and jurisdictional control, especially in a globalized online environment. Below are key regulatory challenges faced by authorities.

1. Monitoring and Enforcement in the Digital Space

Monitoring and enforcing compliance with securities regulations in the digital space is particularly challenging for regulators like SEBI in India and the SEC in the U.S. due to the vast and constantly changing nature of social media platforms. Here are key obstacles:

• Volume and Scale of Content: Social media platforms host millions of posts daily, making it impossible for regulators to effectively review each piece of financial advice. Unlike traditional financial advisors who are subject to audits and regulatory checks, finfluencers often operate without direct oversight until a violation is flagged. The sheer volume of content and the anonymity of online identities complicate the task of identification and enforcement.
• Dynamic and Evolving Nature of Platforms: Social media platforms like TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram are designed for rapid content creation and viral dissemination, which makes it difficult for regulators to implement real-time monitoring. Influencers may quickly delete content or alter their messaging, evading detection.
• Algorithmic Amplification: Content from finfluencers can reach millions in a short time, thanks to platform algorithms that prioritize content based on engagement rather than regulatory compliance. This amplification makes it easier for misinformation or unverified financial advice to spread, particularly when market-moving topics like stocks or cryptocurrency are discussed. Regulators struggle to keep pace with the speed of virality.
• Understaffing and Resource Limitations: Regulatory bodies often lack the manpower and technological tools necessary to monitor millions of online interactions. Automation and AI-based monitoring systems are still in their infancy, making manual or random audits the primary means of enforcement.

In a landmark move, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) took action against PR Sundar, a prominent YouTuber and options trader, for violating investment adviser regulations. SEBI imposed a penalty and prohibited him from engaging in trading activities for a period of one year, marking the first such case against a finfluencer in India for breaching the norms set for investment advisers.[22]

2. Jurisdictional Issues with Global Content Creators

The borderless nature of the internet creates significant jurisdictional challenges for regulators trying to enforce national laws on global content creators. Here are some critical aspects:

• Global Reach vs Local Laws: Content created by finfluencers in one jurisdiction (e.g., the U.S.) can influence investors in another jurisdiction (e.g., India). This raises complex questions about which country’s laws apply when the content is not directly targeted at a specific country but still has an impact. For instance, cryptocurrency promotions by U.S.-based influencers often reach Indian retail investors without compliance with Indian securities laws, leading to cross-border regulatory conflicts.
• Conflicting Regulations: Different countries have different approaches to regulating financial content on social media. For example, while the SEC in the U.S. has clear rules for social media influencers involved in investment advice, India’s SEBI regulations are still evolving, and there is ambiguity over how to handle content creators not directly involved in securities advisory. The U.K.’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and other countries may have stricter disclosure and advertising requirements than India or the U.S.[23]
• Enforcement Beyond Borders: In the case of a violation, enforcing penalties or issuing cease-and-desist orders becomes difficult when the content creator is based in a foreign jurisdiction with no formal cooperation agreement with the regulatory body. This issue is particularly notable in cases where finfluencers operate across multiple countries and often relocate or hide behind the anonymity offered by the internet.

3. Regulatory Gaps and the Need for Digital-Era Adaptation

Traditional regulatory frameworks, such as those in place for investment advisers and broker-dealers, were designed for a pre-digital world. They were not crafted with the social media environment in mind, leading to regulatory gaps. Some of the key challenges include:

• Legal Definitions of Investment Advice: Existing regulations do not always clearly define what constitutes financial education versus investment advice in the digital space. For example, many influencers claim to offer “general” advice, yet the line between generic advice and specific, actionable investment advice is often unclear. This ambiguity complicates enforcement efforts.
• Disclosure Requirements: While many countries require financial influencers to disclose sponsored content or paid promotions, compliance with these laws is inconsistent. In many cases, sponsored content is not sufficiently labeled, which can mislead retail investors. The lack of uniform global standards for disclosure exacerbates this issue.
• Real-time Digital Regulation: Regulators must adapt to a more real-time and data-driven approach. Countries like the U.S. have started to introduce frameworks like the Digital Asset Market Structure proposals, which aim to include digital asset promotions and social media-based investment activity. However, global consensus on such frameworks remains elusive.

Example: The U.K.’s FCA is considering a Digital Markets Unit to regulate online financial content, which would impose stricter guidelines on social media promotions and influencer partnerships.[24]

The regulatory challenges posed by finfluencers highlight the urgent need for modernized, digital-first financial regulations that can keep pace with the growth of social media and digital finance. International cooperation is essential, as is the development of clear, enforceable disclosure standards and real-time monitoring systems. As the role of influencers in shaping financial decisions increases, regulators will need to balance innovation with consumer protection in a digital-first world.

Proposed Solutions

With the proliferation of finfluencers on platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and Telegram, there is an urgent need for regulatory innovation that safeguards investors without stifling digital content creation. A multi-pronged strategy involving disclosure norms, mandatory regulation, and financial literacy initiatives is critical to address the gaps in the current legal framework.

