Is Buying Followers Illegal? What the Law Says in 2026

"Is buying followers illegal?" is one of the most frequently asked questions in social media marketing. The answer is not a simple yes or no. It depends on who you are, why you are buying them, and where you live. A teenager purchasing 1,000 Instagram followers to impress classmates faces very different legal exposure than a brand executive inflating follower counts to deceive investors, or an influencer using fake metrics to secure a $50,000 sponsorship deal.

In this comprehensive legal analysis, we break down exactly what the law says about buying followers in 2026, covering federal regulations, international laws, platform rules, and real enforcement cases. Whether you are a brand manager vetting influencers, a content creator considering shortcuts, or simply curious about the legal landscape, this guide covers everything you need to know. For an overview of the broader risks beyond legal issues, see our guide on why fake followers are dangerous.

The Short Answer

Buying social media followers occupies a legal gray area that depends entirely on context. There is no federal or state law in the United States that explicitly states "purchasing social media followers is illegal." Similarly, no EU member state has a statute that criminalizes the act of buying followers in and of itself. However, the act of buying followers can become illegal when it intersects with other established legal principles, specifically consumer protection, fraud, and advertising disclosure requirements.

For purely personal, non-commercial use, buying followers is primarily a terms-of-service violation rather than a legal offense. You will not face criminal charges or civil fines for purchasing 5,000 Instagram followers for your personal account. You will, however, risk having your account suspended or permanently banned by the platform, and you will damage your engagement metrics in ways that are difficult to reverse.

The legal calculus changes dramatically when buying followers serves a commercial purpose. If an influencer purchases followers to inflate their perceived reach and then uses those inflated numbers to negotiate higher rates with brands, that can constitute fraud. If a business purchases followers to misrepresent its market position to investors or customers, that can violate securities regulations and consumer protection laws. If a marketing agency purchases followers for client accounts and reports those numbers as organic growth, that can constitute breach of contract and deceptive business practices.

The distinction between "not illegal" and "legal" is critical here. Just because something is not explicitly criminalized does not mean it carries no legal risk. The remainder of this article examines each layer of legal and regulatory exposure in detail.

Platform Terms of Service Violations

Before we reach government regulations, the first and most immediate legal framework governing fake followers is each platform's Terms of Service. While a ToS violation is not a criminal offense, it is a binding contractual agreement, and violating it carries real consequences. Every major social media platform explicitly prohibits the purchase of artificial followers, engagement, or subscribers.

Instagram (Meta)

Instagram's Community Guidelines and Terms of Use explicitly prohibit "artificial collection of likes, followers, or shares." Meta's platform rules state that accounts must not "facilitate or encourage inauthentic behavior," which encompasses the purchase of followers from third-party services. Instagram actively purges fake accounts in periodic sweeps and uses machine learning systems to detect accounts that have received sudden, inorganic follower spikes. Consequences range from follower removal to temporary restrictions to permanent account deletion. You can audit any Instagram account using our Instagram fake follower checker to see how these purges affect follower counts.

Twitter / X

Twitter's (now X) Terms of Service prohibit "artificially inflating your own or other people's followers, Retweets, likes, or other engagement." The platform's rules specifically ban the use of "third-party services or apps that claim to get you more followers." X has been particularly aggressive about removing fake accounts since the platform's ownership change, conducting several large-scale purges that removed millions of bot accounts. Violations can result in account suspension, permanent bans, and removal of verification badges. Check any account with our Twitter/X fake follower checker.

YouTube

YouTube's Terms of Service and Community Guidelines prohibit "artificially increasing the number of views, likes, comments, or other metrics either by using automatic systems or by serving up videos to unsuspecting viewers." This extends to subscriber counts. YouTube's systems are particularly sophisticated because subscriber counts directly affect monetization eligibility through the YouTube Partner Program. Channels caught with artificially inflated subscriber numbers can be demonetized, have subscribers removed, or be permanently terminated.

TikTok

TikTok's Community Guidelines prohibit "any attempts to artificially increase followers, likes, views, or other metrics through fake accounts, bots, or other inauthentic means." TikTok's algorithm is particularly sensitive to engagement authenticity, and accounts with purchased followers often see their content suppressed on the For You page, which is the primary discovery mechanism on the platform. Verified accounts caught with fake followers may have their verification revoked.

