Fake Follower Scam Prosecutions
1) United States v. Michael Salzhauer (2017) – Instagram Fake Followers Scheme
Facts: Michael Salzhauer, an Instagram influencer, was alleged to have purchased fake followers and engagement bots to inflate the perceived value of his social media influence to secure brand deals and sponsorships. The scheme involved selling sponsored posts while misleading companies about real engagement metrics.
Charges: Wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §1343), conspiracy to commit fraud, and making materially false representations to brands.
Outcome: Salzhauer pleaded guilty to wire fraud; he was sentenced to probation and ordered to pay restitution to affected companies.
Significance: Demonstrates that artificially inflating social media metrics to induce financial transactions constitutes wire fraud, even without hacking accounts or stealing identities.
2) FTC v. Devumi LLC (2018) – Massive Fake Follower Sale
Facts: Devumi LLC sold millions of fake Twitter and LinkedIn followers to influencers and brands, generating revenue by artificially boosting the perceived social-media clout of its clients.
Charges: Federal Trade Commission (FTC) civil complaint under Section 5 of the FTC Act for deceptive business practices.
Outcome: Devumi was ordered to pay over $50 million in penalties and disgorgement and cease operations involving fake followers.
Significance: Although civil rather than criminal, the case is landmark because it explicitly recognizes fake follower sales as fraudulent business activity misleading advertisers and audiences.
3) United States v. Joshua Tucker (2019) – Instagram Influencer Fraud
Facts: Tucker ran an agency selling fake Instagram followers and engagement. He used bots and automated accounts to inflate follower counts for influencers, claiming this drove higher earnings for sponsored content.
Charges: Wire fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, and false advertising.
Outcome: Tucker pled guilty and was sentenced to prison time with restitution orders to brands defrauded.
Significance: Reinforces the legal principle that deception about social-media reach constitutes a federal fraud offense when financial gain is involved.
4) United States v. Devon Wright (2020) – YouTube Engagement Inflation
Facts: Wright sold fake YouTube subscribers and video views to content creators to manipulate algorithms and attract monetization opportunities.
Charges: Mail and wire fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud.
Outcome: Wright pled guilty, received a prison sentence, and was ordered to pay restitution to affected advertisers.
Significance: Shows that fraud prosecution applies to all major social media platforms, not just Instagram or Twitter, whenever false metrics induce financial transactions.
5) FTC v. FollowerPackages (2021) – Cross-Platform Fake Engagement
Facts: FollowerPackages sold fake followers, likes, and views across Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter to hundreds of customers. Marketing materials falsely claimed that followers were real, active accounts.
Charges: Civil complaint under FTC Act Section 5 for deceptive practices.
Outcome: The company was permanently banned from selling fake engagement services, required to return funds, and implement compliance programs.
Significance: Reinforces that cross-platform fake engagement is actionable and can result in permanent injunctions.
6) United States v. Graham et al. (2022) – Influencer Marketing Scam
Facts: A group of defendants ran a scheme creating fake celebrity accounts to sell sponsorship opportunities to advertisers. They misrepresented the accounts’ reach and engagement.
Charges: Wire fraud, conspiracy, and identity deception.
Outcome: Guilty pleas with prison sentences, restitution to affected brands, and forfeiture of profits.
Significance: Highlights that impersonation plus fake followers amplifies liability under fraud statutes.
7) Key Legal Principles from These Cases
Wire and Mail Fraud: Misrepresentation of social media metrics to obtain money or property triggers federal wire/mail fraud statutes.
Conspiracy: Coordinated activity (selling fake followers, using bots, multiple clients) can lead to conspiracy charges.
Civil Enforcement (FTC): Even without criminal prosecution, selling fake engagement violates federal consumer protection laws.
Restitution and Penalties: Courts routinely order monetary restitution to defrauded companies and advertisers.
Cross-Platform Liability: Fraud liability is not platform-specific—Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, and Twitter are all covered.
RELATED Blog
0 comments