1. Strengthening Disclosure Norms

One of the most pressing concerns in the finfluencer economy is the opacity of financial promotions, where followers are often unaware of the paid nature of endorsements. Unlike traditional media, where financial advertisements must conform to regulatory standards, finfluencer content often bypasses scrutiny.

• Mandated Sponsorship Disclosures: SEBI should impose clear guidelines requiring content creators to declare paid partnerships. Inspired by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Endorsement Guides, which mandate that social media posts include conspicuous disclosures like “#Ad” or “#Sponsored,” similar norms could be codified in India’s regulatory framework.[25]
• Standardised Disclaimers: A uniform format for disclaimers stating “This is not investment advice,” or “This video is for educational purposes only,” should be mandated for all financial content. These could be modelled on SEBI’s guidelines under Schedule III of the SEBI (Research Analyst) Regulations, 2014, which specify how research reports must include disclosures.
• Platform-Level Responsibility: Platforms like YouTube and Instagram can be required, through soft regulations or government engagement, to implement automated systems that flag financial content without disclosures—similar to how copyright violations are detected.

Example: The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has issued warnings to influencers who failed to disclose partnerships, especially in crypto promotions. In 2022, the FCA also partnered with social media platforms to remove misleading content.[26]

2. Mandatory Registration and Certification

Many finfluencers blur the line between generic financial education and specific investment recommendations. Under Regulation 2(1)(l) of the SEBI (Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013, “investment advice” includes any suggestion relating to investing in, buying, or selling a particular security. Offering such advice without registration violates Section 12(1) of the SEBI Act, 1992.

• Compulsory Registration: All individuals offering personalized or actionable investment advice must register with SEBI as Investment Advisers (IAs). SEBI could explore the possibility of creating a fast-track digital registration mechanism for influencers who meet simplified eligibility criteria, akin to e-commerce or fintech startups under India’s “Startup India” initiative.
• Threshold-Based Regulation: A risk-tiered model can be introduced where registration becomes mandatory for finfluencers with a significant number of followers or content reach (e.g., over 100,000 subscribers), similar to how influencers in the U.S. above a certain scale are subject to more rigorous advertising laws.
• Certification Requirements: Introducing basic financial certification (such as SEBI’s NISM Series-XA and Series-XB exams) for anyone creating regular content on financial topics would ensure a minimum level of financial literacy and regulatory awareness. This would also help distinguish credible voices from opportunistic promoters.

Example: SEBI’s 2023 action against PR Sundar, a well-known options trader and YouTuber, highlights the need for clear enforcement. He was barred from the markets for a year for offering investment advice without SEBI registration.[27]

3. Digital and Financial Literacy Initiatives

Regulation alone is not enough. The susceptibility of retail investors—especially first-time investors on zero-commission trading apps—to social media hype calls for large-scale awareness and education programs.

• Mass Outreach Campaigns: SEBI, RBI, and the Ministry of Finance can launch recurring campaigns similar to “Mutual Funds Sahi Hai,” targeting social media users. Content should focus on distinguishing between real advisors and unregistered promoters, highlighting red flags in influencer content.
• Digital Literacy in Education: Financial literacy should be introduced as part of school and college curricula, including modules on social media risk awareness, scams, and responsible investing.
• Public–Private Partnerships: Regulators can collaborate with platforms and fintechs to push pop-up advisories or disclaimers before users view or engage with certain types of financial content, particularly in crypto and options trading.

Example: In Singapore, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) works with schools and social media platforms to deliver digital literacy programs targeting youth and early-career investors.[28]

The rise of finfluencers represents a paradigm shift in how investment information is consumed. While this democratizes access, it also introduces risks of misinformation, misrepresentation, and market manipulation. A balanced response combining disclosure mandates, regulatory safeguards, and investor education is essential. Ultimately, protecting retail investors in the digital age requires regulators to evolve alongside the platforms they seek to govern.

Conclusion

The emergence of finfluencers—individuals offering financial insights and opinions on platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter—represents both a disruptive innovation and a regulatory dilemma. On one hand, these influencers have contributed to financial inclusion, breaking down the complex jargon of markets and democratizing access to financial knowledge. They often succeed where traditional institutions fall short—connecting with younger demographics, making investing “trendy,” and igniting conversations around wealth creation. However, their rising influence also reveals the fragile boundaries between education, endorsement, and unregulated advice.

The legal frameworks that currently govern financial advice, such as the SEBI Act, 1992 and the SEBI (Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013, were not designed for a digital-first world where advice can go viral in seconds and potentially move markets. As seen in both Indian and global contexts, finfluencers have been able to bypass compliance checks, avoid disclosures, and even mislead followers without always facing proportionate legal consequences. This is particularly concerning in an era of heightened retail participation, where decisions are often driven more by social media sentiment than by sound financial analysis.

At the same time, regulation must be careful not to infringe on free speech or stifle innovation. Not every financial influencer is an unregistered adviser with ill intent; many aim to educate and build financially literate communities. Hence, an outright clampdown may do more harm than good, pushing the ecosystem into opacity or disincentivizing legitimate educational efforts. What is needed instead is a nuanced, layered regulatory approach—one that differentiates between financial literacy and investment advice, and between good faith educators and profit-driven promoters.