LinkedIn

LinkedIn's Professional Community Policies prohibit "creating fake profiles" and "using software, bots, or other automated means to access the services or collect data." Because LinkedIn is used for professional networking and business development, the consequences of fake followers extend beyond the platform itself. Artificially inflated LinkedIn follower counts used on resumes, in business proposals, or in investor presentations could constitute professional misrepresentation. Audit any LinkedIn page with our LinkedIn fake follower checker.

Facebook (Meta)

Facebook's Terms of Service prohibit "artificially increasing distribution of content" and using "fake accounts." Like Instagram (both owned by Meta), Facebook employs automated systems to detect and remove fake accounts. Business Pages with significant fake follower activity may see reduced organic reach, restricted advertising capabilities, or page removal. For businesses that rely on Facebook for customer engagement and advertising, these consequences can be commercially devastating.

FTC Regulations and Enforcement

The Federal Trade Commission is the primary U.S. regulatory body addressing fake followers in commercial contexts. While the FTC has not issued regulations that explicitly make buying followers illegal, it has used its existing authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act to take enforcement action against companies and individuals involved in fake engagement schemes. Section 5 prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce," and the FTC has interpreted this to cover artificially inflated social media metrics when they are used in commercial contexts.

The Devumi Case (2019)

The most significant FTC enforcement action against fake follower sellers was the case against Devumi LLC. Devumi was a company that sold fake followers, likes, and views across multiple social media platforms. At its peak, Devumi had sold over 200 million fake Twitter followers to more than 200,000 customers, including celebrities, athletes, politicians, and business executives. The New York Times investigation that exposed Devumi revealed that the company created fake accounts by stealing the identities and profile photos of real social media users.

In 2019, the FTC and the Florida Attorney General took joint action against Devumi and its CEO, German Calas Jr. The settlement required Devumi to cease operations permanently, banned the company and its principals from selling fake social media engagement, and imposed a partially suspended financial judgment. This case established a critical precedent: selling fake followers is a deceptive business practice under federal law, and both the sellers and the company leadership can be held personally liable.

The Sunday Riley Case (2019)

The FTC's case against Sunday Riley Skincare demonstrated that companies buying fake engagement can also face enforcement. The FTC found that Sunday Riley and its CEO directed employees to post fake reviews on Sephora's website over a two-year period, with the CEO personally providing detailed instructions on how to create fake accounts and post positive reviews without detection. While this case focused on fake reviews rather than fake followers, it established the broader principle that artificially inflating social proof metrics constitutes a deceptive practice under the FTC Act.

The CSGO Lotto Case (2016)

The FTC's action against Trevor "TmarTn" Martin and Thomas "Syndicate" Cassell in the CSGO Lotto case addressed influencers who promoted a gambling website they secretly owned without disclosing their ownership. While the case centered on disclosure failures, the influencers' large social media followings, and the authenticity of their engagement metrics, were central to the deception. The FTC's settlement required proper disclosures and highlighted how misleading social media metrics in commercial contexts trigger federal scrutiny.

The FTC's Endorsement Guides, updated most recently in 2023, make clear that social media influencers must disclose material connections to brands and that endorsements must reflect honest opinions. An influencer who purchases followers to appear more influential, and then uses that inflated influence to secure undisclosed or inadequately disclosed sponsorships, is potentially violating multiple FTC guidelines simultaneously.

EU Digital Services Act and GDPR

The European Union has taken a more structured regulatory approach to inauthentic behavior on social media through two major pieces of legislation: the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The Digital Services Act, which became fully applicable in February 2024, specifically addresses platform manipulation and inauthentic behavior. Article 25 of the DSA requires online platforms to design their interfaces in ways that do not "deceive or manipulate" users, and it places obligations on platforms to address systemic risks including "the dissemination of illegal content" and "any actual or foreseeable negative effects on civic discourse and electoral processes, and on public security." While Article 25 primarily targets platform design rather than individual users, it creates a regulatory environment where fake engagement is increasingly treated as a systemic risk that platforms are legally obligated to combat.

