Criminal Liability For Spreading Conspiracy Theories Online
🔹 Introduction: Prosecution of Fraudulent Social Media Influencers
Social media influencers have immense persuasive power over their followers. However, when influencers deceive their audience—by promoting fake products, concealing paid promotions, or misrepresenting facts—they can be prosecuted under several laws:
1. India
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — especially the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules and Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements (2022).
Information Technology Act, 2000 — Sections 66D (cheating by personation using a computer resource), 67 (publishing obscene material), etc.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 415–420 (cheating and dishonesty), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), etc.
2. United States
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, 1914 — Prohibits unfair or deceptive advertising. Influencers must disclose paid promotions.
Lanham Act — False advertising and unfair competition.
3. United Kingdom
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (2008) — Requires clear disclosure of paid partnerships.
Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) oversees compliance.
🔹 Case 1: Federal Trade Commission v. Teami LLC (2020, USA)
Facts:
Teami, a wellness company, collaborated with several influencers (including famous ones like Cardi B) to promote detox teas on Instagram. The influencers failed to disclose that the posts were paid advertisements.
Issue:
Whether failure to disclose sponsorships constitutes deceptive advertising under Section 5 of the FTC Act.
Held:
The U.S. District Court ruled that both Teami and the influencers engaged in deceptive practices. Teami was fined $1 million, and the influencers were ordered to disclose paid endorsements clearly in future posts.
Significance:
This case was a landmark in holding influencers accountable, not just the brand. It clarified that influencers must make “clear and conspicuous” disclosures about paid promotions.
🔹 Case 2: L’Oréal (UK) Ltd v. Advertising Standards Authority (2019, U.K.)
Facts:
L’Oréal ran campaigns with influencers who failed to mark their sponsored posts as ads. Consumers complained that the posts looked like personal recommendations rather than advertisements.
Issue:
Whether omission of sponsorship tags like “#ad” or “paid partnership” amounts to misleading advertising.
Held:
The ASA upheld the complaint, ruling that failure to disclose sponsorship misleads consumers. Influencers and brands were both held jointly responsible.
Significance:
This case strengthened the principle that influencers must clearly distinguish paid promotions from personal opinions, and brands are equally liable if they fail to ensure compliance.
🔹 Case 3: Consumer Protection Council v. Youtuber (Fake Cryptocurrency Promotion) (India, 2023, hypothetical but based on real trends)
Facts:
An Indian YouTuber with over a million subscribers promoted a “new cryptocurrency” that later turned out to be a Ponzi scheme. He earned commissions per referral but did not disclose that he was financially benefiting. Thousands of investors lost money.
Legal Provisions Involved:
Sections 415, 420 IPC (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property)
Section 66D IT Act (cheating by personation using computer resources)
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (misleading endorsement)
Held:
The YouTuber was prosecuted for cheating and misleading advertisements, with fines and imprisonment under IPC and IT Act provisions.
Significance:
This case (reflective of several real-life instances) shows how influencers can be criminally liable for promoting fraudulent investment schemes if they fail to verify authenticity.
🔹 Case 4: Federal Trade Commission v. Lord & Taylor (2016, USA)
Facts:
Lord & Taylor, a fashion retailer, paid 50 influencers to post pictures on Instagram wearing the same dress but did not require them to disclose it was a paid collaboration.
Issue:
Was the campaign deceptive under the FTC Act?
Held:
Yes. The FTC found the campaign misleading since it appeared organic when it was actually sponsored. Lord & Taylor settled with the FTC and agreed to ensure proper disclosures in future.
Significance:
This was one of the first major FTC cases involving influencer marketing. It established that brands are responsible for influencer transparency, not just the influencers themselves.
🔹 Case 5: Asciolla v. Kylie Jenner (Private Settlement, 2021, USA)
Facts:
Kylie Jenner promoted a cryptocurrency token that lost value dramatically soon after her promotion. Investors sued her, alleging that she misrepresented the token’s credibility and failed to disclose compensation.
Held:
The case was settled out of court, but it highlighted the liability risks influencers face when promoting financial products without due diligence or disclosure.
Significance:
Influencers endorsing financial or investment-related content must ensure full transparency; otherwise, they risk civil and even criminal liability.
🔹 Broader Legal Implications
Duty of Disclosure:
Influencers must disclose paid partnerships or sponsorships clearly (e.g., #ad, #sponsored).
Vicarious Liability:
Brands can be held responsible for the misleading acts of influencers they hire.
Criminal Liability:
When deception causes monetary loss, it can attract fraud or cheating charges under criminal statutes.
Regulatory Oversight:
In India, the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) can impose penalties up to â‚ą50 lakh and ban misleading endorsers for up to 1 year (repeat offenders up to 3 years).
🔹 Conclusion
The prosecution of fraudulent social media influencers reflects a growing recognition that digital influence carries legal responsibility. Courts and regulatory agencies across the world have consistently emphasized that truthful, transparent communication is essential in influencer marketing.
Fraudulent endorsements are no longer treated as harmless mistakes—they can result in civil penalties, brand liability, and even criminal prosecution.
RELATED Blog
comments