This calls for a holistic solution:

• Stronger disclosure norms to ensure that audiences are aware of paid promotions or conflicts of interest.
• Mandatory registration or certification for those giving personalized or product-specific investment suggestions.
• Greater investment in digital financial literacy, so that audiences can critically evaluate content and understand the risks of acting on unverified advice.
• Platform-level accountability, where social media companies are encouraged to support transparency through tech-based content flagging and disclaimers.

Moreover, given the cross-border nature of digital content, there is a need for international regulatory coordination. Influencers based in one country often target audiences across jurisdictions. Regulatory bodies like SEBI and the U.S. SEC must evolve mechanisms to collaborate, share intelligence, and harmonize key definitions around “investment advice,” “sponsorship,” and “misleading promotions.”

In conclusion, protecting investors in the age of social media requires dynamic governance, not static rules. It demands that regulators be as agile as the platforms they seek to oversee. The goal should not be to silence finfluencers, but to hold them accountable when they cross ethical or legal lines. By promoting transparency, responsibility, and informed engagement, India can ensure that the digital financial ecosystem thrives—not in the shadows of a grey area, but in the clarity of good governance and trust.

[1] National Stock Exchange of India, Investor Data and Trends, NSE Reports, 2022.

[2] SEBI Act, 1992, §12(1), read with SEBI (Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013.

[3] Ravindra Balu Bharti, Nasiruddin Ansari and 9 other influencers banned by SEBI in 2024 for giving ‘misleading’ stock investment tips – Times of India: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/ravindra-balu-bharti-nasiruddin-ansari-and-9-other-influencers-banned-by-sebi-in-2024-for-giving-misleading-stock-investment-tips/articleshow/116734484.cms

[4] Caution Against Fraudulent Telegram Groups, February 2023.

[5] Wojcik, Mark E., “Regulating Digital Financial Influencers: Challenges in the Age of Social Media,” Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, vol. 29, no. 4, 2021, pp. 420–436.

[6] Lee, M. and Chen, Y., “Social Media Influencers and the Psychology of Investment Decisions,” Behavioural Finance Review, vol. 13, 2022, pp. 89–105.

[7] Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, §12(1)

[8] SEBI (Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013, Regulation 2(1)(l)

[9] SEBI Act, 1992, §§11B, 11D

[10] Securities Exchange Act of 1934, §15(a)

[11] U.S. SEC, Investor Alert: Social Media and Investment Fraud, 2021  – SEC.gov | SEC Charges Eight Social Media Influencers in $100 Million Stock Manipulation Scheme Promoted on Discord and Twitter : https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022-221

[12]  SEC v. John McAfee, Complaint, Case No. 1:20-cv-08238 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)

[13] SEBI (Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013, Reg. 2(1)(l).

[14] SEBI Interim Order, Manipulation via YouTube Stock Recommendations, December 2022.

[15] ASCI Guidelines for Influencer Advertising on Digital Media, 2021 – GUIDELINES-FOR-INFLUENCER-ADVERTISING-IN-DIGITAL-MEDIA.pdf

[16] SEC v. McAfee, Complaint, 2020

[17] Lee, M. & Chen, Y., “Social Media Influencers and the Psychology of Investment Decisions,” Behavioural Finance Review, 2022.

[18] SEBI Interim Order, Misleading YouTube Videos to Manipulate Stock Prices, December 2022.

[19] SEC v. Elon Musk, U.S. District Court (S.D.N.Y.), 2018.

[20] SEC, “Investor Alert: Social Media and Investment Fraud,” 2021.

[21] The Economic Times, “Delhi Finfluencer Dupes Investors via Instagram Trading Tips,” June 2021.

[22] In a first, SEBI acts against finfluencer PR Sundar, options trader not allowed to trade for a year – CNBC TV18 : https://www.cnbctv18.com/market/pr-sundar-options-trader-not-allowed-to-trade-for-a-year-sebi-action-against-finfluencer-16782211.htm

[23] U.K. Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) Guidance on Social Media Influencers, “Promoting Financial Products,” 2020. – FG24/1: Finalised guidance on financial promotions on social media | FCA : https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/finalised-guidance/fg24-1-finalised-guidance-financial-promotions-social-media

[24] Regulation of Digital Assets in the UK | FCA : https://www.fca.org.uk/news/speeches/regulation-digital-assets-uk

[25] Federal Trade Commission (FTC), “Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers,” November 2019

[26] Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), “Influencers warned over promoting illegal investments,” 2022.

[27] SEBI Order against PR Sundar – In a first, SEBI acts against finfluencer PR Sundar, options trader not allowed to trade for a year – CNBC TV18 – https://www.cnbctv18.com/market/pr-sundar-options-trader-not-allowed-to-trade-for-a-year-sebi-action-against-finfluencer-16782211.htm

[28] Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), “Financial Education Programmes in Schools,” 2021.