The DSA also requires Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs), which includes all major social media platforms, to conduct annual risk assessments addressing manipulation and inauthentic behavior. This means platforms are now under legal pressure from EU regulators to detect and remove fake followers more aggressively than ever before. For users who have purchased fake followers, this translates to a significantly higher probability of detection, follower removal, and account sanctions.

GDPR implications are less direct but still relevant. Many fake follower services operate by scraping personal data, creating fake profiles using real people's information, or deploying bots that interact with real users' content without consent. These activities potentially violate GDPR provisions regarding lawful processing of personal data, consent requirements, and data protection principles. Users who knowingly purchase followers generated through these methods could potentially face liability as data controllers who benefit from unlawfully processed personal data, although enforcement against individual buyers has not yet occurred.

The EU's Unfair Commercial Practices Directive also applies to influencer marketing. An influencer operating within the EU who inflates their follower count to secure commercial partnerships is potentially engaging in a misleading commercial practice, which carries penalties of up to 4% of annual turnover or substantial individual fines depending on the member state.

State and Country-Specific Laws

New York Attorney General

New York has been the most aggressive U.S. state in pursuing fake engagement fraud. In 2013, the New York Attorney General launched "Operation Clean Turf," an investigation that uncovered 19 companies engaged in "astroturfing" by posting fake online reviews. The companies were collectively fined over $350,000. While this case focused on fake reviews, the legal principles apply directly to fake followers used in commercial contexts within New York. The NY AG's office has continued to monitor and investigate social media manipulation, and New York's consumer protection laws provide broad authority to pursue deceptive practices including fake follower schemes.

California

California's Business and Professions Code Section 17500 prohibits false and misleading advertising, which can encompass the use of fake followers to inflate perceived market influence. California also enacted SB 1001 (the BOT Disclosure Law), which requires automated accounts to disclose their bot status when interacting with California consumers for commercial purposes. While this law targets bot operators rather than buyers, it creates additional legal infrastructure that makes fake follower ecosystems more legally precarious in California.

United Kingdom

The UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has investigated social media endorsements and fake reviews extensively. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 prohibits "falsely claiming or creating the impression that the trader is not acting for purposes relating to his trade, business, craft or profession," which can encompass the use of fake followers to create misleading impressions of popularity or authority. The UK's Online Safety Act, fully in force since 2025, places additional obligations on platforms to address fraudulent content and inauthentic behavior.

Australia

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) enforces the Australian Consumer Law, which prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce. The ACCC has taken action against businesses for fake testimonials and reviews, and the same legal framework applies to fake followers when used in commercial contexts. Penalties under Australian Consumer Law can reach up to AUD $50 million for companies. The ACCC's 2023 sweep of social media influencers specifically examined follower authenticity as part of broader compliance monitoring.

Legal Risks for Influencers

Influencers face a unique combination of legal risks when purchasing fake followers, because their follower count is directly tied to their commercial value. Understanding these risks is essential for anyone whose livelihood depends on social media.

Contract fraud. Most influencer marketing contracts include representations about audience size, engagement rates, and follower authenticity. When an influencer signs a contract warranting that their audience is genuine, and their followers are significantly fake, they are potentially committing contractual fraud. Brands that discover the deception can sue for breach of contract, seek return of all payments made, and claim consequential damages for wasted campaign costs. Some influencer contracts now explicitly include audit clauses that allow brands to run a fake follower check using tools like our free fake follower check tool, and contractual penalties for follower fraud can exceed the original deal value.

FTC disclosure violations. The FTC's Endorsement Guides require influencers to disclose material connections to brands and to provide honest endorsements. An influencer whose audience is significantly artificial is inherently providing a deceptive endorsement, because the commercial value they promised to deliver (reach to a certain number of real people) does not exist. Combined with inadequate disclosure of sponsorship relationships, fake followers create compound FTC violations that increase the likelihood and severity of enforcement action.

Career damage and blacklisting. While not strictly a legal consequence, the career impact of being caught with fake followers functions as an industry-imposed penalty that can be more devastating than formal legal sanctions. Major influencer marketing agencies and platforms maintain shared databases of flagged accounts. Once an influencer is identified as having significant fake follower percentages, they are effectively blacklisted from legitimate brand partnerships. This reputational damage can persist for years, even after the influencer removes fake followers and rebuilds authentic engagement. Check the latest data in our fake follower statistics for 2026.

Tax implications. Influencers who purchase followers to inflate their earning potential may also face tax-related complications. If an influencer deducts fake follower purchases as a business expense and the IRS determines the expense was used to facilitate fraudulent business practices, those deductions could be disallowed, and the influencer could face additional penalties for filing inaccurate returns.

Legal Risks for Brands and Businesses

Brands and businesses face their own distinct set of legal risks related to fake followers, whether they purchase followers for their own accounts or fail to detect fake followers among the influencers they partner with.

Shareholder and investor fraud. For publicly traded companies or businesses seeking investment, social media metrics are increasingly cited as indicators of brand health, market penetration, and growth potential. If a company inflates its follower counts to create a misleading impression of market position, and investors make decisions based on those inflated numbers, the company could face securities fraud claims. Even for private companies, misrepresenting social media metrics in pitch decks, board reports, or partnership proposals can constitute fraud under state and federal law.

FTC liability for influencer partnerships. The FTC has made clear that brands bear responsibility for ensuring their marketing partnerships comply with endorsement guidelines. A brand that partners with an influencer without conducting due diligence on follower authenticity, and then benefits from that influencer's artificially inflated reach numbers, could face FTC enforcement. The FTC's position is that brands have a duty to monitor their endorsers and take action when they discover deceptive practices. This is why pre-partnership auditing using fake follower detection tools is not just best practice but an increasingly important legal safeguard.

Competitor lawsuits. Under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. Section 1125(a)), competitors can bring civil claims against businesses that engage in false advertising. If a business inflates its follower count to create a misleading impression of market dominance, and a competitor suffers damages as a result, the Lanham Act provides a cause of action. While no landmark fake-follower Lanham Act case has yet been decided, legal scholars and practitioners increasingly view artificially inflated social media metrics as falling within the scope of false advertising claims.

Wasted marketing budgets. When brands fail to audit influencer accounts before partnerships, they risk spending significant portions of their marketing budgets on reaching fake audiences. According to industry research, brands collectively lose an estimated $1.5 billion annually to influencer fraud, with fake followers being the primary mechanism. Beyond the direct financial loss, the opportunity cost of campaigns that reach bots instead of real customers compounds the damage. Regular auditing of influencer partners is essential, and our guide on how to remove fake followers provides actionable steps for cleaning up accounts before launching campaigns.

The Bottom Line: Is It Worth the Risk?

After examining the full spectrum of legal, regulatory, and contractual risks, the conclusion is unequivocal: buying followers is not worth the risk under any circumstances. Even in the narrow scenario where purchasing followers carries no direct legal consequences (personal, non-commercial use), the platform-level consequences (account suspension, reduced reach, engagement damage) make it a self-defeating strategy.

For anyone using social media for commercial purposes, whether as an influencer, brand, agency, or business, the legal landscape has shifted decisively against fake engagement. The FTC has demonstrated willingness to pursue enforcement actions. State attorneys general have conducted investigations and imposed fines. The EU's Digital Services Act has created new regulatory obligations that make platform detection of fake followers more aggressive than ever. And the private sector has developed sophisticated auditing tools and contractual protections that make fake followers increasingly easy to detect and increasingly costly when discovered.

The alternative to buying followers is straightforward but requires patience: create valuable content, engage authentically with your audience, and build your following organically. While this approach takes longer, it produces an audience that actually engages with your content, purchases your products, and contributes to your business goals. A genuine audience of 10,000 engaged followers is more commercially valuable than 100,000 followers where 80% are bots.

If you suspect that your account has been targeted by bot followers, or if you want to verify the authenticity of an influencer's audience before entering a partnership, run a fake follower check using our free fake follower checker to get an instant, private analysis across 10 social media platforms. Knowledge is the best defense against the risks outlined in this article, and a quick fake follower check is the first step toward protection.

Sources: Federal Trade Commission, EU Digital Services Act, New York Attorney General